aboutGolf Simulator Review

[GolfSpy Tim]

aboutGolf - Review

 

An Official MyGolfSpy.com Review

 

aboutgolf.com

 

FaceBook: facebook.com/aboutgolflimited

Twitter: twitter.com/#!/aboutGolf_

 

Simulator, Training Aid, Over-rated Video Game?

 

Heading down to Santa Clarita, CA for a review of the aboutGolf simulator at Scatch Golf Center's facility, I really wasn't sure what to expect. My initial thought was I was headed to an indoor facility to play fake golf on an over-priced video game machine.

 

Within 5 minutes of "playing" on the simulator I started to open my eyes to the possibilities available with the aboutGolf system.

 

image provided by aboutGolf.com

 

There is sooo much depth to the aboutGolf setup, that I was thankful to Scratch's lead pro Doug for helping me through the different aspects. We started out warming up on one of the multiple driving ranges available. Right away I saw my normal miss, pushing out and right - and sadly accurate to what I know happens.

 

The first thing about the simulator that caught my attention was how easy it was to use as a training system, whether with a coach, or on your own. The simulator that I used had three video cameras capturing my swing from behind, in front and to the side, as well as a pressure plate measuring weight distribution in my feet.

 

image provided by aboutGolf.com

 

Taking the video captured during my swing, Doug was able to instantly play back my previous swing, draw lines to show where my body's movement was off, and then follow up with where I was losing power by analyzing how I distributed my weight into my feet throughout my swing, side-by-side with the video footage.

 

image provided by aboutGolf.com

 

It sounds a bit overwhelming, but with Doug's help, we were able to break down quite a few swing flaws almost instantly with the help of the aboutGolf simulator.

 

Feedback from my swing also included a TON of other stats including swing speed, ball speed, launch angles, impact angle and position of the club head, smash factor, and maybe most intriguing - the "rifle spin" of the ball (a ball does not spin backward and sideways at the same time - so this shows you a ball's true spin, similar to that of a bullet)

 

image provided by aboutGolf.com

 

Utilizing 3Trak, the aboutGolf simulator really surprised me with it's accuracy, both on my well struck as well as miss-hit shots.

 

As a golf simulator, I was way more impressed than expected. Going in with low expectations probably helped. The simulator did just what it was supposed to, simulate golfing without being out on a course.

 

You can pretty accurately play a round of golf on tracks you might never have a chance to visit, or better yet, ones that don't even exist. Balls hit at a tree bounce errantly out of play, and the simulator can be adjusted to include wind and weather conditions making ball flight and roll out even more realistic.

 

If I lived in a snowy or cold climate, I would be very attracted to any facility offering use of an aboutGolf simulator in the off-season to keep my swing fresh, and even make it out of the cold season striking the ball better than when I finished the previous season. Another advantage I could see from using the simulator is in getting a feel for a course before playing it in person, knowing what hidden obstacles may await you.

 

 

With all of these great features, there were only a couple of limitations I noticed with the system.

 

First was putting - I game a Corza Ghost putter, it's white. Probably half of my putts did not read on the system due to a software glitch with the white putter - The guys at Scratch said this had been an issue with white driver heads as well. I asked aboutGolf about this, and they let me know that when white clubs were first introduced this was a problem, but they have addressed it in their recent software updates and that systems that have been updated shouldn't have this problem.

 

Another negative for my when using the simulator was also with putting. Reading a green in the simulator is done with arrows moving and showing you how "fast" the ball might break one direction or another. This did not compute in my head very well, so finding a line for my putts was mostly a shot in the dark, though practicing putting speed/distance was something that did work quite well on the simulator.

 

Next was ball choices. No biggy to a lot of people, but a HUGE deal to others who are extremely picky in their ball choice when playing. AboutGolf currently offers a Top Flite Range Ball or a Callaway Tour iZ 2011 model ball. I asked aboutGolf about this limitation, and they said they will be shortly adding a third ball to their line-up, and are working on software to allow you to use any ball (marked correctly) and the system will calculate for the particular balls playing/flight characteristics (you would need to tell the system which ball was being played).

 

I have used other systems that require a marked ball to track spin through a set of cameras, and these systems have normally required VERY precise placement of the ball in order to get a reading - the aboutGolf system was extremely forgiving in where you placed the ball (it still needs to be within a given area, but this area is much larger than other systems I have tried)

 

image provided by aboutGolf.com

 

The only shots throughout my time on the system that I questioned were my wedge shots. Most seemed pretty accurate, but when I was in a simulated bunker, the ball flight was definitely very different than I would have expected out of sand (I was playing Pebble Beach, and I expect their sand would be very well kept) - And there were a few other wedge shots that just didn't feel like the reading of the system was accurate to the shot I had made. Not terrible, just not extremely accurate in this one respect.

 

Worth noting for this review - MyGolfSpy actually utilizes the aboutGolf simulators to ensure that each of our Ultimate Club Reviews are consistent and unaffected by outside influences.

