Mevo+ vs GC2 Wedge Test

[Par2Pro]

Does anyone know if at the tee to screen 8’ setting, if you were say 10’ would it only read 8’ of flight? Or if you were set at 13’ and only had 11’ would it be looking for that 13’ of flight?

They seem to be reading as much of the ball flight as possible. The 'indoor' mode states it is for ball flight of 12' to 44 yards which leads us to believe that they will use as much of what it can read as possible; although this is speculation at this point.

[Par2Pro]

GungHoGolf I went back and had a look at your advance analysis or spreadsheet (anyone who has not used his advanced analytics should) between the Skytrak and Mevo+ and noticed that there certainly was not the big discrepancy in spin rate and carry distances between the two. Wonder why with the GC2. I have seen comparisons between the GC2 and Skytrak and they were not that far apart. Is this an environment issue with Mevo+. I have a Skytrak and I’m a 5.4 index. I know my yardages. My unit is solid but has its misses and a few questionable data, but for the most part numbers are very good. Your test showed pretty good comparison. Something seems off with Cory’s test.

We feel that something seemed off too that is why we have been working with FlightScope's head tech guy to figure it out. Stay tuned for more testing.

[Par2Pro]

The carry distance is misleading.

Annoying that par 2 pro who have been doing this for years dont mention its software driven and seem to attribute it to the device. I would assume its TGC2019 that's off as you would think flightscopes ball flight models are in line with FS optimizer.

On the 7 iron test, run the mevo numbers through flightscope optimizer , much closer to gc2, think I seen maybe a 3/4 yard higher than gc2 rather than the 10+. Which makes me think its TGC getting carry wrong.

Also I'm sceptical of the test here, ball speed at +4?
radar should be spot on, even the $500 mevo has been shown to be accurate. In fact I would trust the radar more than a camera based launch monitor. I took my gc2 to a trackman fitting and ball speed was off by 2/3 mph on driver, in this case gc2 was higher.

Also as mentioned earlier , the 3000 spin 7 irons seem wrong on gc2, that fella seems a decent player , hitting it pretty consistently, very odd.

This whole test seems a little dodgy if you ask me. Maybe some interference somewhere or issue with gc2 or mevo?

As bubba22 says , the spin wont be as accurate as foresight indoors, but it certainly wont be causing carry differences of the likes seen here which is majorly software driven and down to the ball speed difference which is very strange. And outdoors I would expect the mevo to be extremely accurate.

We didn't necessarily feel that it was software based as we have been finding the numbers varying in the E6 Connect and the FS App as well. Again, we are still working with FlightScope on getting this figured out. We are also testing it in two different environments with the GC2, GCHawk and also without any system on to ensure that there is no interference.

[88GODC]

cheers for the comment , much appreciated.
Not knocking you guys , love your content.
Just felt the carry being so far above what FS optimizer would report for those numbers very weird.
I would have assumed mevo uses the same FS algorithm of optimizer, hence believing it to be the software.

PS. Your new tester hits it a bit better than Al

[GungHoGolf]

E6 Connect and FS Golf app both use the same FS ball flight model, so only difference between the two would be rollout. Afaik it’s not possible to test them at the same time, so impossible to confirm either way, but E6C gets entire flight from the M+.

[Dax]

I think someone might have mentioned it above, but ensuring that the radar is at the same height of hitting area is key (within a few cm's at least as I believe that they would need to take into account situations when one is hitting from a tee). I remember when setting up my T3e a number of years ago I had done a remote session to try and deal with my metal garage door issue and the first thing the person noted was that my unit was something like 2 inches below my mat (it was amazing that he could tell that much detail from the data that the radar was getting).

[trumb1mj]

Would having the mevo setup at a different angle affect things? I have my mat on a leveling platform to take the slope of the driveway out. Would I need to set my mevo at the same slope as my mat?

