I always thought the offline in with TGC was a bit off with the short irons as I could see the tracer curving more than seemed real. I know its difficult do curve a Lob Wedge left or right. Can push and pull but hard to curve. I just did a small test of shots today from 60-130 (on my GC2) including the offline yardage for each shot for TGC, GC2, and Optimal Flight Software.
Skytrack Guys - I guess first off need to make sure that TGC is receiving the correct Side Spin number from the unit itself. Not sure if you guys can see the numbers from the skytrack and then make sure they match in the TGC analysis screen.
based on the above TGC offline numbers from this test seem ok compared to the others. I honestly don't think any algorithm is perfect. Optimal Flight is probably the best but I have hit shots that I don't think the carry was correct on it either. GC2 algo has steadily improved over time but I also think the GC2 still gives bias towards very low spin driver shots where Optimal Flight is on the other end of the spectrum showing them a bit shorter than I would expect.
Would be curious if anyone has done an outside test with GC2 and maybe Ipad App to see how close the GC2 offline number is. It still seems to me that my short irons fly straighter in real life and I miss more as a result of of push or pull. I guess its possible that the visual ball trace in TGC makes it look like its curving more than it is.
I would be curious if someone posted numbers from a decent (well struck) shot where they thought the curvature or offline was way out of wack. I know there are some issues with extreme spin numbers in TGC.
Skytrack Guys - I guess first off need to make sure that TGC is receiving the correct Side Spin number from the unit itself. Not sure if you guys can see the numbers from the skytrack and then make sure they match in the TGC analysis screen.
| ballSpeed | V Launch | Ball path | SideSpin | backSpin | TGC Carry | TGC Offline | GC2 Offline | Optimal Flight Offline | |
| 69.5 | 30.4 | -2.1 | -245 | 9361 | 79 | -3.7 | -4 | -3.5 | |
| 71.7 | 29.6 | -1.9 | 240 | 9196 | 83 | -1.72 | -2 | -2 | |
| 73.6 | 28.4 | 1.1 | 303 | 9645 | 86 | 2.88 | 2 | 2 | |
| 83.1 | 27.5 | -2 | 621 | 9614 | 103 | 0.11 | 0 | -1 | |
| 82.9 | 27.4 | -0.2 | 343 | 9839 | 101 | 1.51 | 1 | 0.9 | |
| 88.7 | 22.4 | -0.1 | 649 | 7898 | 114 | 4.21 | 4 | 3 | |
| 92.4 | 25.1 | -2.9 | 354 | 8127 | 119 | -3.21 | -3 | -4 | |
| 97.4 | 22.8 | -1.4 | 622 | 8472 | 126 | 2.1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 95.3 | 23.1 | -0.6 | 679 | 8638 | 124 | 4.12 | 4 | 3 | |
based on the above TGC offline numbers from this test seem ok compared to the others. I honestly don't think any algorithm is perfect. Optimal Flight is probably the best but I have hit shots that I don't think the carry was correct on it either. GC2 algo has steadily improved over time but I also think the GC2 still gives bias towards very low spin driver shots where Optimal Flight is on the other end of the spectrum showing them a bit shorter than I would expect.
Would be curious if anyone has done an outside test with GC2 and maybe Ipad App to see how close the GC2 offline number is. It still seems to me that my short irons fly straighter in real life and I miss more as a result of of push or pull. I guess its possible that the visual ball trace in TGC makes it look like its curving more than it is.
I would be curious if someone posted numbers from a decent (well struck) shot where they thought the curvature or offline was way out of wack. I know there are some issues with extreme spin numbers in TGC.
Comment