 

As an a training system, I think a golfer could actually gain A LOT more insight into their swing from a lesson utilizing the aboutGolf simulator when compared to a typical lesson on the range in the same amount of time. This may not hold true for a newer golfer, I think points like the force plates measuring weight distribution would easily prove worthwhile to more advanced golfers looking to gain an edge.

 

The system is also being used as a fitting aid at many locations and from the fittings I have had done, the aboutGolf system seems totally adept for this with the helpful eye and hand of a professional.

 

I went into this review wanting to rip the aboutGolf simulator apart, reporting how it couldn't read missed shots, or how it was just an overpriced video game, but I came away from my experience wishing 1) that I had a big enough house and enough money to install one of these at home, and 2) wishing I had a location closer to home that used an aboutGolf simulator so I could use it for my own reviews and practice.

 

I have heard of bars installing the simulator for their patrons, and I know without a doubt, if there was a local bar with an aboutGolf simulator, my drinking out budget every month would need to increase drastically.

 

If you live in an area with snow, or just can't get out to golf regularly before the sunsets, and/or would like to take lessons with even more feedback, I would definitely suggest checking out an aboutGolf simulator yourself.

 

Video game? If this is what most video games were like, I'd quickly become a gamer.

 

My Rating:

A

[Matt Saternus]

Very cool! I had never heard about the weight distribution plate, and I think that may be one of the coolest features I've ever heard of.

 

As for playing on a course, I've done it a bit on various types of simulators/launch monitors, and there are simply some things you have to accept: putting is going to be lame, bunker play and rough cannot be simulated, etc. But overall, for someone like me who's staring at snow right now, these can be a lot of fun, especially when they're super accurate!

[Tony Covey MGS]

Very cool! I had never heard about the weight distribution plate, and I think that may be one of the coolest features I've ever heard of.

 

As for playing on a course, I've done it a bit on various types of simulators/launch monitors, and there are simply some things you have to accept: putting is going to be lame, bunker play and rough cannot be simulated, etc. But overall, for someone like me who's staring at snow right now, these can be a lot of fun, especially when they're super accurate!

 

The white putter thing is a known issue for sure. Putting itself is weird (putting to a screen instead of a hole), but for working on tempo and distance control it's not bad (neither is a regular putting green of course), but at least with the sims you get to experience the rest of the game.

 

And yeah, Matt's right, bunker play is difficult to simulate (basically impossible without sand).

 

Play from the rough is interesting. The newer AG simulator installations are actually moving away from the rough, and relying on the simulator (I believe) to handle the simulation in the calculations. The models we have at Tark's still use the rough. When it was new, playing off it was almost like teeing the ball up. Now that it has 2 years of play, I can honestly say I find hitting out of it more difficult that actual rough. It's basically impossible to predict how the club is going to interact with it. I'd rather play out off real grass any day. So with that said, while I think the rough turf is excellent for maintaining realism with the game, we don't use it to collect data - it's simply too inconsistent.

[Phana24JG]

I see a couple of data points that make no sense. Are the published pics actual results? Pic 4 shows a drive with a -11.4* angle of attack. How the hell is that possible? That is hard to believe with a driver, and even more difficult to believe that such a swing that was inside-out by 5.6* with a closed face of 2* managed to provide only 211 rpm of sidespin, and a 1.44 smash factor. I would think this swing would be a low pull hook with a SM around 1.3. The second data point that is impossible is the wedge is pic 6. A 1.49 smash factor with a wedge????? Pros rarely hit DRIVERS with a 1.49 smash factor. I believe the max smash factor for a wedge is in the 1.2s.

[Tony Covey MGS]

I see a couple of data points that make no sense. Are the published pics actual results? Pic 4 shows a drive with a -11.4* angle of attack. How the hell is that possible? That is hard to believe with a driver, and even more difficult to believe that such a swing that was inside-out by 5.6* with a closed face of 2* managed to provide only 211 rpm of sidespin, and a 1.44 smash factor. I would think this swing would be a low pull hook with a SM around 1.3. The second data point that is impossible is the wedge is pic 6. A 1.49 smash factor with a wedge????? Pros rarely hit DRIVERS with a 1.49 smash factor. I believe the max smash factor for a wedge is in the 1.2s.

 

Good catch. I'll leave it to Tim to weigh in on the specifics...but if this was data from an actual shot, apart from a MAJOR flaw in the software (I haven't seen this version first hand yet), there are two possible explanations.

 

My understanding of the new software is that in order to get accurate club tracking detail (this would include head speed, angle of attack, and face angle at impact), a decal is required on the club itself. If the decal isn't present, well then...all bets for grabbing this data are off. I believe we're getting an upgrade at Tark's this week, so I'll have more to say about it after I've seen it for myself.

 

The other possibility is that this is simply a gross misread. They happen...and when they do it's usually very apparent (the numbers just don't make sense - which they clearly don't in this case).

