Just got my R50 today and have some issues with ball flight and carry algorithm.

2833871 25 days ago

So here’s a few examples compared to the flight scope shot analysis website which is considered very accurate IMO.

the ball flight here shows a push fade and it’s clearly a push draw and shows as much on the flight scope photo.

Another one where the carry should be around 180-183 and it’s 165 ish yards. From a fairway at sea level and flat so no penalties and no uphill to knock the distance down .

what’s the deal here? Just a terrible algorithm from Garmin or an issue with alignment or what? I still have my Uneekor QED and have to decide what to do with the R50 in a short amount of time.

also this is just with ball data mode on no club data. I just got the machine this afternoon and wanted to hit some balls quick and check out some features.

Top Replies

3002021 21 days ago in reply to Garmin - AL +1

I ran my Uneekor and Garmin R50 at the same time today for the first time and iron shots were bang on . Driver avg was 151.1 with the Uneekor and 149.5 on R50, so a few mph slower but not enough for me…

All Replies

0 2833871 24 days ago

Oh man just realized I iput one photo in upside down lol. Easy enough to flip and read though I guess. Any thoughts on this stuff Garmin? Seems off by a wide margins and there were lots of others I could have posted as well that showed the same ball fight and carry issues?

0 Atarikid 23 days ago

Yeah, it is a common thing that players think they hit further and blame it in the device.

0 3002021 23 days ago in reply to Atarikid

LOL buddy I've had a launch monitor for over 8 years and I'm a low single digit handicap golfer...I know my numbers like the back of my hand and this machine is not even close to anything I have used over the years. Not to mention the carry numbers or ball flight don't match up with the data it's spitting out... I mean hey, enjoy your $5k machine that gives you bunk data I guess if it makes you feel better

0 Atarikid 23 days ago in reply to 3002021

Good for you.

0 Fvdw 22 days ago in reply to $parentForumReply.Author.DisplayName

This test indicates the r50 is not perfect but does an acceptable job. www.carlofet.com/.../garmin-r50-accuracy-test

0 Wntrglf32 21 days ago in reply to 2833871

164 is low for that ball speed and peak height. What temperature and humidity is the R50 set too in the settings?

Were you playing a course at current course conditions and in really cold weather?

0 marcel.wieczorek 21 days ago

I was using FlightScope Mevo Plus before the R50. the Mevo plus was accurate outdoor if it can track the ball a long way. Maybe indoor as well if the distance from impact location to the net / screen is a long way. but with only the minimum of 14-16feet the Mevo was very inaccurate especially on higher ball speeds.

In other words, I would not trust the indoor data of the FlightScope. Take your R50 out to the range and compare the data on the R50 with the visual ball flight if you are unsure about the data. And with the sickers on the clubhead and the club data active it will increase the measurement.

if the R50 is completely new, did you made all the nessesary updates?

0 Atarikid 21 days ago in reply to marcel.wieczorek

The FlightScope is known for odd ball flight representations. There is a YouTube review doing an outdoor test with the Flightscope and the curve was always exaggerated. The R50 is more close to what it should be. I am trying to find that Youtube video and will put it here.

0 2833871 21 days ago in reply to marcel.wieczorek

I don’t have a flightscope. I have the Uneekor QED overhead unit. I just ran the ball data through the flightscope website because IMO their algorithm is pretty good and trusted. I did all the updates as well.
Here’s something interesting though. The first time I fired it up I thought it worked great. The next time about 4 hours later, my numbers were way off including driver from 150’s to barely getting 140 mph ball speed. Then the next time I used it same results. I fired it up yesterday morning again and ball speeds were 150-155 again. Only difference was I had my propane heater going the times I was seeing the low speeds. I wonder if it was throwing off the machine somehow? I’ve had an overhead unit for years now and it’s been rock solid so I need to decide if this R50 is worth keeping or not before I sell my Uneekor.

0 6169169 21 days ago in reply to Fvdw

I'm not sure I understand the written conclusions at the Carl's Test about accuracy into the wind. It says the R50 understated carry distances compared to on the ground outdoor testing but the data in the charts suggest it generally "overstated" the carry distance. Without wind data it is hard to know if they came to the correct conclusion or got it backwards, frankly.