Xi tour vs x3

[Skippy]

I am wanting to upgrade from a SkyTrak to a FlightScope and I can’t decide should I get the xi tour or save a little longer and get the x3? Is the x3 worth the extra money? What are some of the benefits of the x3 over the xi tour?

[LEO MODE]

There is Mevo+ coming out at $2000. You should look at that next week at PGA Show before pulling any trigger.

[Skippy]

I’m not pulling the trigger yet I am trying weigh all my options. It will be used for personal use right now then hopefully in the future for some fittings.

[Brutaly]

If it is fitting you aim for i would settle for the Xi+. With the proper software it is positioned by FS for fitting. Had one in my business and was super happy with it. Great for optimizing drivers.

[StuartG]

The biggest benefit (IMO) of the X3 was it adds some putting and chipping support for sim use.

The X3 is supported in the newer E6 Connect, don't think the Xi Tour is supported yet (or it wasn't the last time I checked but that was a while ago).

Xi Tour is supported in the older e6 v1.6 and the X3 is not, but as mentioned before no putting or chipping support.

X3 also adds:
integrated video and radar data analysis, including support of multiple cameras.
wedge d-plane data.
putter face and path

The video integration will be a nice feature for instruction but you can still do independent video analysis with the Xi Tour so hard to say how much it will benefit you.

For full swing fitting, you'll be fine with the Xi Tour. X3 may help with wedge and putter fitting. Hard to say for sure as I haven't seen much feedback yet on the X3's capability in that area.

[Skippy]

I like the added capabilities of the x3 but since I will mostly be using it for personal use for the first little bit I might go with the xi tour and upgrade later

[TheBurtonEus]

As stated above, I would consider waiting until the Mevo+ is released. It will essentially have the strength of the Xi+ and similar capabilities, plus more with chipping and putting. Not to mention its lower price point.

[Brutaly]

Yeah, i just saw this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/FlightScopeMevo

And rumor has it it will support putting and chipping.

If the above is true it is basically a Xi+ which is more then adequate for fitting and training. I will go back to FS and sell my skytrak if the above is correct. FS knows how to make quality products and great apps.

[CHansen157]

Yeah, i just saw this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/FlightScopeMevo

And rumor has it it will support putting and chipping.

If the above is true it is basically a Xi+ which is more then adequate for fitting and training. I will go back to FS and sell my skytrak if the above is correct. FS knows how to make quality products and great apps.

It's not an Xi+. It has, apparently, significantly lower resolution radar technology. That means it will likely struggle with spin, especially axis, and the short game. It may be tolerable for sim but I would not expect it to be equivalent in accuracy and consistency to the Xi+. It's probably going to be roughly on par with the Skytrak rather than higher end FS models, but we'll find out very shortly. Maybe a little worse than the ST at picking up spin indoors (due to photometrics vs. low rez radar tech), but a bit better in terms of shot delay and hitting window.

[Brutaly]

It's not an Xi+. It has, apparently, significantly lower resolution radar technology. That means it will likely struggle with spin, especially axis, and the short game. It may be tolerable for sim but I would not expect it to be equivalent in accuracy and consistency to the Xi+. It's probably going to be roughly on par with the Skytrak rather than higher end FS models, but we'll find out very shortly. Maybe a little worse than the ST at picking up spin indoors (due to photometrics vs. low rez radar tech), but a bit better in terms of shot delay and hitting window.

My comment was in reference to the information i posted, not in general. I been fitting clubs for years and there is no need to be dead on data wise other then with AOA when fitting drivers.

Btw i have seen the comment regarding lower resolution but cant find other then rumours, What i can find is that they use different band widths (carrier lengths) but that does not neccessarly mean lower resolutions. And is even range resolution (which is what band width has impact on) an issue when there is only one object to distinguish.? If we are talking about resolution number of pulses per second and pulse lenght is more important and that i have seen no numbers on.

[CHansen157]

My comment was in reference to the information i posted, not in general. I been fitting clubs for years and there is no need to be dead on data wise other then with AOA when fitting drivers.

Btw i have seen the comment regarding lower resolution but cant find other then rumours, What i can find is that they use different band widths (carrier lengths) but that does not neccessarly mean lower resolutions. And is even range resolution (which is what band width has impact on) an issue when there is only one object to distinguish.? If we are talking about resolution number of pulses per second and pulse lenght is more important and that i have seen no numbers on.