[GolfSpy Tim]

Phana24JG - good catch.

 

All but one of the images you are seeing in this review were provided from the media link on aboutGolf's website.

 

I'll email my contact to check about the images and see if there was any reason for this data being the chosen data.

 

In the meantime, I will go back and mark which images are from where.

[Jgolf]

I see a couple of data points that make no sense. Are the published pics actual results? Pic 4 shows a drive with a -11.4* angle of attack. How the hell is that possible? That is hard to believe with a driver, and even more difficult to believe that such a swing that was inside-out by 5.6* with a closed face of 2* managed to provide only 211 rpm of sidespin, and a 1.44 smash factor. I would think this swing would be a low pull hook with a SM around 1.3. The second data point that is impossible is the wedge is pic 6. A 1.49 smash factor with a wedge????? Pros rarely hit DRIVERS with a 1.49 smash factor. I believe the max smash factor for a wedge is in the 1.2s.

 

 

Something similar happened to me recently when I swung a six iron. My club speed normally reads around 90 but for some reason it showed up as 354. A little bit off I think, admittedly it was on a different type of simulator, but the point stands that stuff like this happens on occasion and basically you just have to ignore it.

[GolfSpy WD]

Something similar happened to me recently when I swung a six iron. My club speed normally reads around 90 but for some reason it showed up as 354. A little bit off I think, admittedly it was on a different type of simulator, but the point stands that stuff like this happens on occasion and basically you just have to ignore it.

 

My son, who was 7 at the time, registered a 280 yard drive when we were taking lessons

[Tony Covey MGS]

My son, who was 7 at the time, registered a 280 yard drive when we were taking lessons

 

Just curious if you know what brand of simulator? Some are certainly better than others, but every system (including FlightScope and Trackman) have their quirks, and idiosyncrasies.

 

Or maybe your kid is just that good...

[GolfSpy WD]

Just curious if you know what brand of simulator? Some are certainly better than others, but every system (including FlightScope and Trackman) have their quirks, and idiosyncrasies.

 

Or maybe your kid is just that good...

 

It was an aboutGolf simulator. In fairness this only happened once during our 5 lesson package, but my son got a kick out it. His usual drives are 100-120.

[Phana24JG]

Good catch. I'll leave it to Tim to weigh in on the specifics...but if this was data from an actual shot, apart from a MAJOR flaw in the software (I haven't seen this version first hand yet), there are two possible explanations.

 

My understanding of the new software is that in order to get accurate club tracking detail (this would include head speed, angle of attack, and face angle at impact), a decal is required on the club itself. If the decal isn't present, well then...all bets for grabbing this data are off. I believe we're getting an upgrade at Tark's this week, so I'll have more to say about it after I've seen it for myself.

 

The other possibility is that this is simply a gross misread. They happen...and when they do it's usually very apparent (the numbers just don't make sense - which they clearly don't in this case).

 

My very limited experience with video-based launch monitors has not been good, although I have NOT been on the aboutGolf unit. I am no launch monitor expert, but having had the opportunity to be on Trackman and the FS X-2 on several occasions has me familiar with the data and allowed me to note the anomilies. I hope the aboutGolf unit is half as good as claimed, as it would be a quantum leap forward from what I have used, and anxiously await trying the unit at Tark's this spring. I am really tired of having to drive all the way down to Tappan NY when my swing deteriorates (which happened all too often this year).

 

Phana24JG - good catch.

 

All but one of the images you are seeing in this review were provided from the media link on aboutGolf's website.

 

I'll email my contact to check about the images and see if there was any reason for this data being the chosen data.

 

In the meantime, I will go back and mark which images are from where.

 

Tim, thanks for the clarification. I suspect what happened was that marketing people who have no idea about the physics of golf placed the best-looking pics on the media site.

[Tony Covey MGS]

My very limited experience with video-based launch monitors has not been good, although I have NOT been on the aboutGolf unit. I am no launch monitor expert, but having had the opportunity to be on Trackman and the FS X-2 on several occasions has me familiar with the data and allowed me to note the anomilies. I hope the aboutGolf unit is half as good as claimed, as it would be a quantum leap forward from what I have used, and anxiously await trying the unit at Tark's this spring. I am really tired of having to drive all the way down to Tappan NY when my swing deteriorates (which happened all too often this year).

 

Why wait until Spring? Tark's is open (and booming), and the beer flows all winter long. As I said, there are glitches with every unit, and thankfully with the AG units, they're pretty obvious.

 

I'm also working with AG on coming up with a more efficient way for me to pull data (we have to get everything into excel, and right now it's a largely manual process). The raw data that I get makes misreads even more apparent.

