Skytrak vs. Flightscope Xi

[ajohns38]

I am trying to decide between the two products. I will mostly be using inside my house, but it would be nice to take outside sometimes. It seems that Flightscope is better outside. I had the flightscope rep bring the Xi+ to my house for a demo. The product seemed to work pretty well. The total distance was a little off, but the rep did not bring the stickers to place on the ball. Hopefully that would help? I also live in Colorado, so maybe these numbers are more registered to sea level? I think you can adjust the elevation for more accurate Colorado numbers. It said my average 7 iron was 176. I know that number should be closer to 190. Another slight disadvantage for Flightscope is being so far back from the net. Due to this distance I can't really hit wedges as they go too high. Has anyone been able to just Flightscope at a close distance, say 10 feet instead of 13 feet? With Skytrak, I could stand closer to the net and hit make a full swing. Skytrak just worries me. Are their numbers accurate? Because if they are, you can stand closer to the net, and they have a lot more features and are $400 less (with the added "game improvement package").

Please let me know your guys thoughts and experiences.

[Dax]

Look at the flightscope section of the Forum as Brutaly might have answered your distance question in his review. In terms of distances, you might want to ask the rep what elevation he had the unit set at as that could have an impact and indoors, you should have the metal sticker to get accurate spin measurements. Make sure you are comfortable with the info that the Xi provides though as you might want more. Goatbarn really likes his Xi, might be good to read his thread as well.

[wbond]

From what i can tell the skytrak numbers are accurate and get very similar results to optimal flight when you enter the numbers into the software. They currently have issues though with their ball flight model in that it shows longer carry on mid irons. That is fixable, but when is the question. Also, someone on here posted readings comparing the skytrak to the gc2 and the readings were very close to each other. Just do research on both so you know exactly what you are getting and the limitations of each.

[ajohns38]

Of course I would like more data on the Xi, but I don't want to spend the extra $2,500. I wonder if anyone has had any experience messing with elevation.

That's annoying that skytrak shows longer carry distances with the mid irons. As mentioned, I like all the features of Skytrak, but it is pointless if the yardage is off. I haven't found the post comparing Skytrak to GC2.

[TorchRedRob]

Of course I would like more data on the Xi, but I don't want to spend the extra $2,500. I wonder if anyone has had any experience messing with elevation.

That's annoying that skytrak shows longer carry distances with the mid irons. As mentioned, I like all the features of Skytrak, but it is pointless if the yardage is off. I haven't found the post comparing Skytrak to GC2.

Post #1451:

http://golfsimulatorforum.com/forum/skytrak/212-skytrak-launch-monitor/page97

[Dax]

Of course I would like more data on the Xi, but I don't want to spend the extra $2,500. I wonder if anyone has had any experience messing
That's annoying that skytrak shows longer carry distances with the mid irons. As mentioned, I like all the features of Skytrak, but it is pointless if the yardage is off. I haven't found the post comparing Skytrak to GC2.

Sorry, I was trying to give you a hint to check out Goatbarn's post as I believe he might describe how he was able to get a little more info. Not sure if he is still able, but worthwhile exploring.

[Bubba22]

Why are you worried about Skytrak numbers aj? What exactly do you want? Full simulation with putting? Launch monitor only? Perhaps wait a few more months.

[ajohns38]

I don't care about full simulation with putting. I just want accurate numbers when hitting my clubs downstairs. Visual representation of the shot. It's too boring to just hit in a net not knowing what the ball is doing.

[Bubba22]

I wouldn't be worried about the Skytrak numbers. They are good. We are all amateurs here. Don't make too much on the numbers. Obviously you want good representation of what the numbers will equate to. Every software (Trackman software, Flightscope, Optimal flight, E6, Trajectory wares, About golf, TGC, Protee) will have their own algorithms and interprete the numbers slightly different. Which one is "right"????? Consistency is the key in my mind. Both Skytrak and Flightscope are consistent. Can't go wrong either way.

[ajohns38]

Thanks for the information.

[fhann]

I have 19 feet 5 inches total distance from impact screen to the front of my Flightscope X2 launch monitor. I have 108 inches from the front of my launch monitor to the tee that I set my golf ball on. These measurements are for my indoor range set up inside my garage. I use the metallic sticker on the golf ball. I set my elevation to 1200 feet above sea level to match my actual course elevation. I do not have any problems with obtaining accurate data and ball flight modelling.

[ajohns38]

Thanks for the information! That is good to know that you can use it that close (10.5ft) from ball to net. Do you point the metallic sticker that's on the ball at the net? Or I have read some people say they point it at the ceiling.

[Bubba22]

fhann, the lowest basic distance from unite to screen would be about 19 feet? What if you don't use the metallic stickers?

[ajohns38]

I used it last night without the metallic stickers. Seemed a little off. I was about 12 feet from tee to net. As mentioned, I don't know how off bc I havent used it with metallic stickers.

[Brutaly]

Comparing skytrak with FS Xi/Xi+/X2 is apples and pears. They are not in the same league. Even though they both seem consistent and that is what you should be looking at.

Personally i find Skytrak to be very expensive compared to what you get from it.

If you are uncertain on what to buy wait until we see what E6 cloud brings when it comes to presenting ball and club data from the Xi.

The Xi measures everything a X2 does! Goatbarn can help you so you get the most out of the Xi.

And about FS givning you too little distance. Not to be rude, but from my experience as a fitter 99% of all golfers believe they hit the ball further then they actually do, I find the Xi+ to be very accurate and i used 2 FS side by side and also 1 accusport when evaluating my unit. Did you set it at the right level above the sea? That has a rather big impact on the distance along side how cold the ball/club is.

Im 100% positive that 18 feet is more than enough to get good readings. For sim/practice i would not hesitate to put it even closer.

Usually you point the sticker at the net/screen but if you point itupwards the radar might get one more revolution to measure. Or at least that is the theory.

[ajohns38]

Brutaly- Thanks you for your response. As far as distance, I am a 2 handicap and I know how far I hit the ball. I can consistently hit the 7 iron 190-200 yards (in Colorado). I play 714 MBs with c-taper x shaft. I can assure you I do not hit it 175 as the numbers showed last night. That being said, I think the inconsistencies are due to no sticker and not adjusting for altitude. But I will take your advice that it is very accurate. I figured that Flightscope might be more legitimate.

[Brutaly]

Some parts of Colorado is at a high altitude. It has a major impact. I think Its about 10% increase in distance at 1000 meters altitude.

I think skytrak seems legit as well. The issue i have is that compared to xi Its very expensive since the Xi measures so much more.