I'm no club fitter, but I would be hesitant as a consumer to trust any fitting that didn't have good spin data.

With respect to spin, there is actually more than one object to distinguish, i.e.,at the least the golf ball itself and a point (or more than 1 point for axis) on that golf ball. If the radar is tracking the ball as a single object it doesn't require a great deal of resolution, but that will not give you useful spin data. Spin readings require radar systems to "map" the ball, allowing it to track the movement of identifiable points in relationship to the whole. That requires resolution. I don't know what the theoretical capabilities are of the Mevo+ vs the Xi's technology and what they can do with clever software analysis, but there's a reason they use a higher bandwidth system in their better units and it's not just to make it cost more. Other radar characteristics certainly matter too, but information content is proportional to bandwidth.

[Brutaly]

I'm no club fitter, but I would be hesitant as a consumer to trust any fitting that didn't have good spin data.

With respect to spin, there is actually more than one object to distinguish, i.e.,at the least the golf ball itself and a point (or more than 1 point for axis) on that golf ball. If the radar is tracking the ball as a single object it doesn't require a great deal of resolution, but that will not give you useful spin data. Spin readings require radar systems to "map" the ball, allowing it to track the movement of identifiable points in relationship to the whole. That requires resolution. I don't know what the theoretical capabilities are of the Mevo+ vs the Xi's technology and what they can do with clever software analysis, but there's a reason they use a higher bandwidth system in their better units and it's not just to make it cost more. Other radar characteristics certainly matter too, but information content is proportional to bandwidth.

Wave length on the radar doesnt affect the ability to "see" the ball. I suspect that pulse repetition frequency and pulse length (which i seen no numbers on) on the radar are more important. FS uses a radar reflector on the ball and radar wise that sticker reflects more energy back to the receiver then the rest of the ball. The sticker is there to reflected energy so the radar/hardware can more easily calculate the doppler effect. And as i understand it it is the doppler effect that determines spin just like they can measure how a tornado spins with the help of a radar. Since the radar actually measure XYZ, image processing can create the ball in a 3D. This can be done regardless of which frequency they use.

I seen the reasoning on this site regarding Mevo having bad resolution with reference to the frequenzy but i cant understand what that has to do with it. The radar reflects each wave of energy from the surface and with image processing the reflected wave creates a 3d image of the ball based on the time difference in the reflected energy. If they push out lets say 20000 pulses per second each pulse can have different purposes if combined with frequenzy shifting.

The main reasons for using different radar frequencies are:
Array and transmitter size. Lower frequencies mean larger arrays at a given beamwidth. Airplane radars need to be small hence uses high frequencies. (This is the intresting part that Mevo is tiny but uses a lower frequency which indicates some sort of technological breakthrough)
Lower frequencies consume less energy (and this is crucial in such a small device as the Mevo, with limited batteries).
Higher frequency systems usually has lower output power due to electronic circuit limitations and experience greater atmospheric attenuation.
What type of material that the radar should go through, for instance map survey radars can be designed to not measure crop and trees and just "see" the ground.

So what FS might have done is gone down on frequenzy in order to increase output power and decrease atmospheric attenuation. And if they also use multifrequency transmitting on the Mevo this also opens up a bunch of interesting options like using each frequency to measure different spots on the golfball increasing the ability to render a 3d object.

What i suspect though is that the Mevo will be much more picky regarding where you place the ball due to the combination of lower band width and smaller array.

If FS used the radar frequencey to detect "two objects" like the dimple bottom/depth no radar on the market has that frequenzy and would require a laser instead. The distance between waves are just to long. It is the doppler effect that makes it possible to detect small objects that are near each other, not the frequency the radar transmits on and it also brings the opportunity to distinguish objects that has different speed and size. Pretty much what a golf ball is if you think about it.

My point is that i see no indication what so ever (except suspicious people) that the Mevo will have lower precision compared to an old product like the Xi+.

[StuartG]

If ones only interest is sim play, the mevo+ might be the better option (assuming putting and chipping support exists). For a fitter or even someone working on their swing, I'd be more concerned about the loss of club data with the Mevo+ vs the Xi Tour. The same reason why the Skytrack isn't a very good option for fitting.

[Brutaly]

If ones only interest is sim play, the mevo+ might be the better option (assuming putting and chipping support exists). For a fitter or even someone working on their swing, I'd be more concerned about the loss of club data with the Mevo+ vs the Xi Tour. The same reason why the Skytrack isn't a very good option for fitting.

