PG Flight Accuracy?

[jetergr]

Hi All - I'm getting ready to start using Perfect Golf with my GC2, and was curious about the accuracy of the ball flight compared to other software applications. Considering the native FSX software is meant to be used with a GC2, does it portray the ball flight more accurately than PG?

Same question for TGC... will I get noticeably different visual results if I were to hit the exact same shot on FSX vs TGC vs PG?

I'm primarily using my GC2 for game improvement, and want to make sure I get as accurate a simulation as I possibly can.

Hopefully this question makes sense...

Thanks in advance,

GR

[Mickey]

Great question. I've been discussing this very issue with a foresight rep. That's exactly the arguement he made. Obviously you would expect him to because he wants to sell the game improvement software with the device. Very interested in what the folks with experience have to say.

[fortysixandtwo]

I have the older fr1 software and I use the fitting range for my practice. I also have tgc, and pg. I don't notice any difference to make me question ball flight between the three, imo.
Today I went to the heated range outside, it's 27*f. This is the first time I've hit balls outside in a month since getting the gc2. I'm amazed at how accurate my shots were. I didn't bring the gc2, just talking about what I've seen on the the sim and comparing ball flight down range. Very cool to see the actual ball flight outside and know it's the same indoors...

[goatbarn]

There are differences between the 3, because all 3 are not sharing their ball flight algorithms with one another.

Saying that, and only having TGC and PG, the biggest difference I see is TGC's wedge shots curve more than I would expect, while PG's curve less.

I have yet to do the research myself as to which of the 2 is more accurate in this regard, but I'm leaning towards PG's high spin/launch algorithm. Something I plan on giving my comments to Protee about though!

Other than that, and TGC's overpenalizing for very low spin/high launch drives, I find the 2 algorithms interchangeable.

For all other shots the 2 softwares are in-line with what the GC2 reads out.

Both PG and TGC used GC2's readouts, Optiflight, and Flightscope Optimizer calcs to hone in their algorithms. It's quite the difficult mathematics as aerodynamics and a spinning projectile bring in all kinds of physics, even though it's just a stupid ball flying through the air.

[fortysixandtwo]

If you've been playing indoors all winter, wait until you get outside and see how much affect real wind has on your shots versus the sim wind.. :-)

[goatbarn]

My wedges don't move 15 yards offline with sidespin in real life, nor did they when modeled in Flightscopes ball flight algorithm. So yes, I do believe the higher spinning/launching shots in TGC move too much side to side. Need to do my research before I can say TGC moves too much by X%.

[SFR]

No one ever seems to talk about ball flight at different elevations or humidity situations. In general ball flight at sea level has less hook and slice for the same hit ball that would be hit at higher elevation. Not sure if it would be fair then also to say that sea level would be more humid and thus also effect the ball movement less.

So when one asks which is accurate then you also need to know at what elevation that you would be talking about and even possibly how humid the area tends to be.

If you ever are in an area with low humidity and higher elevation like 3000 feet or higher, you will see your drives are not as straight as you thought compared to sea level.

[goatbarn]

But are these sims using any elevation at all? I assumed they were all set to "play" at sea level.

For comparison sake for someone that lives at elevation, sure you'll notice the difference.

I live at elevation 300'-ish, so my real life comparison should be a good apples to apples with the simulated flight algorithms.

[SFR]

I was not saying one was better than the other for ball shape, but my point was that if I see a lot more draw or fade to my real shots based on my 2600 foot elevation and my humidity levels in the summer and I'm talking full shots, and then if I say that one software was more accurate for me, it would not mean that it was then accurate for someone that was close to sea level playing in higher humidity. I'm talking about left and right movement of the ball and not so much carry yardage. Not only will the elevation change the carry but it also easier to move the ball right and left.

The GC2 calculates its ball carry as if you were at sea level. The spin it shows and LA etc. are all going to be the same no matter where you are in the world but the sim calculations are needing to base their flight of the ball based on an elevation and humidity level. Yes most are based as if at sea level so in your case you will have a better idea of ball flight at sea level than what I do. I have only noticed that when playing the few times at sea level my shots were straighter than I thought normal would be.

I have seen on the real range with Foresight software that the draw and fade were ok on well hit shots but as soon as a major hook or draw came into play their software showed too much movement. I think a long time back people thought that Foresight in general had too much movement.

[Bubba22]

No algorithm is perfect, not even Foresights. In my opinion all software represent shots well enough for game play.

[mthunt]

OP, if you want game improvement, get FSX and the HMT. It'll help more than PG or TGC.

[TaS]

I have seen on the real range with Foresight software that the draw and fade were ok on well hit shots but as soon as a major hook or draw came into play their software showed too much movement. I think a long time back people thought that Foresight in general had too much movement.

That was the first thing I noticed with the gc2. I'm good at bending the ball both ways to escape trouble, but it's much easier to rope a hook than a big cut irl. I can hit heroic banana cuts with the gc2 though without much effort.

I think it just can't sample sidespin as well since it's looking at the ball sideways.

[goatbarn]

Well their tolerances are out there....side spin = +/- 50 rpm.

That said, seems to me that you mean to say their ball flight algorithm moves too much side to side on very crooked shots. Could be.

[TaS]

Tolerances have ranges though, right? For example, if you hit a shot with one million rpm, it won't be expecting to be within 50 of actual. I wonder it the tolerance is based on a normal range of sidespin. If you greatly exceed that (like on an intentional slice), maybe the error factor climbs?

I have no idea if that's true, but throwing out the possibility.

[goatbarn]

I guess maybe, I suppose youd have to get your hands on that testing data which probably isnt public.

[TaS]

Will have to take to range this spring and test against outdoor TM on the full spectrum of hooks and slices.

Luckily normal shots feel nearly perfect. That is enough to stay away from bad habits over the winter.

Somebody should run the same shots through TGC and PG as well if they have the capability.

[FaultyClubs]

I'd guess the tolerance is theoretical based on the camera and timing resolution. And the spin rate probably doesn't matter much provided it doesn't alias.

Early days of PG sim everyone was tasked with hitting a ton of shots on the driving range with every club and any anomalies or concerns were chased down. Also I understand the developers spent a lot of time comparing against Trackman data. So the current version of PG is pretty good IMHO. At least in the air...sometimes on the ground it can look funky.