CGQuad reported numbers vs TGC 2019

[MongoOnlyPawn]

Apparently TGC doesn't just use the data, club speed, ball speed, carry, etc., from the GCQuad? It must apply it's own math (for the reported parameters) to the numbers that GCQuad reads because I'm seeing some pretty big discrepancies reported on the shot screen on TCG after a shot compared to the data/results on the GCQuad. Is that typical or do I perhaps have something screwed up in the settings?

[3on3putt]

Tgc has its own ball flight algorithm so it's not uncommon to see minor discrepancies. But it shouldn't be anything big. Anything going on with your elevation settings or anything?

[MongoOnlyPawn]

Using a 6 iron, TGC is reading exact ball data, ball speed, spin rates, launch angle, matches up exactly with FSX. Their swing path & club face data is all over the board, not consistent one way or the other, but never matching with FSX data. Ball flight characteristics don't not match this: Trajectory optimizer - Launch Monitor, Golf Ball Tracking | Golf Simulators | FlightScope.com, FSX numbers are nearly exact as Flightscope. Club speed consistently 10% higher than FSX (even though ball speed is exactly the same), ball carry distance about 3% less, total distance 6% higher, so the roll calcs are probably having some impact. One guys firm is another guys soft (!).

I can't seem to get into the settings on the ProTee interface, see pics. I'm locked out from everything other than the first screen, unable to look at Clubs, Ball, More>> Got any advise to get at those?

[fortner28]

TGC takes only the ball data from your device. Most devices don't have club data so TGC has put in some algorithms that display what they think is happening with the club based on the characteristics of the ball flight. A lot of times this isn't very accurate.

[3on3putt]

I don't believe any club data is communicated to tgc. Ball data measured by the launch monitor is given to tgc which is then displayed but I don't think any club data is given to tgc. The club data displayed by tgc is all calculated / estimated. So it will differ from any club data that is measured by your launch monitor. In other words, club data displayed by tgc should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm only 95% sure of this so someone might chime in with something more definitive. I have skytrak which doesn't measure any club data but I still get estimated club data displayed by tgc. And I believe that's how they do it for all launch monitors regardless of whether or not any club data is actually being measured by the launch monitor.

[mthunt]

I don't believe any club data is communicated to tgc. Ball data measured by the launch monitor is given to tgc which is then displayed but I don't think any club data is given to tgc. The club data displayed by tgc is all calculated / estimated. So it will differ from any club data that is measured by your launch monitor. In other words, club data displayed by tgc should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm only 95% sure of this so someone might chime in with something more definitive. I have skytrak which doesn't measure any club data but I still get estimated club data displayed by tgc. And I believe that's how they do it for all launch monitors regardless of whether or not any club data is actually being measured by the launch monitor.

No club data from the quad goes to TGC. Only spin, direction and speed of the ball.

[MongoOnlyPawn]

Got it, no club data. Was getting there slowly but thanks for the information. I've got the GCQuad connected to an iPad, so I'll just continue using the software on that to track club data. But the ball flight results are goofy. With the same exact data as reported by the GCQuad, if i run those numbers through ball flight simulators for flightscope ,it will come up with relatively the same amount of Carry, Direction and Peak height. So the math TGC is using is likely the culprit, correct? Is there any tweaking that can be done in any of the settings to get TGC results, primarily carry, within a percent of the GCQuad? Sucks to try & hit your wedge over the trap and have the carry be 100 instead of 105.

[3on3putt]

TGC has a boost setting. You can go to the TGC range and calculate the difference in the yardages and then set the boost accordingly.

[MongoOnlyPawn]

Where do I find the "boost"? Can find "Setting" but don't see anything anywhere to "boost".

[3on3putt]

Where do I find the "boost"? Can find "Setting" but don't see anything anywhere to "boost".

Go to the settings file, which is the other icon that was installed on your PC when you downloaded tgc. (So not the icon you click on to start up the game but the other one)

[MongoOnlyPawn]

Which one should I adjust?

[Skytrak]
Horizontal Angle Correction=ON
Short Chip Correction=ON
Putting Correction=ON
Driver Boost=0
Wood Boost=0
Iron Boost=0
Wedge Boost=0
Putter Boost=0
Short Chip Backspin Correction=0

[ErnestSports]
Driver Boost=0
Wood Boost=0
Iron Boost=0
Wedge Boost=0
Putter Boost=0

[FlightScope]
Driver Boost=0
Wood Boost=0
Iron Boost=0
Wedge Boost=0
Putter Boost=0

[3on3putt]

Which one should I adjust?

[Skytrak]
Horizontal Angle Correction=ON
Short Chip Correction=ON
Putting Correction=ON
Driver Boost=0
Wood Boost=0
Iron Boost=0
Wedge Boost=0
Putter Boost=0
Short Chip Backspin Correction=0

[ErnestSports]
Driver Boost=0
Wood Boost=0
Iron Boost=0
Wedge Boost=0
Putter Boost=0

[FlightScope]
Driver Boost=0
Wood Boost=0
Iron Boost=0
Wedge Boost=0
Putter Boost=0

Didn't realize there wasn't one for foresight. Looks like you may not have that option on a quad then I guess(?)

[Magilla]

OK, the mismatch between TGC calculated ball flight and GCQuad is something I have just investigated having purchased TGC 2019. I will summarize my findings here but can post more details and graphs if there is interest.

