Some updates on E6 Connect after talking to ForeSight today

[walb0034]

I've been eagerly awaiting E6 Connect since it was announced, and emailed ForeSight about it the other day. I spent some time on the phone with them today, and I was told that it's been delayed due to the pandemic until at least mid-year.

He also said that the E6 software is using the ForeSight/FSX ball flight algorithm, so you could expect the same level of ball physics using E6 as you would get with FSX. This is the reason for the delay as it's not just an interface, but fine tuning the flight physics. I think this is terrific news, with the ball flight physics being the primary reason I use FSX 99% of the time and not JNPG or TGC1 for gaming, even though the graphics are nowhere near as good on FSX to those 2. He said ForeSight is the only company where E6 will use the manufacturer ball flight physics, and for the other simulators that use E6 it's the E6 engine determining the ball flight with the data that's fed into it. With this info there is 100% certainty that I will buy E6 when it drops.

I also appreciated the honesty on the delays. I had been really wanting to purchase TGC19, but didn't want to buy that and then a week later E6 came out. Now I don't feel bad about buying TGC19 and getting a few solid months out of it before adding E6 connect to my software library

[AdamV]

What bothers you about the ball flight in TGC? I’m not noticing any big difference other than it starts on a line and adjusts once spin number calcs are completed.

[walb0034]

What bothers you about the ball flight in TGC? I’m not noticing any big difference other than it starts on a line and adjusts once spin number calcs are completed.

Just a “feel” thing for me. I’ve played both FSX and TGC on my laptop at the driving range (private club - pro v1 range balls) with my GC2, and the ball flight is a little more accurate on FSX.

However this isn’t really about TGC, it’s about how ForeSight is sending ball flight data to E6. I hope this means realistically ball behavior regarding spin on and around the greens, which I’ve read is a problem for E6 and the biggest complaint.

[LEO MODE]

I've been eagerly awaiting E6 Connect since it was announced, and emailed ForeSight about it the other day. I spent some time on the phone with them today, and I was told that it's been delayed due to the pandemic until at least mid-year.

He also said that the E6 software is using the ForeSight/FSX ball flight algorithm, so you could expect the same level of ball physics using E6 as you would get with FSX. This is the reason for the delay as it's not just an interface, but fine tuning the flight physics. I think this is terrific news, with the ball flight physics being the primary reason I use FSX 99% of the time and not JNPG or TGC1 for gaming, even though the graphics are nowhere near as good on FSX to those 2. He said ForeSight is the only company where E6 will use the manufacturer ball flight physics, and for the other simulators that use E6 it's the E6 engine determining the ball flight with the data that's fed into it. With this info there is 100% certainty that I will buy E6 when it drops.

I also appreciated the honesty on the delays. I had been really wanting to purchase TGC19, but didn't want to buy that and then a week later E6 came out. Now I don't feel bad about buying TGC19 and getting a few solid months out of it before adding E6 connect to my software library

Thanks very much for the news.

However, I have to disagree that using Foresight ball flight algorithm will be good news for both E6 and Foresight users.

First and foremost, what Foresight told you in terms of Foresight being the only company in using their own ball flight algorithm onto E6 is false.
Trackman (for sure), Flightscope, Skytrak, and a few others, as far as I know, do not use E6 algorithm for its carry distance. Because of that, due to each company's own flight algorithm for its carry numbers result in a variety of carry distance results. Not only that, but some of the companies do not even take account for any penalty (rough/sand) as well as altitude for that matter and only bring in launch monitor's carry numbers despite the course having 5000ft altitude or your balls being in the sand but flying 100% of what you see in your launch monitor. What this leads is an enormous discrepancy between the user experience as well as game carry outcome within E6. This might also mean that Foresight users might not have any penalty integrated on sand/rough.

Secondly, Foresight carry algorithm only on the low spin shot is flawed at the moment. It uses a very old pre-2000's algorithm where low spin = high apex concept, thus when the spin goes anywhere between 2500rpm or less on faster ball speed (fortunately this does not happen on chip shots), the carry results in anywhere from 10-25yds further than real distance. So what this means is that if you are to play against a Trackman user (which has one of the best carry algorithm models in the industry), with the same ball speed, launch and spin you might carry 20yds further than the other guy.

As a guy who has been testing, verifying and working with many simulators and launch monitor companies around the world, I feel that the above 2 news is not good news. I would rather at least see E6 algorithm being universal across all launch monitors so at least E6 knows what parameters they need to fix on the same playing field.

Regardless, I am very happy that Foresight has finally opened up for simulator usage, and I can't wait for this happen to soon so many more users join and play on E6 and hopefully on TGC soon too.

