Two suggestions for you. 1). You have the Mevo plus setup incorrectly by having a “valley” in between the unit and the ball. Setup allows for a single step up or a flush surface. Fix that and you may see better club data from the mevo plus. 2). Add a metallic sticker to the balls for the mevo and you will get accurate ball data for the mevo while using the square golf balls (assuming it won’t interfere with the square launch monitor).
Thanks for the video. I agree, for most of us we should consider this unit. Due to space I was looking at and bought the ST+. I was also looking at the EML & the BLP. The ability to use an iPad, have several courses to play and still get 1080P had me get the Square and the ST+. Bottom line I sent the ST+ back. I really like the Square. 12 courses, putting and chipping practice, 2 ranges, etc. it works for me. I really like the Square.
I would have hit 5-10 shots on gcq first to know what your seeing was like that day, then done this test. You are teasing two variables at the same time... Impossible to tell which one was more accurate swing to swing with out baseline
This looks like a decent little unit. It's a big price jump up to a mevo plus, skytrack plus, eye mini lite. So it's competition is really the aging OG skytrak and the rapsodo MLM 2 pro
@@tjy698I understand, but for club data, he was trying to test Square’s accuracy. However, I concur that you can test the squad overall to OG Skytrak and MLM2 to see which would be better.
When you were using the Square and showing the data from the irons, it showed AW for approach wedge and then showed Tee. When you went to driver, it showed Tee. Is there a setting for irons that is not on a tee? That could be a lot of your difference. Maybe.
I have been really happy with the Mevo + . I have ran it at the same time as a DC4 and their numbers were a lot closer than these two running against each other.
I mean... My takeaway was they are both not accurate enough.. I'm far from an expert but I'm starting to think this is why people say to wait until you can afford a good camera based system.
I wonder when anyone has ever tested a Launch Monitor on a range, actually measuring the Carry distance. Instead of comparing it to values reported by another launch monitor.
I dunno if I fully trust the item taking pictures from behind on things over the square which is face on at impact. I think the angle of attack is a bit off on the square but it's closer to that than the flightscope in my opinion
I think the giveaway is the launch angle. A camera system should be measuring the launch angle very accurately. I am not convinced that a launch angle of c.20 degrees is consistent with 36 degrees of dynamic loft. Might be possible, just feels off. Personally, and probably wrongly, I have never really looked at dynamic loft, I care about launch angle. Overall I doubt either the Square or Mevo+ are accurate but I think the Square might be closer to real than the Mevo+
You mention being updated to the latest software but I suspect you may have recorded this before the most recent version because club data is now overlayed on the range.
Keep in mind you will probably see some difference using the Square balls. From what I have found they tend to fly a fair bit shorter than premium balls like the Pro v1. You can change the settings in the app to add 5% or 10%. I have it set to the 5% setting and it is more true to real life for me.
Someone recently, cannot remember the video, explained that different lunch monitors take a snap shot and measure at different points. e.g. for path measurement: some are based on where the ball is physically hit and when hit, whereas, another is based on the geometric centre of the club face ( such as the middle of a driver) at the time of maximum ball compression. Obviously the way they measure other club data e.g. dots on face, with different location for each one also has an impact on when the measurement is taken. There could also be an issue based on the accuracy of how the stickers are added. e.g. if square is using the shaft stickers to measure angle of attack and they have not been placed on at a pure 90 degree angle there was be difference or inaccuracies. Impact location can also effect the measurements. It would be interesting to know how and when the square takes the measurements. Square calculates face angle and Dynamic loft. It only measures Path and angle of attack so it is the calculations that are off for Dynamic loft.
When using the Mevo Plus you should really follow the setup instructions if you want the most accurate data and put the unit at the same level / elevation as the ball without putting a “valley” between the two as shown. That is likely why the dynamic loft numbers were alittle high.