 

Using spin as an example....when you have 300 rows of data and 299 of them are between 6000 and 11000 RPMs and there's a single line with a value of -5543...well...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out something isn't quite right. Other benefits of working with the data in raw form are:

 

Confidence Value: For every shot registered, the software stores a confidence value. As the name suggests, that value reflects how confident the software is that it captured the shot correctly. There are separate values for both trajectory and spin. When dealing with the dirty raw data we can actually see what the confidence value is (incidentally, any AG user has access to the info, he just needs to know what buttons to push and when to push them). If the value isn't high enough, we'll toss the offending shot.

 

More Precise Numbers: The way we pull data now requires us to deal with values that are rounded to the nearest yard. Assuming we get things squared away, we'll be dealing with exact numbers, which while I don't assume will dramatically change the results, will provide a bit more detail than we have now.

 

The latest and greatest AG system is being installed at Tark's as I type this. I'm pulling a shift tomorrow night, which will give me my first opportunity to see the same version of the technology Tim saw. Unfortunately, we probably won't be using it for testing..unless AG helps us out.

 

 

[Phana24JG]

Why wait until Spring? Tark's is open (and booming), and the beer flows all winter long. As I said, there are glitches with every unit, and thankfully with the AG units, they're pretty obvious.

 

 

I would love to BUT, in a rather desperate attempt to avoid a laminectomy and possible related fusion, I am not allowed to touch a golf club until at least mid-March.

 

 

 

I'm also working with AG on coming up with a more efficient way for me to pull data (we have to get everything into excel, and right now it's a largely manual process). The raw data that I get makes misreads even more apparent.

 

Using spin as an example....when you have 300 rows of data and 299 of them are between 6000 and 11000 RPMs and there's a single line with a value of -5543...well...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out something isn't quite right. Other benefits of working with the data in raw form are:

 

Confidence Value: For every shot registered, the software stores a confidence value. As the name suggests, that value reflects how confident the software is that it captured the shot correctly. There are separate values for both trajectory and spin. When dealing with the dirty raw data we can actually see what the confidence value is (incidentally, any AG user has access to the info, he just needs to know what buttons to push and when to push them). If the value isn't high enough, we'll toss the offending shot.

 

More Precise Numbers: The way we pull data now requires us to deal with values that are rounded to the nearest yard. Assuming we get things squared away, we'll be dealing with exact numbers, which while I don't assume will dramatically change the results, will provide a bit more detail than we have now.

 

The latest and greatest AG system is being installed at Tark's as I type this. I'm pulling a shift tomorrow night, which will give me my first opportunity to see the same version of the technology Tim saw. Unfortunately, we probably won't be using it for testing..unless AG helps us out.

 

I appreciate the difficulty you are having honing the raw data. Unlike other systems, aboutGolf's primary business is simulators, so I assume the software for launch monitor purposes is not a priority for them.

[Tony Covey MGS]

I would love to BUT, in a rather desperate attempt to avoid a laminectomy and possible related fusion, I am not allowed to touch a golf club until at least mid-March.

 

I appreciate the difficulty you are having honing the raw data. Unlike other systems, aboutGolf's primary business is simulators, so I assume the software for launch monitor purposes is not a priority for them.

 

Sorry to hear you have to keep your hands off the clubs, but if you're in the area and stop by to check the place out, the first beer is on me.

 

 

As to the technology itself... Once upon a time that was how it was, but I don't think it's completely true anymore.

 

This is basically my interpretation of everything I've seen and heard over the last few years but... In the early years the AG simulators were basically extremely high end video game systems for people who have a lot more money than I do. These type of setups are still very apparent in some of the promotional shots. Really nice setups in really nice houses. Golf Channel-type setups in people's basements.

 

Over time the technology has evolved to a place where (again just my opinion here), it equals Trackman/FlightScope in some aspects, bests it in other, and yes, is still behind in others. In simplest terms, radar does some things better, cameras other. aboutGolf began to see interest from individuals looking to start indoor golf businesses, and sell golf clubs. While providing a realistic on-course experience was a concern for many of these operators, many were PGA professionals, and club fitters and builders who saw an opportunity to leverage the technology to improve their capabilities (Kent is reasonably unique in that he is basically all 3). This market is expanding rapidly, and as a result (yet again...just my opinion on what I've observed), aboutGolf's focus has shifted a bit. I think it's the demands of this new market that have led to major advancements in their fitting modules as well as improvements to the software itself.

 

The camera-based technology, like any relatively new technology, is advancing with every release, but the ultimate impact on the numbers, I believe is minimal (we're talking capturing more images, and boosting confidence numbers). The new systems allow for absolute measurement of club head speed and impact angle, which is an improvement for us, a nice tweak for fitters and teachers, but even that, believe it or not, doesn't change distance and accuracy results as those are all derived from measured values (launch angle, rifle spin, ball speed, etc.) Still...it's MEASURED data (as opposed to calculated) that I can't wait to have.

