Arccos vs Shot Scope V3

[badgergolf]

Before I start tracking my stats I want to make sure I am using the best platform to do so. 

I have seen both good and bad for both options but it seems they are the two leaders in the space and want to see what people rate as the number one. 
From what I have seen Arccos used to have a much cleaner and better software side however, now they are much the same with maybe Arccos having a little edge with a couple extra metrics with Strokes Gained via Specific Club and the ‘plays like’ measurement on the GPS. 

What I have seen most issues regarding is around putting and what is the best for pin placement and not missing putts. 

I have just got the V3 (unopened & returnable) as a gift but also got the Apple Watch Ultra which will be more then enough to now run Arccos without the battery drain issues…..obviously Arccos has the subscription fee but that’s fine if it performs better. I have the Arccos trackers from having Ping clubs (unsure if they are the newest iteration and if their is any advantage with the newest Arccos trackers opposed to mine which were received probably 5months ago). So do I return the shot scope or is it much better then Arccos and do I use that for my tracking. 

I want to here everyone’s experiences and anyone that has used both is a bonus! 

[badgergolf]

Also adding I have a Garmin Z82 so the GPS aspect isn’t as important to me as the actual tracking. It’s just a nIce little ease of use having the numbers on the wrist especially with Arccos being the plays like in practise but I can get those numbers using the Garmin when needed and more exact. 

[cnosil]

The first thing you should identify is what capabilities and features do you want in the product.  I use shotscope and say it is far superior because it doesn’t have a subscription fee as that is a non starter.  But until we understand what matters to you, an assessment is impossible.  

[badgergolf]

22 minutes ago, cnosil said:

The first thing you should identify is what capabilities and features do you want in the product.  I use shotscope and say it is far superior because it doesn’t have a subscription fee as that is a non starter.  But until we understand what matters to you, an assessment is impossible.  

Thought I had included all that info in the original post. 

subscription fee doesn’t matter to me if Arccos performs better I will pay the fee not worried about costs.

Like most I’d be looking for a tracker with the most data points, most reliable tracking (least amount of shots dropped), least amount of user input needed, most reliable on the green (seems to be the one thing that separates the two for most people) 
 

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, badgergolf said:

Like most I’d be looking for a tracker with the most data points, most reliable tracking (least amount of shots dropped), least amount of user input needed, most reliable on the green (seems to be the one thing that separates the two for most people) 
 

To me statements like more data points doesn’t  really mean much.  They can be different and one provides you more data you are interested in or more data points but fewer things you are interested in knowing.   what specially do you want to know? Probably best to just read the sites and see what data is provided and meaningful to you.  The H4 provides everything I need to know.  I don’t want the extra input on the course, it is simply something I want to deal with post round.  While it doesn’t give me stokes gained on a club by club basis, I can easily see which clubs have poorer performance.  

with shotscope, you will need to sync and edit every round post playing.  You edit the round to adjust positions of shots, ensure all shots are captured, and just add the data to your performance data.  On the course the shotscope V3 issues is that it may register extra shots due to proximity of the tag to the watch especially if carrying the club in that hand.   The H4 requires you to physically tag the club so it has a different interface.   

due to GPS accuracy, as you get closer to the green, the distance variations appear to be worse, simply because what you mark as 3 feet may register as 9 feet or in a completely different location.   Also, the tagging feature tries to avoid registering duplicate shots which becomes more difficult on the green since successive shots are closer together.  

the biggest issue I have with shotscope is the no course within 1km message.  This is apparently due to not all courses actually being loaded onto the device even though the App indicates they are.   You will not know this is an issue until you are at the course. It will require you to contact support to get it resolved. 

The shotscope provided all the data points I was interested in and it had no ongoing subscription fee. The subscription fee would be the immediate eliminator for me.  

 

[fozcycle]

On 10/20/2022 at 12:52 PM, badgergolf said:

Before I start tracking my stats I want to make sure I am using the best platform to do so. 

I have seen both good and bad for both options but it seems they are the two leaders in the space and want to see what people rate as the number one. 
From what I have seen Arccos used to have a much cleaner and better software side however, now they are much the same with maybe Arccos having a little edge with a couple extra metrics with Strokes Gained via Specific Club and the ‘plays like’ measurement on the GPS. 

What I have seen most issues regarding is around putting and what is the best for pin placement and not missing putts. 

I have just got the V3 (unopened & returnable) as a gift but also got the Apple Watch Ultra which will be more then enough to now run Arccos without the battery drain issues…..obviously Arccos has the subscription fee but that’s fine if it performs better. I have the Arccos trackers from having Ping clubs (unsure if they are the newest iteration and if their is any advantage with the newest Arccos trackers opposed to mine which were received probably 5months ago). So do I return the shot scope or is it much better then Arccos and do I use that for my tracking. 

I want to here everyone’s experiences and anyone that has used both is a bonus! 