[GungHoGolf]

trumb1mj It does some amount of self-leveling internally, but as a general rule, you'd want to match the slope of your mat. Shouldn't be hard to elevate one side of whatever it's sitting on. You'll see the tilt easily in the boresight alignment camera view.

[Par2Pro]

Yup, we did make sure that the top of the mat is level with the bottom of the mevo+

[pwade3]

I’m not suggesting anything here but I was looking at a study done in regards to the accuracy of Doppler radar and stereoscopic optical launch monitors. Apparently one had never been done until 2017. They used in the study, Trackman and GC2 with another means to validate the accuracy (GOM). Both units did very well. The one item that stood out to me was in table 6 where it shows that percent of reliability within a parameter, that the CG2 was much lower then the Trackman in regards to ball spin data. The parameter was only +/- 50 so not a lot, but it does show the accuracy of radar, Keep in mind that the radar had a ball to target of 14’. I’m not questioning GC2 units as I know they are very good so please don’t jump all over me, but should we be using it as a benchmark for the mevo+? I also think that a radar unit is going to be challenged with 8 feet of flight data. I sure would like to see how it performs at 12 or 13 feet. Anyways, interesting stuff as always. Lol 😆

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319147118_How_valid_and_accurate_are_measurements_of_golf_impact_parameters_obtained_using_commercially_available_radar_and_stereoscopic_optical_launch_monitors

[GungHoGolf]

Great paper, thanks for sharing the link! Was impressed at the tighter clustering of data in general around the gold standard for the indoor Trackman results, but both LMs performed well. TM had some trouble with driver spin rate, to be expected indoors where the ball only makes 1 - 1.5 revs before it hits the screen. TM way better at face angle and dyn loft. GC2 struggled a bit with HLA and wasn't quite as accurate with ball speed.

[ScottBGKY]

I'm guessing this test was done outdoors where radar is always going to win. Indoors radar seems to struggle but I’m not as sold as the masses in the accuracy indoors of the camera based units myself. Are they very good? Yes. Perfect? No.

I’m not suggesting anything here but I was looking at a study done in regards to the accuracy of Doppler radar and stereoscopic optical launch monitors. Apparently one had never been done until 2017. They used in the study, Trackman and GC2 with another means to validate the accuracy (GOM). Both units did very well. The one item that stood out to me was in table 6 where it shows that percent of reliability within a parameter, that the CG2 was much lower then the Trackman in regards to ball spin data. The parameter was only +/- 50 so not a lot, but it does show the accuracy of radar, Keep in mind that the radar had a ball to target of 14’. I’m not questioning GC2 units as I know they are very good so please don’t jump all over me, but should we be using it as a benchmark for the mevo+? I also think that a radar unit is going to be challenged with 8 feet of flight data. I sure would like to see how it performs at 12 or 13 feet. Anyways, interesting stuff as always. Lol 😆
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...aunch_monitors

[pwade3]

It was done indoors with 14’ of ball flight to the net.

[Dax]

I'm guessing this test was done outdoors where radar is always going to win. Indoors radar seems to struggle but I’m not as sold as the masses in the accuracy indoors of the camera based units myself. Are they very good? Yes. Perfect? No.

If it is the testing that I am thinking about (I believe it was a University study), all testing was done indoors. I think the best testing on this forum (which supports the findings of the study mention) is what we have seen by Leomode. I think the testing done by Leomode agrees exactly with the comments that others have posted above (including the comments from Bubba). I think the only testing that might be outstanding is on TM's new ball flight indoor models that is supposed to take into account the gear effect issue that TM has always noted as an issue from about 2013.

I suspect that Flightscope also has the team of engineers who are building their own similar models.

[ScottBGKY]

If it was indoors as stated it just strengthens my opinion that photo based LM’s are given too much credit and radar based ones are overly criticized.

