Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Silver stickers on the ball have sliced my impact screen to shreds !

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Silver stickers on the ball have sliced my impact screen to shreds !

    Hi
    hope somebody can offer some advice.
    I am currently using a Flightscope Xi Tour inside with ( 8ft radar to ball) and 10ft ball to screen, however having to put silver metallic stickers on the ball it has worn the impact screen to bits. It was fine when I used to use skytrak with no stickers but the stickers are like a sharp knife slowly cutting through the fabric.
    Any solutions would be grateful.
    Thanks
    Jason

  • #2
    Not sure if these would help or not but thought they might be worth a try. https://www.ebay.com/itm/OnCore-MA-1...S!-1:rk:1:pf:0

    Comment


    • #3
      I’d have thought that was inevitable. It’s bad enough having a tiny rough spot on the ball... let alone a metallicsticker.
      This was one of the reasons I took a GC2 over a Flightscope. Now I just have to put metallic stickers on my club face instead!!

      Comment


      • #4
        BGCurtis2nd That ball does not help, how should it ?? a radar reads on dimples, as in dimples moving away, and dimples moving towards
        Last edited by sorensen; 02-18-2019, 01:19 AM.

        Comment


        • StuartG
          StuartG commented
          Editing a comment
          It's getting the variations in the relative velocity of the surface of the golf ball and using that to calculate spin. e.g. How fast the top of the ball is moving relative to how fast the bottom of the ball is moving. The dimples and even seems on the ball can help but the metallic sticker (again needs to be on the surface of the ball) provides an even better reflector for those readings. But the key is that the enhanced radar reflection needs to come from the surface or outer diameter of the ball, not the interior.

        • sorensen
          sorensen commented
          Editing a comment
          Sorry BGCurtis2nd, and thank you StuartG for saving me half an hour on google translate :-)

        • sorensen
          sorensen commented
          Editing a comment
          Sorry BGCurtis2nd, and thank you StuartG for saving me half an hour on google translate :-)

      • #5
        Mettalic sticker is requires for accurate spin measurement for radar based units. You can still get data without the stickers. We have an indoor Flightscope at our home club with an impact screen and projector. We don't use the metal stickers on the screen for that exact reason.

        Comment


        • #6
          I wonder if a dot (the same size as a sticker) made with one of those metallic paint pens would work?

          Comment


          • #7
            I’m looking at the xi tour. At what distance do you not need the stickers? From their information it looks like they are only used for the short space setup. If you have 13 feet of ball flight do you still need the stickers?

            Comment


            • StuartG
              StuartG commented
              Editing a comment
              Don't know the actual distance where stickers are not needed - but sure it's a lot more than 13'.

            • Snaphook
              Snaphook commented
              Editing a comment
              at 30' you don't need the stickers. you could use a white net infront of your impact screen to save it from sticker rash.

          • #8
            Originally posted by Jason R View Post
            Hi
            I am currently using a Flightscope Xi Tour inside with ( 8ft radar to ball) and 10ft ball to screen, however having to put silver metallic stickers on the ball it has worn the impact screen to bits. It was fine when I used to use skytrak with no stickers but the stickers are like a sharp knife slowly cutting through the fabric.
            What screen are you using?

            Comment


            • #9
              I’m in the process of deciding on a monitor. Indoor and outdoor. My indoor space is a 1 car garage 12’ x 20’. I thought I had decided on the flightscope xi tour. All in with software for 9k. Would the CG2 perhaps be a better option? I teach and will be useing it for that so I’m thinking I would need the HMT model. Would it perform better indoors compared to the xi tour? How much is the software for the CG2 that I would actually need? I was looking forward to the simulator aspect beyond the teaching on the range.

              Comment


              • #10
                Originally posted by Edluvar View Post
                I’m in the process of deciding on a monitor. Indoor and outdoor. My indoor space is a 1 car garage 12’ x 20’. I thought I had decided on the flightscope xi tour. All in with software for 9k. Would the CG2 perhaps be a better option? I teach and will be useing it for that so I’m thinking I would need the HMT model. Would it perform better indoors compared to the xi tour? How much is the software for the CG2 that I would actually need? I was looking forward to the simulator aspect beyond the teaching on the range.
                I think based known what you wrote, a GC2 is likely more in line for what you are hoping to find. Don’t think you will get HMT in with that price, but maybe look in the used market.

