Lmao I was thinking the same thing

@@dustink2323 the fact that it is a radar unit would account for that. Otherwise indoors it is just looking up values based on some measured data

@@Brandon-youtube The radar unit may be accounting correctly for the lower launch angle. My understanding is that the spin numbers are way off (very high) with clubs that launch lower. The unit isn't reading the spin, therefore; it is causing the total yardage to be significantly off.

🤣

No the yardages are consistently short , it's like the new full swing KIT launch monitor which is 4k not $600 . They simply are just not very good unfortunately , if you are looking for accuracy which I think everyone should be then get a Bushnell launch pro ($2999.99) it's alot more obviously but zero comparison in accuracy

i think it being in the rough is what is subtracting the 10% of the "recorded shot' because hitting out of the rough does cause less distance...depending on the lie of course

i think it being in the rough is what is subtracting the 10% of the "recorded shot' because hitting out of the rough does cause less distance...depending on the lie of course

Completely agree, would have been nice to see the deviation between the two

Please do new test with flightscope on I am sure I am not the only one who wants to see how accurate it is or was it Garmin the told you to switch It Off

I agree. The comparisons I've seen have made the garmin look very disappointing and almost useless tbh. I know for the price it's not going to be as accurate as the top of the range monitors but you want numbers and directions you can trust if you're going to use it to improve

You can’t directly compare them side to side as they both use Doppler technology meaning that the waves would interfere with one another .

I will jump in with everyone else and say I'd like to see a comparison.

Image showed driver when stats were reviewed with iron shots

It does. I have one for myself and if you’re hitting a 58° when having “D” on, it says like 150 yards when it’s actually going 60 yards

i noticed this too.... surprised he didnt

i have one - and i can say. Indoors it reads short. Outdoors I tested against a GC2 - carry numbers were the same within 1 or 2 yards

@@coreymoore01 what about club head data inside?

@@remyd1984 GC2 doesnt read club head data. So I havent been able to compare that yet. If i were to make an educated guess.. path and angle of attack is relatively close but face angle at impact and sidespin are probably still a work in progress. Reason i say that is because it tends to have trouble picking up a draw and instead it reads as a slight push, may have some trouble reading the closure/release of the club head through impact. But - firmware updates as they collect data from users and feedback i am sure they will be able to improve the algorithm that calculates the club head data. IMO its going to be pretty exciting to see how well garmin can improve the unit with the data they collect.

R10

@@coreymoore01 I was planning on selling my R10 and saving up for a skytrak after hearing about inaccurate readings and how short it plays inside especially w longer clubs. Plus skytrak you can play TGC on. Do you really think garmin can improve the unit that dramatically ?

So you’re willing to pay $600 for something that isn’t accurate with the hopes that “maybe” a firmware will make it more accurate? I’ll wait for the firmware update before I consider purchasing…

@@petegalindez9961 well I can already tell you there’s a new update which has improved accuracy greatly for me. 530 quid for a launch monitor which I have already spent 50 hours in since release. Hard to beat for value really. If you’re not happy with the accuracy there is a more accurate device called a GCquad priced at 15k+

@@rhysbrown4858 That’s great news if they were able to improve the accuracy! 530 quid (or about $600 USD) is a great price if the data coming out of it is consistent and predictable. For example, I have a $250 PRGR that gives fairly spot on numbers for swing speed, ball speed, smash factor, and carry distance. It’s the club data I’m more interested in. So far, the reviews I’ve watched, the club data is not accurate at all. I’ve seen multiple instances where club path is off by huge numbers, or says the swing was from the inside when it was from the outside (compared side by side with a Trackman). That wouldn’t help someone like me who is working on swing path, face to path, AOA, etc. If they can’t produce consistent numbers (not necessarily 100% accurate), then it could be useful. For example, if the numbers are within 5% or something like that, whereas the GC Quad and Trackman are spot on or within 1%, then I think it might be worth it, but still pushing it. If it’s giving a 10% margin of error…that could be a drive that goes 250 reading out as 225 or 275! That’s meaningless. 5% would be 238-262…better and more useful, but pretty much on the outer boundary for anyone who is a serious golfer trying to dial in gaps. When you are dealing with your irons, that 10% is even a bigger deal…if you hit a 7 iron 150, you could get a reading of 145-165. How could you properly gap your clubs with that kind of data? You can’t. Even 5% is pushing it…giving you 142-158…That said, it appears the r10 gives fairly accurate ball data, which is great. But, if you are taking it to the next level, the club data numbers don’t seem to be as accurate as the ball data at this moment from what I’ve seen…I still might get one as the ball numbers are useful, and with fall/winter approaching, the indoor capabilities of hitting on a range seem like a nice idea…I’m not much of a sim player, but may have to these days. Had both hips replaced in the last 10 years, so playing in sub 50 degree (F) is not in the cards anymore…I’m testing out the Mevo right now. The ball numbers seem to be spot on, but it’s almost the same price as the R10, so at this point, I’m leaning R10…

@@petegalindez9961 Pete thanks for this post. Any updates on your journey to finding one with accurate enough stats to your liking?

@@interference7480 Nope. I gave up. In the end, I was spending more time at the range trying to make sure the units were aligned properly and trying to figure out the wayward readings than actually just enjoying the range session. Decided to go old school and just rely on what I see! Crazy…

Hey Tyler was it worth the purchase? Considering buying one now

@@backflipsaresweet I love it. I use it mostly indoors, but it's been great for me over the winter here in Canada. Is it _as good_ as the higher end simulators? No, but it's pretty darn good.

Wouldn’t be surprised if Garmin has some language in rights of use and all the reviewers to not do comparisons - haven’t found anyone that has done a comparison.

Type A people don’t ask for silly handouts online.