Mevo+ accuracy

[kahi]

Has anyone tested the Mevo+ ”scientifically”, in ideal lab conditions and comparing to a measuring device that can be considered to be accurate enough to be used for scientific benchmarking?

Is there this kind of testing performed on launch monitors by the some testing lab publicly available?

The videos published by a few users on Youtube are awesome (thank you all!) but I would expect to see also thorough quantitative comparison data, similarly to how cars are tested by independent test labs.

Now that the Mevo+ seems to offer the first total package for a regular consumer user like me it would be great to know exactly how good it really is.

[Brutaly]

Here comes a really bad answer.

it is just as bad or good as the competition, data wise. There are no scientific tests being performed yet on Mevo.

So the question is if you trust launch monitors in general.

[Wormburner]

I agree with above post. There is nothing out there to my knowledge that can say definitively what the data points are for each of your shots. Without a machine that can read every shot accurately then we cant get a true caparison to which monitor reads most consistently or accuratly. Therefore you cant say which is the most accurate. Trackman has been the benchmark for years so most people compare data points with Trackman. Trackman is not 100% accurate by any means but its darn close outdoors. Indoors not so much, I think there are better monitors. So best thing you can do is research on forums and watch comparison vids on youtube so you can come up with whats best for your set up. good luck!

[3on3putt]

Mevo+ and Skytrak are accurate enough for the 99% of us weekend warriors who have a handicap. Trackman is probably the gold standard and likely the most accurate of anything available. Mevo+ and Skytrak are likely within a range of 2-3% of Trackman. If I were a tour player and were precise enough to where a 147 carry versus a 149 carry made a difference, I would not be settling for a Mevo or a Skytrak. But for me as a 7-handicapper, the tiny discrepancies in data are not earth shattering.

The trouble with comparing one unit to another is that how do you know which unit is "right?" I watched one video that "compared" Skytrak to Mevo+ and the numbers were for the most part very identical. But how does anyone know which number is actually correct? The Skytrak might have showed a carry of 225 and the Mevo showed 227. But how far did the ball actually go? 225? 227? Nobody knows which one is truly "correct."

Bottom line is that when set up and used correctly, the Mevo+ and the Skytrak are both very accurate and offer a tremendous value for their price point.

[pwade3]

3on3putt Completely agree. I think the key is understanding the strengths and weakness of each technology and choosing which one would suit you best.

[kahi]

Thanks for the comments! I assumed that independent lab testing does not exist since I haven't found any info on that. So the best available option seems to be to look at all the data (posts on issues, session videos, reviews) that users publish and try to make conclusions from that data mass.

I think there is room for some kind of a comparison benchmark since the launch monitor market is expanding, with devices like the Mevo+ offering an appealing option to people like me who never considered buying a launch monitor before. I've considered the cheaper devices with restricted data (e.g no horizontal launch angle or spin) and therefore no possibility for precise simulator play or accuracy training to be just "toys". But the Mevo+ does provide comprehensive data, works well (I hope) indoors and outdoors without much hassle and has a price that is within reason for non-professional users.

[Dax]

I think LEO MODE has done the best testing so far on different launch monitors and he tries to do things in a very precise manner. Based on a comment above, I think some might be surprised at some of his results. I suggest visiting his website.

[3on3putt]

I checked out his site but didn't see anything about Mevo+ (or skytrak for that matter). The comparisons I saw were all trackman, GC, Uneekor. (First time visiting that site so maybe I didn't look in the right place?)

[Dax]

3on3putt He has not tested those mentioned, but he has done tests on systems and believe it gives good insights. I was really trying to point out a place to go as one of the posts above makes a comment that might not be accurate based on testing that has been done. In any event, if LEO MODE can get his hands on a Mevo+, then I know he will test it as rigorously has he has other units.

[kahi]

Dax Thanks a lot for pointing to his site, very good reading. I hope he gets to test the Mevo+ soon. The way he uses trajectory software to analyze the accuracy of calculated launch monitor output (e.g. carry) is really nice, too. And he’s been active here so nice to read his posts as well.