[AdamV]

Sorry, you’re saying FS carry is wrong on low launching-low spin, like driver and fairway, with high ball speed?

What pro would use GCQuad if this was the case? And many do.

I’m not noticing this at all and plenty of online tests show good alignment between TM and GCQ (within a couple of percent).

[LEO MODE]

Hey Adam, I personally own both myself and am still continuing to see the difference with both the latest firmware. So I should say yes because I tested them intensively both indoor and outdoor over and over. I've also asked Foresight years about this. Can you tell me where you're not seeing that discrepancy, and furthermore telling me the source for it? I would also love to see that uniformity and be happy. I've actually only seen the complete opposite.

[AdamV]

I’m saying I don’t see a 10-25 yard discrepancy with my own use of the GCQ at the range. My driver swing speed is usually between 104-107mph, my ball speed around 150-155mph and typical spin would be between 2200-2700. Maybe the ball speed numbers need to be higher than that to produce real discrepancy?

And your comment on the pre-2000s algorithm point - are you saying with advancements in computational fluid dynamics Trackman is using improved algorithms for lift, drag and spin decay?

I don’t have a Trackman 4 to compare to for driver and fairway, so if you’ve done the tests then I’d love to see the data too. There have been good comparisons on YouTube though, suspect you would have seen them. I’m more saying the reason I have faith in the Quad is because of how I’ve seen it perform for me on the range and how that translates on the course. I wouldn’t really argue over 10 yards (4% error on 250yds), but I haven’t sent a 25 yard discrepancy with my driver (10%).

I’m also only interested in two actual outcomes - carry and offline position. I’m not overly worried about apex and descent angles, but I can see why that would be important for fitting purposes and why it could produce problems with carry.

Back on topic though - I certainly agree with you that for consistency the sim software should only take launch angle, side angle, ball speed and spin data from be LM. Taking carry and offline positions could create huge discrepancies between the different LMs

[walb0034]

Thanks very much for the news.

However, I have to disagree that using Foresight ball flight algorithm will be good news for both E6 and Foresight users.

First and foremost, what Foresight told you in terms of Foresight being the only company in using their own ball flight algorithm onto E6 is false.
Trackman (for sure), Flightscope, Skytrak, and a few others, as far as I know, do not use E6 algorithm for its carry distance. Because of that, due to each company's own flight algorithm for its carry numbers result in a variety of carry distance results. Not only that, but some of the companies do not even take account for any penalty (rough/sand) as well as altitude for that matter and only bring in launch monitor's carry numbers despite the course having 5000ft altitude or your balls being in the sand but flying 100% of what you see in your launch monitor. What this leads is an enormous discrepancy between the user experience as well as game carry outcome within E6. This might also mean that Foresight users might not have any penalty integrated on sand/rough.

Secondly, Foresight carry algorithm only on the low spin shot is flawed at the moment. It uses a very old pre-2000's algorithm where low launch = high apex concept, thus when the spin goes anywhere between 2500rpm or less on faster ball speed (fortunately this does not happen on chip shots), the carry results in anywhere from 10-25yds further than real distance. So what this means is that if you are to play against a Trackman user (which has one of the best carry algorithm models in the industry), with the same ball speed, launch and spin you might carry 20yds further than the other guy.

As a guy who has been testing, verifying and working with many simulators and launch monitor companies around the world, I feel that the above 2 news is not good news. I would rather at least see E6 algorithm being universal across all launch monitors so at least E6 knows what parameters they need to fix on the same playing field.

Regardless, I am very happy that Foresight has finally opened up for simulator usage, and I can't wait for this happen to soon so many more users join and play on E6 and hopefully on TGC soon too.

I was hoping you’d comment, thanks for the insight! Never really considered the points you make, which are all great. I’ve never done online play on my sims, but I’m looking forward to it in the future and I could see this being an issue with multi platform play. Unless the lock it down to push all foresight units to the same server, and limit the opportunities for online play across various hardware?

[LEO MODE]

We have E6 Discord looking for online matches and you can certainly only play against Foresight users I am sure, but I think that kind of defeats the purpose of meeting and playing against anyone!

[LEO MODE]

Hey Adam,

I appreciate your input and I'm glad to fill you in for more if you haven't had your unit for a long time (which I assume you haven't).

As you replied, this is a ball flight algorithm issue. Starting from the early 2000s, instead of handling the problem with lift and drag forces on a spinning ball, the math would exaggerate a higher flight and longer result in some of those algorithms (not only Foresight, but it was also prevalent in Flightscope Optimizer and a few others too). It could either be an incorrect decay of spin during the flight (too much can translate into less air resistance) or exaggerated lift due to simpler math approximations possibly being involved (not 6 degrees of freedom analytics engine or some sort).