                There might be a a new player in the business over the coming summer that has been of some discussion on this forum called Uneekor.

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Dax View Post

                  I think based known what you wrote, a GC2 is likely more in line for what you are hoping to find. Don’t think you will get HMT in with that price, but maybe look in the used market.

                  There might be a a new player in the business over the coming summer that has been of some discussion on this forum called Uneekor.
                  Thank you Dax. I spent the better part of the day going over the cg2 and different software options. The short space and metal stickers turned me from working in such a tight space. The cg2 will open up a lot more space and seems to give similar readings.

                  Since i I teach beginner juniors I’m thinking the HMT may not be needed right away and I can purchase it later.

                  I really liked the flightscopes training programs and skills challenges. The FSX software seems expensive. I use e6 now where I teach and do not mind the range and like the par 3 courses for the kids. Was going to pair the e6 with Protee. TGC does not seem to have great range or practice options it seems. Any suggestions on good range and teaching software would be appreciated.

                  Comment


                  • wbond
                    wbond commented
                    Editing a comment
                    There are lots of great ranges within TGC for practicing. And then TGC2019 has a dedicated practice area.

                • #12
                  There are pro's and cons both ways (I have both). The GC2 is definitely better for sim play but (IMO) the Xi Tour is better teaching tool IMO and much better outside on the range (especially if a grass range). And it's also better at handling both left and right handed players in the same session. The lack of short game support in sims for the Xi Tour is really the main disadvantage, and of the extra space it takes up can also be a downside. Even when you have the space, it's still cuts back on how much room you have for the people not actually hitting.

                  That's for working on my own swing. For juniors, unless they are really advanced - I don't see a need for club data. The only really important thing is knowing and learning to get a good impact location on the face - and all you need for that is a $3 can of foot powder spray.

                  And even ball data can get distracting in a way that may be fun - but not always good for the swing (for all ages, not just juniors). So usually it's better when teaching to restrict the data that the student actually sees.
                  Last edited by StuartG; 02-19-2019, 02:03 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #13
                    Originally posted by StuartG View Post
                    There are pro's and cons both ways (I have both). The GC2 is definitely better for sim play but (IMO) the Xi Tour is better teaching tool IMO and much better outside on the range (especially if a grass range). And it's also better at handling both left and right handed players in the same session. The lack of short game support in sims for the Xi Tour is really the main disadvantage, and of the extra space it takes up can also be a downside. Even when you have the space, it's still cuts back on how much room you have for the people not actually hitting.

                    That's for working on my own swing. For juniors, unless they are really advanced - I don't see a need for club data. The only really important thing is knowing and learning to get a good impact location on the face - and all you need for that is a $3 can of foot powder spray.

                    And even ball data can get distracting in a way that may be fun - but not always good for the swing (for all ages, not just juniors). So usually it's better when teaching to restrict the data that the student actually sees.
                    Thank you StuartG. I agree about the flood of data being a lot for juniors. With the gc2 without the HMT is there a place to see what the software shows? Can you use swing cameras without the HMT while useing the FSX?

                    Comment


                    • #14
                      Originally posted by Edluvar View Post

                      Thank you StuartG. I agree about the flood of data being a lot for juniors. With the gc2 without the HMT is there a place to see what the software shows? Can you use swing cameras without the HMT while useing the FSX?
                      Sorry I can't help you there. I have FR1 but I don't have nor have ever used FSX. And I haven't even used FR1 much in the context of working on my swing. I prefer Flightscope for that. For me, GC2 is more of a sim play LM (or hopefully will be - still working on the setup).

                      What I can say is that most instructors tend to use the tablet apps and only tell/show the players what they think they need to see. So the ideal would be to only project the ball flight - and maybe distance onto the impact screen. l just don't know what software would allow that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X