Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

dialing in path and face corrections

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

  • dialing in path and face corrections

    i was trying to figure this out last night and i have gone back and forth using zmax's recommended path and face correction numbers vs the default (everything set to 0). when i visually inspect sensors, they look straight but when i set everything to 0, everything reads as a slice no matter how i swing. when i use zmax's numbers things seem more normal. however every once in a while i'll get some strange results that lead me to believe i need to tweak the correction numbers some more.

    for instance, with my 6 iron there was a shot that was read as path square and face open 2 degrees but the ball path measured by the hcam was 2 degrees left. i double checked, and the hcam is set up correctly. also i watched the ball hit left of the target on the impact screen. i saw several of these types of shots where the face and path did not agree with the measured ball path. in this particular case, it seems that if the path is correct, my club_face_correction_iron needs to go from 3 to 7 or if the face was correct, the path needs to go from -3 to +1. for the sensors to be mounted 7 degrees crooked seems extreme and i would think i'd be able to see that. more than likely both numbers are off and it needs to be something like path=-2, face=5.

    so my question is, how have you guys dialed in these settings? at this point i'm just guessing at what the numbers should be by comparing the face and path to the hcam measurement. i can tell when i swing very inside out or outside in but i am no where near good enough to know if i am square or off by 1 or 2 degree.

    so far i've only played with these settings using a 6i, but can someone help me understand why the corrections are different for different types of clubs? if the boards are mounted crooked why wouldn't the angle corrections be the same for all clubs?

    the only idea i've come up with so far is to record shots in slow motion from overhead and compare the sim's results to the video but hopefully someone can suggest an easier way.


    zmax's recommended settings:

    club_path_correction_driver=-1
    club_path_correction_wood=-2
    club_path_correction_irons=-3
    club_path_correction_wedge=-2

    club_face_correction_driver=2
    club_face_correction_wood=3
    club_face_correction_iron=3
    club_face_correction_wedge=4


  • #2
    Hey, did you ever get an answer to this question?

    Comment


    • inorkuo
      inorkuo commented
      Editing a comment
      no answer, but when i got a skytrak, i used it to dial in the face and path settings for protee. face is pretty easy to do since it accounts for 85% of ball direction. path was harder for me because i can't always feel my shot shape. with skytrak i could see it. i still don't know why all of the angle corrections wouldn't be the same but there has to be a good reason protee made individual settings availabe per club type. i suspect it has something to do with lie angle and whether someone comes through impact toe up, down or flat.

  • #3
    Ok, yes agree with you comments totally, face angle pretty easy to do but path it is a bit of a guess, based on how you know you hit the ball. I'll have to admit that I never really understood why the adjustments wouldn't have all been the same either, i.e for driver, woods, irons and wedges. Did you find that with protee ball tracking on, you end up seeing similar horizontal launch angles to skytrak?

    As an aside. I've said it before but I'll say it again, it sure would be nice to integrate the skytrak with the protee sensor.

    Comment


    • #4
      skytrak is usually within 1 or 2 degrees of protee on horizontal launch. there were rumblings over a year ago that an affordable launch monitor was coming that would integrate with protee. then the whole skytrak launch debacle happened. i'm guessing the plan was to integrate the two but it fell through.

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by Cklguy2013 View Post
        Ok, yes agree with you comments totally, face angle pretty easy to do but path it is a bit of a guess, based on how you know you hit the ball. I'll have to admit that I never really understood why the adjustments wouldn't have all been the same either, i.e for driver, woods, irons and wedges. Did you find that with protee ball tracking on, you end up seeing similar horizontal launch angles to skytrak?

        As an aside. I've said it before but I'll say it again, it sure would be nice to integrate the skytrak with the protee sensor.

        I don't think it is as easy as you guys make it sound..

        Face angle, for example, is not simply 85% of ball direction. It is only approximately so and only for certain clubs under specific circumstances. Over the range of clubs in your bag could easily vary between about 60%-90%.

        Even knowing the right factor on any given shot doesn't tell you the actual face angle. 85% just means the influence of the face is weighted by 85% compared to the path weighted at 15%. It's still a single equation with two unknowns (face and path angle) so there are a multiple of answers that will produce the same launch direction.

        For example, given a 75/25 bias and a measured launch direction of zero, one could have hit:

        1) Face = 0, path = 0, or
        2) Face = -2, path = 6, or
        3) Face = -4, path = 12, or
        4) Face = 2, path = -6, or
        5) etc, etc

        One then has to consider that Skytrak's launch direction could be off by 4 degrees (ie, the launch direction could show 4 degrees but actually be anywhere between 2 and 6 degrees based on published specs). And real life accuracy could be worse for many reasons including user alignment. Also the 75/25 weighting could be the wrong weighting for that particular shot as well.

        This makes back calculating the actual face angle from LM ball data a bit tricky IMHO.

        Even if one could produce a believable face angle from their LM data, they'd be comparing it with a measured face angle which has it's own errors and assumptions. Face angle is actually hard to measure in it's own right. For example, given the leading edge of the club measures exactly zero degrees the actual value would vary simply by changing the lie angle. Or if a driver face angle were exactly 0 degrees at dead center then an inch from center it could be several degrees. And when is the face angle actually being measured...before impact, at initial impact, at point of maximum ball compression etc? The difference can be several degrees. Also people tend to think of club path as only 2D (in or out) but actually the 3D club path has a major effect on launch direction so any system that doesn't measure the full 3D club path will have to have some approximations calculating the data. For that matter, a system that tracks club path at the club face will have errors since it's the path of the clubs CofG that matters. Etc, Etc.

        This is relevant to the ES16 also. People seem surprised to learn it isn't actually measuring club path and face. But full club data is hard. Even the Trackman can't measure the club face angle. They calculate it and need to measure all the other club/ball parameters with high accuracy to have a chance. They also spent years building a physics model of the impact and validating it with simultaneous ultra high speed cameras in 3D space. Hopefully the ESXX can do the same someday...

        It agree it would be cool if one could put a Skytrak together with a Protee (assuming they actually work together without interference). But for above reasons it might be easier to leave them separate and take each measurement for what it's worth.

        I guess that is a question: For those that have both, do they work together and have you confirmed accuracy of either isn't degraded? If so, why not use both now?

        Comment


        • #6
          So generally pretty easy to figure out then..... Lol. I guess this is why GC2 with HMT is considered to be the best.

          Comment


          • #7
            Has anyone used a GC2 to dial in face and path settings on a Protee. Generally speaking face is a bit easier because it largely determines start line, but path isn't so easy to figure out.

            Comment

            Working...
            X