In the early days of launch monitor use, 'high launch low spin' was a hot discussion item and manufacturers would start manufacturing drivers towards that trend. It worked well for tour players who were noted to launch it high and far like Bubba Watson, but as I share similar ball speed as you (140-150mph) and not everyone can swing it like he can and use low spin to one's advantage. The unfortunate part of this low spin longer carry algorithm is that this is not only favoring tour players but also places which engage a lot with low speed players - and yes you guessed it - brick and mortar stores that sell drivers. Noone complains about seeing their carry 10+yds further, but people will have a hard time understanding why their carry is shorter.

I have discussed with the top ball flight algorithm modeler (Thanks to Todd for his inputs above also) who has a program that has an R squared of Trackman outdoor match result to 0.9983. I have compared the algorithm with Trackman 4, Flightscope X3, Foresight GC2+HMT, GCQuad, Uneekor, Golfzon as well as many other launch monitors out there. I will be posting those results hopefully within this year.

To answer your questions:

1) I see the boost relatively at around after 120mph (as I've never seen or been able to reproduce RPM of 2500 or less on a higher lofted clubs other than 5w). My mom hits a driver at 120mph and I've seen a similar result.
2) Trackman doesn't need to compute carry algorithm when it has millions of outdoor shot data that have been recorded since the early 2010s. With this data, all they have to do is use simple math to compare the indoor outcome.
3) My homepage can be a great source for launch monitor comparisons, and you can find YouTube videos such as TXG and others which you can spot things easily: e.g. a consistent player hitting various shots, and you see that one of his spin numbers' spin was around 1500RPM and you can clearly see inflated carry distance vs other shots which had similar ball speed and launch. If you also google you will find many complaints from users even in this forum.
4) Offline is another topic because it involves launch direction and sidespin (spin axis). More on that to be posted along with my findings on my homepage soon.

[AdamV]

Thanks for making the effort with your response! Really appreciate the insights.

I’ve had my Quad for just over 12 months, but it’s not my first LM. I also studied mechanical engineering, so I enjoy the technical side of launch monitors...to a point! It’s mostly about getting better at golf

[Dax]

AdamV I think you can see that Leomode is legit in his testing, but I encourage you to google search his username and have a look at his website.

i forgot to mention that I have also posted on this forum that e6 does use other companies information in their software. Post collision (hitting ground or tree) is where e6 software takes over.

[AdamV]

Hey Dax did that today actually and re-found his TM4 vs GCQuad comparison from 2018. That review played a big role in me buying the Quad in early 2019, given my bias to indoor use.

Very hard to make strong judgements and assertions when I haven’t got a Trackman to do my own testing, so I have to go off other people’s reviews, and I really appreciate the effort he has gone to in contributing to this forum.

But when it comes to Quad accuracy, it’s also hard to argue with your own experience: it cuts when I hit a cut; draws when I hit a draw; carry’s distances I can replicate on the range and course; and hell it even shanks when I hit a hosel rocket! When I feel my hands are high and also see it on video, the lie angle data confirms it. When I feel I turned may hands over it hooks, and slices when I’ve left the clubface open. Now of course that doesn’t mean the ball flight and club head data is an exact representation of reality, but it typically feels very close.

Like I said, I’m not seeing 25yds of additional carry on my drives (using early 2019 firmware). That would put me into a territory that would be extremely obvious that something just isn’t right. Maybe 10yds here and there sure, but even 15yds would be a big increase beyond what I know I routinely carry (using Trackman 4 at an outdoor coaching studio).

In saying this I’m not suggesting for a second that Leomode isn’t rigorous in his testing, clearly his website/blog is an amazing compilation of LM analysis. I’m just thinking the error percentage is maybe worse under certain conditions (eg unique launch parameters or mishits causing wild spin) so that for the most part it won’t affect your practice or sim play.

[Dax]

AdamV i actually think what Leomode is noting is a huge flaw and is easily fixable (at least I think it would be). The Quad is an amazing device in my view and I believe Leomode would also think the same. In terms of accuracy, you are correct it is spot on; however, every launch monitor out there has its flaws. The great news is that I am able to continue practicing golf while isolating

[Alex Ma]

Ok so what’s the verdict here. Are my low spin drive shots carries overstated?

[AdamV]

Do you think they are?!

[Alex Ma]

It's hard to tell for me, which is why I'm asking.

[SimGolf84]

I think GC2 is a little juiced on tee shots. Here is a shot
from earlier on the FSX range.

Ball speed: 162.7 mph
Launch Angle: 15*
Back spin: 1667 rpm

GC2 says carry of 297 yards. Plugging the values into the Flightscope optimizer says carry would be 278 yards.

Can't wait to get on the course to see which is right.