I used Arccos on Cobra King F8’s in the Cobra Challenge a few years ago. My prob was the app would lock up on my Apple Watch. I got tired of reporting the issue and getting no results. So I switched to SSv2, then SSV3.  Love my SS!

[badgergolf]

A lot advocating towards ShotScope not much love for Arccos at the moment, I’m sure we have many users in the forum be good to hear some more feedback. 

[ncwoz]

As my phone has gotten older I've been seeing some buggyness with Arccos, but I'm almost certain that's because of my phone.

It seems there's some dissatisfaction with Arccos amongst members here, but I've had almost no negative experiences. They have added to their data available to review and the interface to view it, which I've appreciated.

I've had the system for about 3 years now, most of the sensors I have no issues with at all, there may be 1 or 2 that might need to get replaced soon because they miss a shot every now and again. Not enough for me to be worried about it yet though.

[KC Golf]

As a 2021 Tester of Arccos, I am sticking with Arccos.

I play with the Link and an IPhone.  It works great.  I sometimes miss a green side wedge shots (not tracking) but my putts are pretty good in terms of tracking.

I will pay the subscription fee for the robust data.

 

[MaxEntropy]

On 10/23/2022 at 12:30 PM, badgergolf said:

A lot advocating towards ShotScope not much love for Arccos at the moment, I’m sure we have many users in the forum be good to hear some more feedback. 

I've used both, sort of. I was a SS V2 user and switched to Arccos over 3 years ago as their dashboard was superior at the time, imo. Except for putting stats - SS made it much easier to test a different putter and get separate data for it. Shotscope has improved its dashboard, as I understand it, and Arccos has gone to the subscription model. I am grandfathered without a subscription, so when my sensors die, I will not replace them - I hate subscriptions. I have had very good luck with Arccos. Other than putts, I can probably count the number of missed shots on one hand. I think the putter sensor struggles with soft-faced putters, so I took it off and just log my putts manually as well as I can. Even when the sensor did pick up putts, the supposed "AI" was terrible at predicting the hole location, so that needed to be fixed, making adding putts not that big of a deal.

I also LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the "plays like" distance in Arccos. It has been very helpful to try to pick a club on windy days and/or hilly courses. As far as I can tell, it has only been really wrong for me a couple times, but we had swirling winds that day and maybe does not refresh the weather often enough?

There was actually a thread a couple years ago that compared/contrasted SS and Arccos. It was started by me if you feel like trying to go down that rabbit hole to find it, especially with forum reorgs, who knows which subforum it might be in.

[badgergolf]

17 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

I've used both, sort of. I was a SS V2 user and switched to Arccos over 3 years ago as their dashboard was superior at the time, imo. Except for putting stats - SS made it much easier to test a different putter and get separate data for it. Shotscope has improved its dashboard, as I understand it, and Arccos has gone to the subscription model. I am grandfathered without a subscription, so when my sensors die, I will not replace them - I hate subscriptions. I have had very good luck with Arccos. Other than putts, I can probably count the number of missed shots on one hand. I think the putter sensor struggles with soft-faced putters, so I took it off and just log my putts manually as well as I can. Even when the sensor did pick up putts, the supposed "AI" was terrible at predicting the hole location, so that needed to be fixed, making adding putts not that big of a deal.

I also LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the "plays like" distance in Arccos. It has been very helpful to try to pick a club on windy days and/or hilly courses. As far as I can tell, it has only been really wrong for me a couple times, but we had swirling winds that day and maybe does not refresh the weather often enough?

There was actually a thread a couple years ago that compared/contrasted SS and Arccos. It was started by me if you feel like trying to go down that rabbit hole to find it, especially with forum reorgs, who knows which subforum it might be in.

Thanks for the input. Any idea what you called the thread as I will try find it and give it a read. 

[MaxEntropy]

1 hour ago, badgergolf said:

Thanks for the input. Any idea what you called the thread as I will try find it and give it a read. 

I was just getting ready to go into a meeting when I replied. I managed to find the thread pretty quickly. Some of the info is outdated since SS has updated their dashboard and the V3 watch is smaller with better battery life.

 

[badgergolf]

33 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

I was just getting ready to go into a meeting when I replied. I managed to find the thread pretty quickly. Some of the info is outdated since SS has updated their dashboard and the V3 watch is smaller with better battery life.

 

Amazing, Thank you for that link I will give it a read. 

I need to learn how to link things like that as well rather than just text. 

 

[MaxEntropy]

1 hour ago, badgergolf said:

I need to learn how to link things like that as well rather than just text.

The forum software does it automatically. I don't think it requires any special options turned on to do it.

[BMart519]

The putting data on SS is more accurate especially if you set it to manual collection. This accuracy then improves your approach and short game proximity data. The dashboard shows more statistics than Arccos in my opinion and sensors never need replacement. It is nice to have a watch if you are travelling internationally and don't want to use your phone. If you are against watches, then SS is probably not a choice or you want to use your phone all the time for overhead images.