 

In many respects, AG is simultaneously serving two markets. Teaching professionals and fitters demand not only accuracy that rivals radar, but they also want a set of tools (like the fitting software, and force plate technology) that make their lives easier. Golfers simply want the most realistic experience possible. Where the markets overlap is in things like the (hopefully) forthcoming logo recognition technology (eliminating the need for special balls, or even specially marked balls). There's is some other wild stuff they're working on that will make the experience more fun for the recreational golfer, but I'm fairly certain that when we talk to them at the show, they're not going to be talking about new courses, the focus will be on the professional toolbox.

 

Whew...deep breath...but with all of that said, I don't think AG ever envisioned a scenario where some guy would need to pull complete data from 6 unique golfers hitting 6 different clubs, import it into excel and then be able to process it efficiently. I don't have anything concrete yet, but they're working with us, and open to expanding the relationship. Our bottom line is that we need to come up with something. It's time consuming with 6 golfers. Should we get to a point where we've got 10 or 20 guys testing each club, the current way of doing things won't be sustainable.

[GolfSpy Tim]

thanks for the input T!!!

[Phana24JG]

Sorry to hear you have to keep your hands off the clubs, but if you're in the area and stop by to check the place out, the first beer is on me.

 

 

As to the technology itself... Once upon a time that was how it was, but I don't think it's completely true anymore.

 

This is basically my interpretation of everything I've seen and heard over the last few years but... In the early years the AG simulators were basically extremely high end video game systems for people who have a lot more money than I do. These type of setups are still very apparent in some of the promotional shots. Really nice setups in really nice houses. Golf Channel-type setups in people's basements.

 

Over time the technology has evolved to a place where (again just my opinion here), it equals Trackman/FlightScope in some aspects, bests it in other, and yes, is still behind in others. In simplest terms, radar does some things better, cameras other. aboutGolf began to see interest from individuals looking to start indoor golf businesses, and sell golf clubs. While providing a realistic on-course experience was a concern for many of these operators, many were PGA professionals, and club fitters and builders who saw an opportunity to leverage the technology to improve their capabilities (Kent is reasonably unique in that he is basically all 3). This market is expanding rapidly, and as a result (yet again...just my opinion on what I've observed), aboutGolf's focus has shifted a bit. I think it's the demands of this new market that have led to major advancements in their fitting modules as well as improvements to the software itself.

 

The camera-based technology, like any relatively new technology, is advancing with every release, but the ultimate impact on the numbers, I believe is minimal (we're talking capturing more images, and boosting confidence numbers). The new systems allow for absolute measurement of club head speed and impact angle, which is an improvement for us, a nice tweak for fitters and teachers, but even that, believe it or not, doesn't change distance and accuracy results as those are all derived from measured values (launch angle, rifle spin, ball speed, etc.) Still...it's MEASURED data (as opposed to calculated) that I can't wait to have.

 

In many respects, AG is simultaneously serving two markets. Teaching professionals and fitters demand not only accuracy that rivals radar, but they also want a set of tools (like the fitting software, and force plate technology) that make their lives easier. Golfers simply want the most realistic experience possible. Where the markets overlap is in things like the (hopefully) forthcoming logo recognition technology (eliminating the need for special balls, or even specially marked balls). There's is some other wild stuff they're working on that will make the experience more fun for the recreational golfer, but I'm fairly certain that when we talk to them at the show, they're not going to be talking about new courses, the focus will be on the professional toolbox.

 

Whew...deep breath...but with all of that said, I don't think AG ever envisioned a scenario where some guy would need to pull complete data from 6 unique golfers hitting 6 different clubs, import it into excel and then be able to process it efficiently. I don't have anything concrete yet, but they're working with us, and open to expanding the relationship. Our bottom line is that we need to come up with something. It's time consuming with 6 golfers. Should we get to a point where we've got 10 or 20 guys testing each club, the current way of doing things won't be sustainable.

 

Thanks for the info T. I will let you when I will be in the 'Toga area as I am anxious just to see Tark's. I was interested in the K-Vest (it was an AMM lesson that suggested my back was deteriorated to the point of affecting my swing) so I was planning a trip anyway), but am hesitant to just wander in. It is sort of like inviting an alcoholic to a brewery or a drug addict to the Pfizer R&D lab

 

The launch monitor issue is getting insane. If anyone really wants to get into this I will gladly PM a couple of places to get into a good flaming war, but I doubt most MSGers care about that crap. I believe the radar units have the advantage measuring the ball, but as you so eloquently discuss, the camera units (assuming they have properly dealt with parallax) have an advantage measuring the club. In any event, I get the sense that the difference between the units is beyond my skill level, so you have certainly convinced me that there is an excellent my trips to Tappan will (almost) be a thing of the past.

 

This topic is a perfect example of why MGS is the best. Questionable data was brought to your attention, and it was responded to with intelligent and cogent discussion. There is no blowhard asserting HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, just factual discussion very relevant to the average (and not-so-average) golfer who is looking for the best and most cost-efficient method to improve. As soon as we have that down payment on the house in the Third World out of the way, I can increase my contribution.

