TGC Tour - Congratulations!

Congrats to @franks62591, @Chubbs and @Lefty71 winning the TGC 2017/2018 Winter Tour - Valspar Championship !

Join this weeks TGC 2017/2018 Winter Tour - Arnold Palmer Invitational with 3 rounds at Bay Hill Club and Lodge (Pro Tee) :
See more
See less

Trackman's New Impact Location Feature

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trackman's New Impact Location Feature

    When this was announced this year at PGA Merchandise Show, I was thinking 'how would they do the calculation without looking at the impact'.

    Just like other calculations that many other devices do whether it's carry, spin axis, height, and etc., calculating where the impact location is also something that could be done without really looking at the impact. And some might say: 'it can't be accurate!'

    Well, I found a very interesting article that was posted a while ago on Trackman blog, and after looking at my numbers at both Trackman and HMT, it all made sense to me. With that blog post, although I'm not a mad scientist of any kind, even I can sort of already guess where my impact location would've been by looking at Face to Path, Spin Axis, Launch Angle and Ball Spin now. I'm sure you guys can too.

    Therefore, with my GC2 testing vs Trackman, now I can understand that my GC2 was either faulty or giving me wrong spin axis, because HMT was telling me a whole different story than GC2 (but similar story with Trackman within tolerance). Hope it was a faulty unit. With my HMT comparison vs Trackman, it was within 3 degree tolerances. I would lean more towards on HMT just because it captures the impact, but since the result was negligible I am actually more shocked at Trackman's science. Testing with impact location feature enabled vs HMT will be an interesting one down the road.

    All in all, what a great world we're living in. Science is really the king to answer most of the stuff that we deal everyday. I am amazed at this technology and can't wait to see it by testing it with Dr.Scholes.
    Last edited by LEO MODE; 02-03-2018, 09:07 PM.

  • #2
    I believe I read somewhere that they will also use the built in camera to assist them with the determination. Times are defiantly exciting and think this is a huge step forward for TM.

    One thing I have often wondered is what triggers Foresight’s cameras to start triggering the cameras to take images? Is it sound at impact? If yes, is there a slight delay between impact and the fist image of the club being recorded?


    • #3
      I can't disclose too much information in public, but some of these are ok to share since they're already obvious:

      1) Trackman is not using any other hardware to measure the impact location. It is just the radar and radar alone.

      2) Trackman will measure the last 4 inches of the shaft including hosel at maximum compression.

      3) Impact Location update will blow people away and rethink about the advancement by Trackman once again, because the result will come out without actually having the in-front snapshot of the impact.

      4) Trackman has the most accurate mathematical calculation/algorithm by far versus any other companies out there even from my testing. Therefore this will be an interesting test for me again, to see what would be the actual outcome on camera proponents stating about gear effect indoor on a radar vs camera. If Dr.Scholes vs Trackman data are synonymous, I can't think of any other rebuttals about radar indoor (of course I still do believe you would need at least 9ft from ball to screen to capture some ball flight to extrapolate the outcome). I contacted one of the robot testing facilities, and they once used to use humans to test the carry distance, but after testing intensively vs Trackman they just use Trackman now. So if there are launch monitors out there to compare outdoor, it would have to be Trackman.

      Will update more once I get a hands on the impact location update firmware.


      • #4
        I am sure April want come soon enough for you Leo. I agree, the 3.5 meter distance is likely too short to get the most accurate readings consistently. Although I do suspect TM4 would be much better than the older technology at that distance.

        Min terms of gear effect, I believe that issue was once covered off on an old TM Newsletter where they were trying to show how they determined their tolerances and put forth their arguments as to why that one YouTube video comparing camera shots and calcs to what TM read, where TM stayed that there was one type of gear effect (not all types like some seem to suggest) that TM had difficulty computing. I believe that newsletter is about six years old now and wonder if TM has overcome the issue they noted at that time. It would be good if they came out to state that, but suspect the ball flight modelling that they are doing now to compare what the unit computes and then checks against what would be expected could perhaps overcome this issue now, which I believe your testing may have shown as I suspect you don’t hit dead centre everytime.

        In in terms of being radar alone measuring the puts, I will need to try and find the video or article I saw where they also said they used the camera somehow to help as well?

        The robot bot testing is also interesting to learn. One thing that we do know is that I believe TM uses very high speed expensive cameras to confirm their readings, but do wonder what foresight uses to confirm their modelling on ball flight, distance, peak height etc?


        • LEO MODE
          LEO MODE commented
          Editing a comment
          I am sure Foresight also uses Trackman to compare. Believe me though, GC data is extremely accurate. The price difference comes (whether it is Skytrak vs GC2, or GC2 vs Trackman) when it comes to misreading a shot. The margin of error gets less and less as the price goes up. I would imagine GC Quad got better so now I’m very interested in testing that. I also saw it somewhere that GC Quad reads 20 times more at the same time than GC2.

      • #5
        LEO MODE did you get the GC2 back from Foresight and if so did you get a chance to retest it yet?


      • #6
        Leo I saw the same thing in terms of the additional info that the quad captures and feel the same way in respect of its accuracy. I believe it is able to capture more data give the fact that I believe it has wide angle lenses and this can see the ball for longer. Plus those lenses are likely a higher quality (plus there are four of them looking at the ball and club all at the same time but from a different perspective).


        • #7
          I was able to test the feature along with Simulator option. Full disclosure, it was a beta firmware so it has bugs. Take this with a grain of salt.

          It looks like you do need a lighting right in front of the ball, just like where camera LM is positioned (well more to the middle of the ball). This impact location is actually in fact directly measured by using the camera/radar and since the camera is not so good, in dark areas it won't be able to see any swing or the ball. Thus, during the PGA Show the lighting was there for a reason and I remember someone saying in the video the light was not required is false.

          Now I'm thinking perhaps Trackman 5 will come out with 2 cameras, one for impact location and one for swing analysis. Because as of now, it looks like you cannot use the camera for behind swing analysis if you use it for impact location at the moment. The firmware is still under development so there will be some changes.

          The golf simulator option was great. Nice graphics, in-hole practice and instant shot feedback. Since it was beta it didn't have full features yet but graphic really impressed me. And the shot was instant. It felt like they were utilizing a whole new engine which made me feel like it was a new game rather than using an old engine.

          Will update more once ‘official’ firmware is updated. Although it was a beta firmware it is definitely heading in the right direction.
          Last edited by LEO MODE; 03-11-2018, 06:55 AM.


          • #8
            Liking what I am hearing! Thanks for the update. I had read somewhere that both the camera and radar was being utilized for the impact location. Also, nice to hear about the sim update as well as it gives even more options now. I definitely think I. Will upgrade when TM5 comes out as was my plan all along. Although to be honest my TM3e still functions great and gives me great information and 99% of the time I a, using TPS rather than playing sim golf.

            I am also liking the new range etc.

            Wonder if if an overhead light might help with the lighting issue?


            • LEO MODE
              LEO MODE commented
              Editing a comment
              In my opinion (again just my opinion), overhead lighting helps for swing analysis, probably not impact location.