I fitted a lot of sets and the only club data you need is actually AOA and sving speed. A fitter isnt really interested in your path or trying to adjust it even though it might be a consequence, that is the PGA Pro job, a fitter is interested in adjusting the curve of the ball and the spin and in order to do so you dont need club data, just an understanding of why the ball behaves as it does and how to change the club in order to change the ball flight. If you are a competent fitter you dont even need AOA (even if it is convenient) since you can actually reverse engineer the ball path in order to optimize a driver or fw. AOA has little or no value if you have demo clubs where you are 100% certain on their lofts and lie and have a skytrak and something that measures the swing/ball speed and a software for optimizing curvature/spin.

Mevo+ and Xi+ are perfect for fitting and Xi+ was actually advertised as that.
Xi Tour and X3 great for practice with a coach
Mevo, Skytrak and Xi are personal monitors for hitting balls. Xi and Skytrak can most certainly be used for professional fitting if the fitter is skilled in what he/she is doing and has a couple of other gadgets/software.

[StuartG]

I fitted a lot of sets and the only club data you need is actually AOA and sving speed. A fitter isnt really interested in your path or trying to adjust it even though it might be a consequence, that is the PGA Pro job, a fitter is interested in adjusting the curve of the ball and the spin and in order to do so you dont need club data, just an understanding of why the ball behaves as it does and how to change the club in order to change the ball flight. If you are a competent fitter you dont even need AOA (even if it is convenient) since you can actually reverse engineer the ball path in order to optimize a driver or fw. AOA has little or no value if you have demo clubs where you are 100% certain on their lofts and lie and have a skytrak and something that measures the swing/ball speed and a software for optimizing curvature/spin.

Mevo+ and Xi+ are perfect for fitting and Xi+ was actually advertised as that.
Xi Tour and X3 great for practice with a coach
Mevo, Skytrak and Xi are personal monitors for hitting balls. Xi and Skytrak can most certainly be used for professional fitting if the fitter is skilled in what he/she is doing and has a couple of other gadgets/software.

A really good fitter should be interested in more. Is it required? No. With enough iterations, you can eventually get to a good fit if all you have is ball data and CHS. But more data certainly can help speed up the process IF you know how to evaluate and use the data (which unfortunately is not really all that common among fitters). Equipment characteristics can certainly influence many aspects of the swing. It's not about trying to adjust the swing, but seeing the effects of how certain equipment choices and changes influence those and other swing characteristics. The more you know and understand about what the equipment changes is doing to the swing, the faster you can get to the specs that give the best fit. That applies to both the values (or averages) and usually more important is the consistency of the values.

But I agree, AoA is not nearly as important as most people seem to think. Dynamic loft is much more important, particularly in identifying the root cause of a high or low spin issue.

[Brutaly]

A really good fitter should be interested in more. Is it required? No. With enough iterations, you can eventually get to a good fit if all you have is ball data and CHS. But more data certainly can help speed up the process IF you know how to evaluate and use the data (which unfortunately is not really all that common among fitters). Equipment characteristics can certainly influence many aspects of the swing. It's not about trying to adjust the swing, but seeing the effects of how certain equipment choices and changes influence those and other swing characteristics. The more you know and understand about what the equipment changes is doing to the swing, the faster you can get to the specs that give the best fit. That applies to both the values (or averages) and usually more important is the consistency of the values.

But I agree, AoA is not nearly as important as most people seem to think. Dynamic loft is much more important, particularly in identifying the root cause of a high or low spin issue.

I agree in general but when you fit clubs there are some general rules to live by when you want to alter the path etc by changing requirement and when you change for instance total weight of the club and shaft length you know that most players will decrease their fade given the same moi around the hands. So you know that the curvature changed when changing the club but to be honest you dont need club data for that, you need to understand how the swing works and observe the ball flight.

If i look at my self the only club data that would gain time and precision in my fitting is spin related. But since i dont try to alter spin loft or swings with my club fitting the most common solution for me is to do some magic with kick point, balance point and a combination of shaft bend profiles and different tiptrimming options. Non of them require anything else then spin and spin axis.

Sure i might tiptrim a shaft poorly once in a while but to be honest i see no increase in quality cost after i swapped from the Xi+, which btw was "hacked" and had all parameters.