[GolfSpy Tim]

Totally agree, I love that about MGS, I get tired of forums where it's all flame war or nothing.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Thanks for the info T. I will let you when I will be in the 'Toga area as I am anxious just to see Tark's. I was interested in the K-Vest (it was an AMM lesson that suggested my back was deteriorated to the point of affecting my swing) so I was planning a trip anyway), but am hesitant to just wander in. It is sort of like inviting an alcoholic to a brewery or a drug addict to the Pfizer R&D lab

 

The launch monitor issue is getting insane. If anyone really wants to get into this I will gladly PM a couple of places to get into a good flaming war, but I doubt most MSGers care about that crap. I believe the radar units have the advantage measuring the ball, but as you so eloquently discuss, the camera units (assuming they have properly dealt with parallax) have an advantage measuring the club. In any event, I get the sense that the difference between the units is beyond my skill level, so you have certainly convinced me that there is an excellent my trips to Tappan will (almost) be a thing of the past.

 

This topic is a perfect example of why MGS is the best. Questionable data was brought to your attention, and it was responded to with intelligent and cogent discussion. There is no blowhard asserting HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, just factual discussion very relevant to the average (and not-so-average) golfer who is looking for the best and most cost-efficient method to improve. As soon as we have that down payment on the house in the Third World out of the way, I can increase my contribution.

 

I have some great info on this topic that I'm back-pocketing for another day, but when getting into the meat of the radar vs. modern camera systems, simply put, they work a bit differently but ultimately arrive at similar (near identical results). Painting with a very broad brush...radar-based calculations take the end result (distance and flight path) and work back to impact. Camera systems start at impact and work out to distance. Along the we each system has data points that are absolutely measured, and other bits that are calculated based on the known info. There is a fair amount of overlap in the calculated data for both types of systems.

 

With respect to spin, camera systems have the ability to read the markings on the ball (and hopefully one day soon, the logos) and calculate with precision the actual rifle spin (which gets presented as the combo of back and side spin). One advantage of sorts to camera-based systems and spin calculations is that if there is any doubt, the images taken by the camera can be saved off for manual calculation/analysis. That's not to say misreads (low confidence) don't happen, but if you're in a situation where the data is super-important (and for most of us it well never be), cameras give you the option 100% validation of certain aspects of the ball flight.

 

To your other point. We think it's always important to remain open to alternative viewpoints. There have also been times when we've flat out gotten something wrong (I botched the percentile improvements in the Shotmaker labs article). When that happens, we're quick to admit the mistake and make the changes. It's my belief that we'll ultimately be more successful by ensuring that we get it right, instead of always insisting that we are right.

 

 

 

 

[well01]

I see a couple of data points that make no sense. Are the published pics actual results? Pic 4 shows a drive with a -11.4* angle of attack. How the hell is that possible? That is hard to believe with a driver, and even more difficult to believe that such a swing that was inside-out by 5.6* with a closed face of 2* managed to provide only 211 rpm of sidespin, and a 1.44 smash factor. I would think this swing would be a low pull hook with a SM around 1.3. The second data point that is impossible is the wedge is pic 6. A 1.49 smash factor with a wedge????? Pros rarely hit DRIVERS with a 1.49 smash factor. I believe the max smash factor for a wedge is in the 1.2s.

 

What about pic 2? Is it possible to have ball speed of 156 from a club head speed of 89? Doesn't seem like these are actual results.

[Phana24JG]

What about pic 2? Is it possible to have ball speed of 156 from a club head speed of 89? Doesn't seem like these are actual results.

 

Another good observation Well. A smash factor of 1.75 cannot even be achieved with an illegal driver, illegal ball, and no-slice or some other dopant applied to the club; you would have to repeal at least two laws of thermodynamics to get that kind of result. I suspect these are anomalies that marketing people placed on the website simply because they looked visually appealing. Another example can be found in Pic 4 where a wedge approach shot has a smash factor of 1.49. This is simply impossible. As Spy T discussed, when properly calibrated and run by someone who knows what they are doing, you will not see numbers like these.

 

If you look at the various websites for both manufacturers and users of camera-based versus radar-based units, you will find a natural bias and often silly claims of "measured versus calculated" results. Hell, EVERY data point is "calculated." Regardless of whether you are comparing two picture frames or two adsorbtion points, the issue is the change of position in a given time frame. Even a 10,000fps camera that could theoretically display a clubface angle needs software to correct for parallax, so the "pure measurement" is still a frigging calculation.

 

This discussion began as a quality of indoor golf. We are now into the issue of how valuable this system is for practice/lessons/fillings. I would say for 99.99% of the people reading this blog, the difference between the accuracy of a Trackman/Flightscope and aboutGolf is so insignificant compared to the person who is conducting the fitting or interpreting the data for lesson/practices that it is not worth discussing. For my money, nothing can compare to an outdoor lesson with a Tman/FScope. However, such a lesson in a typical Northeast winter would be rather silly. If you can achieve 95% (or even 90) indoors prior to the golf season, it is a great investment.