[a98cr125]

I agree, LEO is that man when it comes to numbers. I have put the Mevo+ up against HD Golf and UNEEKOR and you can see the results so far. I plan on doing more. But for the $2,000 market range I think getting down to crazy statistics and measurements might just not make sense. It performs great for it's category. I would expect some variances so with all of that crazy data what is it really doing? Cheers, Jay All of the videos I have done with data can be found here- https://www.youtube.com/c/GolfSimulatorVideos

[kahi]

I wouldn't call a laboratory-grade benchmarked set of data crazy. It would just be a way of measuring the true accuracy of the measurements a launch monitor is able to perform. This kind of study is normal in many many markets as a way of verifying the quality of individual devices and simultaneously checking the quality state of the industry.

As an example if I was buying a new tv I would certainly read a bunch of tests that take tvs through very detailed measurements of brightness levels, color gamut width, contrast capabilities etc. I would want to see quantitative data in addition to watching the tvs in a store myself before purchase. Similarly to launch monitors, tv panels have competing technologies (LCD, QLED, OLED, soon MicroLED etc.) and the models the tv manufacturers produce are different when it comes to technical performance.

Of course I agree with you that if e.g. the Mevo+ is seen to produce nice and seemingly accurate numbers in casual home testing, one can buy it without too much concern for the "crazy" details.

LEO has already pre-analyzed UNEEKOR against GC2 after participating in a session with those devices present. And since he has done analysis on how GC2 performs in comparison with Trackman 4 and GCQ, it's possible to derive a sense of the accuracy of UNEEKOR vs Trackman 4 and GCQ by chaining these analyses This is not that far off since the parameter variances he documents are in essence qualities of each device and should be constant in all testing situations.

And since you had a session with UNEEKOR and Mevo+, we can sort of already derive how Mevo+ might perform in comparison to Trackman 4 and both GCs. Not very scientific but it's something

Have you considered doing comparison sessions with e.g. LEO so the sessions would produce both great sim golfing entertainment and even more useful data on the performance of the different devices (technology options)?

I enjoy your videos very much, keep up the great work with them!

[a98cr125]

Thank you. It already is a boatload of work so Leo level of numbers just were not on the table for me lol. Leo and I do talk and I can ask him what all is involved and necessary and I’ll see if it’s something we can do. Thanks for watching. Cheers, Jay

[Brutaly]

The problem comparing different LM in indoor mode is that you do not know which is correct. What is the benchmark? which one is correct? They all use different tech and definitions. For instance FS and TM do not measure club head speed the same way. The club head speed will actually differ a bit between systems but also versus different swings. For instance how fast you close the clubhead actually affects the swing speed and smash factor etc.Depending on where the speed is measured you will get different swing speeds

Outdoors we know that radar units are pretty spot on since they actually measure the entire ball flight or at least passed apex. I tested my xi+ a couple of years back side by side versus a trackman and outdoor there were just no difference in ball data. There where differences in club data though and that difference is not necessarily due to one being correct and the other not being correct.

I had an LM (of different models and shapes) for almost 10 years now and i actually stopped worrying about them not being accurate. It is more about understanding how the numbers they present affects the ball. For me all numbers they spit out are an index and not a precise number. The most important part is not accuracy, it is consistency in the numbers. And based on that i actually find the flight model to be the second most important part of an LM. The three big ones, revenue wise, all have great flightmodels.
Flightscope 22 million USD
Foresight 13 million USD
TrackMan 5 million USD

Right or wrong but that is how i see on this accuracy discussion, flightmodels and consistency.

[kahi]

The benchmark needs to be a way of measuring the key parameter data that is scientifically sound.

For launch monitor testing, I can imagine launching the ball with precise speed, launch angles, spin axis and spins with a device built for this purpose. Not measuring a human hitting balls. So lab conditions would be needed to create the controlled ballistics required for a truly valid test.

I’m sure the launch monitor manufacturers are doing something like this in their r&d to verify and improve their devices. But an independent test lab publishing the data would be great to let us all see such data.

Comparing devices with each other without this benchmark is useful to see differences but like you said, you don’t know the true accuracy of any of the devices.

[kahi]

Another good accuracy guesstimation method is when a really good player hits balls on a device. A good player usually has good consistency and also knows his/her club yardages and shot tendencies well.

Wormburner is using the Mevo+ and reporting mostly positive experiences, indoors and outdoors.

[JakeGeezy]

Slightly off-topic but in the same ballpark: does the tee flying up after a drive disturb the radar? From my understanding the radar focuses on items in motion -- would a flying tee not be captured and throw off the data?