[Bubba22]

I’m not suggesting anything here but I was looking at a study done in regards to the accuracy of Doppler radar and stereoscopic optical launch monitors. Apparently one had never been done until 2017. They used in the study, Trackman and GC2 with another means to validate the accuracy (GOM). Both units did very well. The one item that stood out to me was in table 6 where it shows that percent of reliability within a parameter, that the CG2 was much lower then the Trackman in regards to ball spin data. The parameter was only +/- 50 so not a lot, but it does show the accuracy of radar, Keep in mind that the radar had a ball to target of 14’. I’m not questioning GC2 units as I know they are very good so please don’t jump all over me, but should we be using it as a benchmark for the mevo+? I also think that a radar unit is going to be challenged with 8 feet of flight data. I sure would like to see how it performs at 12 or 13 feet. Anyways, interesting stuff as always. Lol 😆
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...aunch_monitors

Great find. I thought we have discussed this article before. From what I remember it addressed total spin and not spin axis or sidespin. In any event we need to be optimistic about the Mevo+ but realize its strengths and weakness like any launch monitor. The focus of Par2Pro's review was to compare the measured data. I wouldn't focus just on carry distance which we know is calculated in every sim otherwise we would call it real golf. The one area that seems off is the spin and spin axis, which I would suspect. Hopefully that will be looked at by Flightscope. Its of course still very playable. You can debate what's the gold standard for indoor lunch monitor measurements, however most will quote the GC2/Quad. Attached is the numbers from the wedge and 7 iron from Par2pro's videos. I have used Optimal flight to show the spin axis and sidespin for both the Mevo+ and GC2. It shows the compared shots spin axis/ sidespin/ backspin. Thank you Cory (Par2Pro) for your videos and keep them coming. I trust you will keep us posted as to what happens with Flightscope folks.

[Par2Pro]

I am out of the office for the next week, but we have been working with FlightScope and Trung has more testing with the developers this week to work on it further. Will try to get more videos out once we have it worked out and will included testing with our GCHawk (fingers crossed that will be within the next couple of weeks).

[ScottBGKY]

Great find. I thought we have discussed this article before. From what I remember it addressed total spin and not spin axis or sidespin. In any event we need to be optimistic about the Mevo+ but realize its strengths and weakness like any launch monitor. The focus of Par2Pro's review was to compare the measured data. I wouldn't focus just on carry distance which we know is calculated in every sim otherwise we would call it real golf. The one area that seems off is the spin and spin axis, which I would suspect. Hopefully that will be looked at by Flightscope. Its of course still very playable. You can debate what's the gold standard for indoor lunch monitor measurements, however most will quote the GC2/Quad. Attached is the numbers from the wedge and 7 iron from Par2pro's videos. I have used Optimal flight to show the spin axis and sidespin for both the Mevo+ and GC2. It shows the compared shots spin axis/ sidespin/ backspin. Thank you Cory (Par2Pro) for your videos and keep them coming. I trust you will keep us posted as to what happens with Flightscope folks.

I think you have the 7 iron and wedge data backwards. Spin is wrong for sure.

[pwade3]

Yes, definitely backwards. Also, I just replayed both vids and the data on the spreadsheet does not match. Example is last shot with 7 iron was a negative spin axis and they both confirmed that but the CG2 shows a large positive axis on spreadsheet or do I have the wrong videos?

[Jwheels9876]

I have not seen mentioned what ball was used for the test?

[Par2Pro]

We tried both the Srixon and the ProV balls with similar results (the ProV did spin more).

[Bubba22]

I think you have the 7 iron and wedge data backwards. Spin is wrong for sure.

My bad. Let me know if there are any more errors.

[Dax]

Bubba22 don’t worry this does not affect your sim Guru status for any of us that have learned a lot from you over the years.

[Bubba22]

Lol Dax. It’s contributions from guys like you that make this forum great!

[Dax]

Bubba22 Cheers

[pwade3]

I just figured someone hacked his account and threw in the numbers. Lol. 😂