[GolfSpy WD]

What about pic 2? Is it possible to have ball speed of 156 from a club head speed of 89? Doesn't seem like these are actual results.

 

I really dislike when pictures like this are shown, as Phana24JG said, these numbers are not possible. I think Bubba is able to get a smash factor of 1.552, which is incredible (source http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php).

 

From my experience with simulators, I think the problem comes down to lighting conditions and sometimes the color of the driver, for example white drivers are sometimes confused as the ball. That said, they are incredibly useful tool and will get very close to your actual numbers. When using them, the most important thing to look at is relative data, i.e. how is your driver distance relative to your 3wood, 5 iron, etc...

 

Use a laser on the course to get your real distance numbers. As for other numbers, IMO the simulators are more than good enough.

[Phana24JG]

I really dislike when pictures like this are shown, as Phana24JG said, these numbers are not possible. I think Bubba is able to get a smash factor of 1.552, which is incredible (source http://www.rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/golf-launch-monitor.php).............

Use a laser on the course to get your real distance numbers. As for other numbers, IMO the simulators are more than good enough.

 

Actually, 1.5 is the theoretical max smash factor, but allowing for inherent accuracy, 1.52 is achieveable assuming a realistic swing (i.e. no + 11* AofA with a 4* driver) for normal driving as compared to what you MIGHT see at an LDA event. Whenever you see Tman or the X-2 report over 1.52, the unit goofed. Bubba gets his distance from clubhead speed. Since most PGAers place accuracy at or above distance, and are very careful to avoid drivers with a COR exceeding .83 (remember, .834 passes and there is some variance in the manufacturing procedure), you rarely see anyone exceed 1.49 to 1.50. Here is the 2012 data from the PGA tour:

 

My link Note: the data has not yet been sanitized to get rid of clear misreads. If you click to 2011 data, you get a better reading as to actual numbers.

[Phana24JG]

Well, I had my first opportunity to get on the aboutGolf simulator at Tark's yesterday. By a wide margin, this was easily the best indoor launch monitor I have used. This was used as part of a lesson, so I didn't see any of the golf course functions, but strictly as a launch monitor, it is as close to Trackman and Flightscope X-2 as I have seen. The only drawback I had with the unit was it had a tendency to report thin irons better than I suspect they actually traveled.

 

Overall, the unit gets wonderful grades. Unlike other camera-based systems I have used, mishits accurately reported and even when I thought a shot was well-executed, and I questioned the aboutGolf numbers, the video demonstrated that the aboutGolf was right and I was wr....wro.......damn, I just can't type that word. From the wedge to the driver, the unit gave excellent feedback, and the numbers were very similar to what I had seen on Tman and FS. Of course, the fact that I working with a knowledgeable and friendly instructor made the situation even better, but I am now sold on the aboutGolf unit.

 

Of course, nothing beats hitting balls outdoors with a good LM, but since we are talking indoor golf, this is as good as it gets to date. Golf Spy T is not bsing when he raves about the aboutGolf unit. I still have a big preference for the way Tman and FS present the data, but I suspect in a software upgrade or two, that will disappear.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Well, I had my first opportunity to get on the aboutGolf simulator at Tark's yesterday. By a wide margin, this was easily the best indoor launch monitor I have used. This was used as part of a lesson, so I didn't see any of the golf course functions, but strictly as a launch monitor, it is as close to Trackman and Flightscope X-2 as I have seen. The only drawback I had with the unit was it had a tendency to report thin irons better than I suspect they actually traveled.

 

Overall, the unit gets wonderful grades. Unlike other camera-based systems I have used, mishits accurately reported and even when I thought a shot was well-executed, and I questioned the aboutGolf numbers, the video demonstrated that the aboutGolf was right and I was wr....wro.......damn, I just can't type that word. From the wedge to the driver, the unit gave excellent feedback, and the numbers were very similar to what I had seen on Tman and FS. Of course, the fact that I working with a knowledgeable and friendly instructor made the situation even better, but I am now sold on the aboutGolf unit.

 

Of course, nothing beats hitting balls outdoors with a good LM, but since we are talking indoor golf, this is as good as it gets to date. Golf Spy T is not bsing when he raves about the aboutGolf unit. I still have a big preference for the way Tman and FS present the data, but I suspect in a software upgrade or two, that will disappear.

 

That's what I've been saying...

 

I had planned on stopping in yesterday to say hi, but as is too often the case, I got caught up with some stuff around here (processing data from some club testing).

 

I'm still getting familiar with the unit you had your lesson on. I haven't spent a ton of time with it (and the updated software yet), nor do we test on that particular sim. Ideally we'd get everything upgraded to the ISU version, but we've got some negotiating to do first. The software is a bit more polished than previous versions though the graphics could be tidied up, and I'd like to see more stuff around dispersion patterns (it may be baked into one of their fitting packages, I just haven't seen it yet).

