Flightscope Xi tour indoor hitting area question ?

[Jason R]

At present I have a maximum of 7ft behind the ball & 10ft in front to the impact screen as hitting area. I am considering a Flightscope Xi tour but I am worried that this area is not enough as Flightscope recommend 8-11 feet behind the ball.
Wondering if somebody is using a Flightscope Xi tour inside with similar area infront & behind. If so does the unit still read consistently or would I be foolish to purchase one with my maximum area ?
Many Thanks
Jason

[Snaphook]

It will work, sort of. I think you will see lots of misreads and you will be forced to use the metallic dots on the balls and they will eat up your screen fast. Honestly i don't think you will be very happy with the setup.

[Stingreye]

DrewTaylor went from flightscope to gc2. Here are his comments on the flightscope to gc2 change:
“
Well it's been a year and a half since I started this thread and I wanted to take some time to update anyone who is following and/or interested in doing something similar at home. While the Flightscope was amazing to have and I truly enjoyed using it just about every day in the garage, there were a few shortcomings that influenced me to make the switch to Foresight's GC2 for my launch monitor. Before I get to that, however, I just have to say that if you're on the fence about doing something like this, DO IT! It's still by far the best investment I've made in my game and it's a ton of fun!

Reasons for switching from Flightscope to GC2

1. In the year+ that I owned the Flightscope, I only took it outside to use on a full range probably 4 times. When I purchased it I thought it would see much more outdoor range time.

2. When I did take the Flightscope to a range, I was frustrated by the influence of range balls on data. The newer models do have a "normalize" function that allows you to use a range ball and get data that is more true to life, but I found this to be a limitation on actually wanting to use it outdoors.

3. The space I had in the garage was just enough to get accurate readings for irons/wedges, but woods did not register and I missed being able to practice the full bag. Additionally, the model I had did not measure short chips or putts, which meant simulation was out. I didn't really mind this at the time, as I'm a range rat, but I've had a change of heart - more on this later!

Benefits of GC2

1. I can now practice the full bag, including chips and putts (though I have to choke up on driver just to be safe with overhead clearance in the garage)

2. I feel that I get more consistently accurate data indoors with the GC2. The Flightscope would occasionally have to estimate shot readings and I would see some very low-spin numbers and inflated carry distances. This actually snuck into my estimation of my actual carry yardages and didn't do me any favors when playing out on the course. I've since adjusted several of my short iron stock yardages and my proximity and GIR stats have improved.
“

That seemed like a good review he did on golfwrx.

I think the main shortcomings with flight scope is that you cannot putt with it on sim. I am biased and would say just get a gc2 but unless you also get hmt, you would only have ball data but I think the flightscope gets you both ball and club.

good luck!

[Jason R]

Thanks for the info

[Stingreye]

I know a couple guys that still use flightscopes for sim use. Shoot me a pm if you want me to get you in contact with them.

[mthunt]

I use a FS Xi and GC2 at the same time at my coaches studio. He's got around 18 or 19 from FS to Screen. Works great and results are similar.

Heres some videos.

https://youtu.be/m9RnRvozLdg

https://youtu.be/F_FtFJqhbtw