The FSX software wasn’t able to replicate Stimp 10 since it can never see the actual rolled distance whereas Trackman nailed it by within 0.1ft in actual putted distance. Ball speed was extremely close and skid distance seemed to get closer in recent firmware. While their numbers are different and their measurements are not apples to apples, Capto was still able to output a toe shot where seemed interesting despite the fact that Capto has no way of knowing where the ball was hit on a club.Īll in all, TM4 and GCQ behaved how I measured previously. Horizontal Face Impact (GCQ/Capto): GCQ represents a millimeter in distance from the center whereas Capto shows as a %.
I have a loft/lie spec gauge so this was measured properly. Capto’s measurement is based on its initial loft measurement that you input in the program. Loft (GCQ/Capto): GCQ had a way higher loft at 6.1 deg which aligns with normal club measurements where GCQ seems to over-exaggerate loft in various clubs. However, TM4 and Capto had very similar measurements.ĭynamic Lie, Face Angle, and Loft at address (Capto/Blast): both devices had variability in about half a degree to degree difference in all 3 measurements. They were all very close.Ĭlub Path (TM4/GCQ/Capto): Similar to TM4 vs GCQ club path measurement, GCQ had a more open club path about 1 deg. In terms of consistency, GCQ had the most volatile lie measurement.Īttack Angle (TM4/GCQ/Capto): All were within -0.4~-0.6 deg with deviations in 0.4~0.6 deg. However, the deviations were larger on TM4/Blast than Capto.ĭynamic Lie (TM4/GCQ/Capto): Interesting finding was that GCQ had the most deviations at 3.1 deg and averaging -7.3 deg, whereas TM4 and Capto had -3.8 and -4.7 deg respectively, with deviations being similar within a degree. Stroke Length (TM4/Capto/Blast): Blast had the shortest length at 10.5 on average, whereas TM4 and Capto had 11.3. Overall, all were within 0.03sec within each other in both back and forward swing. For Forwardswing, TM4 and Capto were nearly identical whereas Capto was 0.03sec longer. However, overall GCQ seemed like it would need to adjust the Stimp rating within FSX2020 a bit faster at around 11, and Capto a bit shorter at around 8.Ĭlub Speed (TM4/GCQ/Capto/Blast): TM4/Capto/Blast were within 0.1mph of each other, whereas Quad was consistently faster at 0.3mph.īackswing/Forwardswing Time & Temp (TM4/Capto/Blast): For the backswing, TM4/Capto/Blast were within 0.03sec within each other, with TM4 and Capto being nearly identical. Capto had 2 options (distance putted based on a speed-based distance graph, which is 4.1mph = 10ft vs distance with energy loss implemented) and I used distance with energy loss implemented. Trackman 4 was on point with 9.3ft, GCQ at 8.2ft, and Capto at 10.9ft. Skid Distance (TM4/Quad): Quad seemed to have about 2 inches longer or TM4 2 inches shorter.ĭistance putted in-app (TM4/Quad/Capto) vs Real putted distance: Avg for real distance putted was 9.3ft. For putting that was about 0.5-1ft difference. Capto’s calculated speed was also consistent but slightly less by 0.2mph. Ball Speed is always derived from Club speed x 1.635).īall Speed (TM4/Quad/Capto): TM4/Quad as before were nearly identical.
#CAPTO PUTTING SYSTEM PRO#
I’ve already compared Trackman 4 vs GCQuad vs GC2 in putting previously at
0 kommentar(er)