First of all, I can confirm that GCQuad is only passing ball data and not club data because reported Ball Speed, Launch Angle, Side Angle (lateral), Backspin and SideSpin are identical although TGC 2019 rounds off the numbers for display (but presumably uses more significant figures in its calculations).

After that, TGC 2019 makes up a Path, Club Speed, Face to Path and Impact Point (horizontal only) for presentation purposes only. It is miles from Club data from the GC Quad. The main reason is that impact location (especially on a driver) has a huge effect on the relationship between club and ball stats. I have no idea if this is unique to TGC 2019 with GCQuad or whether it is generic for all Launch Monitors where TGC doesn't get club data provided to it.

So, GC Quad and FSX 2020 are starting with the same ball data but calculating VERY DIFFERENT trajectories. To summarize:
1. Carry isn't much different ON AVERAGE within 1% (though with standard variations up to 9 yards at 250 yards and 1 yard at 30 yards), but
2. OffLine Angle (OffLine Yards relative to Target Line at Total Distance) from TGC 2019 is about HALF AS MUCH as from GCQuad. I assume this is to make playing "more fun", but serious golfers will be very annoyed by this - I look way too accurate on TGC 2019 with my lateral dispersion effectively cut in half. Serious golfers should probably avoid TGC 2019 ranges altogether.

Some Data

I hit shots from 4 yards carry to 240 yards on a flat range with a variety of distances and (intentionally and otherwise) a variety of OffLine Angles from narrow to as wide as 10 degrees. Then I made up charts and linear regressions comparing the Carry and OffLine Angle from FSX 2020 and TGC 2019 for each shot. There is a relatively simple empirical relationship (not a model, but a correlation) between the amount of curve calculated by various ball flight models between (OffLine Angle - Side Angle) and SideSpin. For the GC Quad, this relationship is approximately:
OffLine Angle - Side Angle = SideSpin / 100 which means that every 100 RPM of Side Spin results in a curve of 1 degree starting from Side Angle (with many clubs, not just drivers). The 100 RPM number has a standard deviation of about 3 (i.e from 95 to 101). SideSpin is not the only ball flight parameter affecting OffLine Angle, but it (and Side Angle) are super dominant (and Tilt angle is the next most important, which is mathematically the angle between SideSpin and BackSpin vectors.

TGC also reports OffLine Yards and Total Distance, from which I can calculate OffLine Angle and then subtract the same starting Side Angle both TGC 2019 and GCQuad used. The TGC relationship is more like:
OffLine Angle - Side Angle = SideSpin / 185 (+/- 9) for the same series of shots
The divisor is significantly different (nearly twice as much) and the difference is very signficant in statistical terms. Basically, TGC 2019 calculates a ball flight lateral curve that is about 55% of the curve that FSX 2020 and GCQuad calculate. THIS IS NOT A MINOR DIFFERENCE and is therefore likely intentional by design. Maybe this is why TGC 2019 doesn't support GC Quad. TGC 2019 may or may not do the same for other Launch monitors - I'd be interested in other users feedback.

For the golf nut who wants a golf sim experience based on the GCQuad, the super expensive FSX courses or Foresight's Creative Golf offering seem to offer greater realism in lateral dispersion....

What serious golfers need is for software geeks to merge a realistic ball flight model with a package of courses. The ball flight model and course graphics are fully independent for the developer. ProTee could do it, but would they want to?

Meanwhile, for this GC Quad user, I've just purchased software about as reality-relevant as Optishot 2 (which doesn't even measure ball data but has nice graphics and user interface)!

[delaloi]

Very interesting. I do not have TGC, and only use FSX 2020 courses, so I have no skin in this game. It is surprising though that FSX2020 and TGC2019 would calculate such different ball flights from the same ball data. I don't think the club data has anything to do with this, does it? (i.e., FSX2020 will give the same ball flight data whether or not you have fiducials on the clubhead)

If not, then we are back to the question of whether GCQ/FSX ball flight data is accurate. I think the various Trackman comparisons have concluded that it is pretty sound. In which case indeed TGC would be giving players too many fairways and GIRs. Cutting Offline Angle by half is a massive, massive difference.

[Scottygolf]

Magilla - Let's keep in mind that TGC 2019 is a video game. It started there and adapted to be used for entertainment to the simulator world where the graphics and user enjoyment is far superior than basically anything on the market today. Foresight on the other hand started out as a launch monitor and used for fittings. TM & Foresight seem to be the leaders based on where you go for a fitting of any sort, it is one of their products leading the way.

I am thrilled they created the interface for GC2 and Quad. I own the CG2 and I find my numbers extremely accurate and honestly would not use TGC for a fitting of any sort. I have the HMT and feel I can dial in my numbers so when I go play, I am comfortable about what the club will do. Creating the same swing each time is the largest variable.

[mthunt]

We took club data out of the Quad interfaces because of the way Foresight transfers data and the way TGC accepts it. The Quad and GC2/HMT sends 3 data packets. 1 is speed and direction, 2 is spin, 3 is club data. TGC waits for all 3 with club data on and 2 if off. If you wait for HMT (Which was left in for the version of GC2 from me) then the ball will not launch for almost 3 seconds. FSX launches the ball on packet 1, then adds spin then club data so it's seamless and not noticeable to the user. If TGC does not get club data it just uses best guess club data. I worked on the algorithms for months with Bubba to get it as close as possible. Personally I use Schogolf for club data. Works great.