Frustrations in inconsistent/incorrect side spin display - Input and advice needed!

[TrueGolferNorth]

I use golf launch monitor mainly for game improvement purpose, majority of the time (>90%) hitting balls indoors. I currently have SkyTrak and TrackMan 4. They both struggle in getting the correct side spin (spin axis) especially for driver shots. For SkyTrak, I have consistently seen exaggerations in draws, and sometimes it just shows plain wrong flight trajectories. My swing speed is about 110 mph. For TrackMan, its flight model just cannot make it right to interpret driver shots indoors. It has been very frustrating.

My question is if GC2 will work better in measuring and displaying the side spin for driver shots. Doss anyone have experience in comparing GC2 with SkyTrak and TrackMan side by side and can share insights?

Thanks in advance.

[Wizard of Coz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRXQfZpI58

[TrueGolferNorth]

Thanks for the video. The video shows a few side by side swings between GC2 and SkyTrak but does not provide a reliable conclusion on which one is better. It proves that SkyTrak has more missed shots than GC2, however SkyTrak is more fade biased in the video - this is not what I see in my SkyTrak experience. I am still not convinced one is more accurate than the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRXQfZpI58

[LEO MODE]

Sorry for not responding on my post as I recently found out. As you saw in my testing, there are 2 things that I can point out:

1) Indoor it's hard to verify which one is right, whether it's Trackman, Skytrak, GC2 or even a laboratory equipment (yes you can do a statistical test with confidence interval but it still has a room for an error and these launch monitors' error tolerances are too big from the beginning to even draw a complete conclusion on the result, therefore you can see that I mostly only confidentially say on what I can visualize). Yes you can be correct that GC2/GCQ and even Skytrak should be the one that should be dead on on capturing the correct spin axis because it measures. But what's the point of actually measuring vs calculating when if it's not measured correctly every single time. The result I saw when I compared GC2/GCQ outdoor was that it wasn't accurately portraying the correct spin axis all the time, furthermore not showing the correct landing spot. On the other note, GC2/GCQ can never account for real weather condition and it's only for bubbled condition. Therefore, I've only tested and conducted outdoor when there was virtually no wind or maybe 1mph which should be very minimal but even so I was able to see a consistent pattern.

Unfortunately, due to GC2/GCQ also not measuring spin axis properly, I wouldn't be able to trust it with 100% confidence that it will be 100% accurate indoor. However, they're still the best and closest you can see versus any other launch monitors out there as for optical system it doesn't matter whether you hit the ball indoor or outdoor.

2) Trackman spin axis has been all over the place indoor and it is quite disappointing to say for the most expensive product. Luckily enough, they have recently updated a new firmware last month that was in the making for the past 1 year using machine learning (with millions of outdoor shots acquired), and while I am still testing them before officially posting in my blog, they have SIGNIFICANTLY improved versus pre-firmware. To give it to you in context, compared to GC2/GCQ before a 7 iron shot would completely portray the opposite ball flight 3-4 out of 10 times (of course with no dots on the ball), but now it's virtually none. For drivers it still struggles a bit as I see it due to faster ball speed (from 5-6 out of 10 to now 2-3 out of 10).

My conclusion is that, a) software/hardware keep evolving with updates so we can only hope for better accuracy and b) GC2/GCQ are not perfect but they're the closest when it comes to indoor shot shaping versus other competitors out there. I have never conducted a test with Skytrak so I can't comment on that but if it's similar technology to GC2/GCQ while it may be overexaggerating it may still be better than radars indoor IMHO. Unless there is a way to verify 100% accuracy indoor, it's hard to pinpoint and choose which one's the winner.

Hope this helps.

[TrueGolferNorth]

Leo, very balanced insight- thanks for that. Quick question: did you turn on impact location on TM4 in your test? I found that the driver side spin and side axis reading on TM4 is closer to SkyTrak (presumably more accurate) when I turn off the impact location on TM4 (by turning on the internal camera). The integration of impact location hurts rather than helps the side axis calculation in my experience - It’s very ironic to say at least. I used a 20K lumen work light and placed it about 4-6 feet away from the ball - that is 3 times of more light than TM recommendations for indoor lighting so i am confident to say there is enough light.

[LEO MODE]

No and a great point actually. I was thinking the other way around hypothetically (because when you turn on you use that camera specifically for capturing the impact and not your swing). I have never done the proper testing without being it turned off, especially after the firmware. And yes I also use enough lighting to capture impact location, and with the new indoor gear effect firmware it still requires a lot of lighting as you know. I've seen some vast improvement and very close result with GC2/GCQ all the way up to the irons for near 100% representation. If there is no light, it simply will say 'there weren't enough lights' or not capture some club data anyway.

I will put some forth my time on testing it without the camera off and see how the irons and drivers play out.

[Wizard of Coz]

All I can say is if i'm trying to hit a baby cut or draw and I look up at the screen after hitting it. It always shows me the shot shape I hit. If I miss an iron I can almost guess the yardage and direction without looking up. The gc2 and skytrak didn't surprise me. They both confirm what I feel my strike produces.

truly amazing products
I would take either over an indoor trakman and ive never tested a trakman.
what you think on that opinion Leo?

conclusion
the photo metric launch monitor are ridiculously accurate in their current form indoor.

[Wizard of Coz]

True golfer
im not sure you can be convinced. The video is showing a few shots. That's best I can show you for comparison. I liked both units and thought both were accurate except I felt skytrak lagged in high ball speeds vs gc2. I didn't notice surprises in either unit with shot shape. If im hitting a cut indoors with those units my cut outdoors is slightly less or draw slightly less.