 

It's funny, when i finally picked up on the pattern of my driver testing producing low launch and high spin, I actually started to doubt the unit. When Trackman gave me the same type numbers at the Kingdom, and again at PGA show demo day, and I started to realize that it wasn't a problem with the launch monitor. After bouncing something off Josh at the NY Golf Center and hearing his response, I finally realized the problem must be with me, so I took a closer look. Turns out I had too much forward slide, which caused a delofting the club face, and I was starting the ball left of center t'boot. All recipes for low launch, and with even a slightly open face, high spin. Point is, the launch monitor had it right all along (stupid thing).

 

As far as how the data is presented, there are actually a few different options for how things get shown. I'm guessing Kent had you on the default view (the one that would show club path data if the tracking stickers were being used). There's a straighforward table view I prefer to use when I'm actually working on my golf swing (or more to the point, trying to achieve specific results like a 12.5+ degree launch angle, and a ball that starts right of center). There are also menu screens that allow you to grab averages from a selection of shots...and again, the fitting module might give even better info.

 

There is also a camera view (one I believe Kent doesn't use often) that gives you a much better idea of trajectory and ball flight (the next best thing to being outdoors). We don't use it often when testing irons (it's more important to have a closer look at proximity to the pin), but I do use it often for testing drivers and to take a closer look at what you might call "trajectory issues" (potential ballooning) with irons.

 

We have the base software package at Tark's so I don't know what the updated fitting modules offer in terms of improvement. Obviously from a fitters perspective it would be nice to compare shots from two different clubs side by side. And really, what applies to a fitter applies to me as well. I don't do comprehensive work with the stuff we get (most of it is stock anyway), but often our testers fluctuate between a 9.5 and 10.5 driver, or a stiff to x-stiff shaft depending on the club itself. It would be nice to quickly isolate which club produces the best results and then test with that. Right now, we do quick math and get on with it. I'd also like to see angle of decent added as a data point (though some of the fitters I know can basically calculate it on the fly).

 

One other note, we've always produced smash factors measurably less than what they should be. My assumption has always been that the clubhead speed calculations were off by 5 MPH give or take. When I checked with the new balls (Cally Tour iz - I have them, Kent doesn't yet) we saw an immediate increase in ball speed and consequently smash factor. Swing speed numbers may still be slightly hot, but nothing like I had original thought they might be.

 

There's definitely some room for improvement, but the biggest issues I see aren't with the accuracy of the unit, they're mostly around data (adding things like angle of decent, improving the presentation, and from my perspective, simplifying the process of pulling and processing said data).

[GolfSpy Tim]

So.... what we're all saying is, we should start playing the lottery as a team, and first to win agrees to buy everyone else their own AboutGolf Sim for at home!!!

[Phana24JG]

So.... what we're all saying is, we should start playing the lottery as a team, and first to win agrees to buy everyone else their own AboutGolf Sim for at home!!!

 

Yeah, first 50Gs gets one, 70 if you want the best. Makes a 25K Trackman look like a bargain and a 12K Flighscope chump change. Now if I were to use my wife's logic when shopping I could say, hey honey, I just bought a Flightscope X-2 and saved $38,000!!!! However, my lawyer buddy says that would not be a good defense in the divorce proceedings.

[Phana24JG]

That's what I've been saying...

 

One other note, we've always produced smash factors measurably less than what they should be. My assumption has always been that the clubhead speed calculations were off by 5 MPH give or take. When I checked with the new balls (Cally Tour iz - I have them, Kent doesn't yet) we saw an immediate increase in ball speed and consequently smash factor. Swing speed numbers may still be slightly hot, but nothing like I had original thought they might be.

 

There's definitely some room for improvement, but the biggest issues I see aren't with the accuracy of the unit, they're mostly around data (adding things like angle of decent, improving the presentation, and from my perspective, simplifying the process of pulling and processing said data).

 

So I can stop patting myself on the back for the 110-114 driver speed? I thought that was a little high for only my third time hitting full shots, but it did seems to nail my wedge and 8-irons speeds correctly. The larger head might give the software some additional problems computing the SS.

 

My guess is AG was spending most of their time working on the camera issues and the software for getting the various measurements we care about and data presentation was secondary. Makes sense from a sales perspective, as a premium-priced product, the accuracy and reliability is far more important than pretty pictures and presentations. In addition, Tman and FS have had several years to modify their software, I get idea this level of sophistication is relatively new in camera units.

 

The point is we are now discussing minutia and the issue is can you get a useful lesson/practice session on an indoor launch monitor? I was somewhat dubious, but as a Tman/FS fan I can now say with certainty the answer is yes. The AG unit might be a tad hyped, but it delivers solid results in the same class as any radar monitor.