First off, great video. A lot of what you are saying is very true and you make some good points. But one thing that I think was missed was how big of a difference a few degrees is in regards to swing path and face angle. A few degrees change in those metrics can be the difference between a playable draw or an OB slice, but hopefully as they keep doing updates this will only get better and better
Also, as a previous Mevo+ owner, setup is paramount to accurate data. Sitting it on the case is higher than the mat, and having that gap between it and the mat can affect it too. They don’t recommend it.
Guys, you have set up the M+ the wrong may. It should be a flat surface from radar unit to ball as stated in their manual. To compensate for your height difference, there is a setting in the Flighscope app where you can add the surface height, which should be the height of your hitting area relative to the unit.
The Mevo+ should have a smooth uninterupted surface from the lauch monitor to the ball on your hitting mat. You have obviously tried to match the height, but you have the lower wood floor & the black edge of your turf area that could be causing reading issue on the dynamic loft (just something I noticed in your setup)
Not sure if this is the issue but these lower end units often still use ball data for some club data calculations. Again not sure if that is the case but the Mevo could be giving bad dynamic loft because it isn’t getting good ball data to help calculate dynamic loft via some kind of algorithm that uses spin as an input.
Dynamic Loft has to be a guess for both units given the MEVO can;t see it and the sticker has nothing to do with the face so I have to guess that the dynamic loft on the Square is tied to vertices launch and I think the black surface is an issue
Dynamic loft seemed ify on both. Maybe with more updates the square will get more accurate. For the price its hard to beat. If its consistant and can read the flight path/axis of the ball properly its all you need. I think eye mini, gc3, skytrack + are hugely over priced. They are taking advantage of no competition. Mlm and square are showing accuracy can be had for much less. Are these other units 6-10 times more accurate? I dont think so.
After listening to an hour podcast with a Ping engineer about impact with wedges I would say neither is incredibly accurate. Their testing across all handicaps is 86% of wedges shots hit ground first. So where is the launch monitor recording the club data? Impact with the ground or ball? I’d guess the Mevo+ is resting it at first contact whether that’s ground or ball. The square probably ball contact since it’s optical. Either way, while he didn’t overtly say it, the conclusion is even TM and GC4 have a really hard time with this since hitting mat first causes the club to bounce at varying degrees depending upon how far begging and how step the initial AoA is.
I know there’s no standard for dynamic loft because we have different swings and different levels of compression, it shouldn’t just be a couple of degrees. From what I’ve been told it should be around 70% of static loft. For instance in your 48 degree, with good swing path and good shaft lean it would take your static 48 to around 34 degrees dynamic.
So I know we don’t care about ball data, BUT wouldn’t dynamic loft be effected by WHEN the club hits the ball? If the square doesn’t know when the club came in contact with the ball, then wouldn’t the numbers be off?
Do it again. This time use the little sticky pads that come with the Mevo+ and is recommended for indoors. You should be able to put the reflecting pads on the Square balls and get comparisons for each shot. Also, wasn't there significant information on what the ball does? Especially for the dynamic loft you're worried about, the height. Such a big difference should have been confirmed by ball behavior shouldn't it?
I'm not convinced. With either really. Even with the swing path degrees "close", a lot of them were opposite directions. That is a big deal when trying to work on swing plane. The dynamic loft is definitely messed up. Maybe they can address with firmware. Hopefully they support this the way others due like Uneekor and Foresight. I think any other higher end LM with club data would have been better to use. Even an eye mini lite. I need to watch your ball data comparison again on the square as that is most important for people looking to play sim golf and don't care about club data.
You really didn't have an accurate baseline, you should have used a Trackman or GC quad or a full blown Flight Scope. You're basically making a comparison between the 2
Guys. The numbers are way off from both units. You guys are acting like 2 degrees off is a small thing, it’s not. It’s a huge different . The square is not it right now
The square is new and updating all the time. For the price nothing compares. For the price and the things it can do it’s pretty good. For us regular guys (not rich) enough to afford the large price tags it’s the next best thing.
@@aarongates1171 it will be addressed im sure in future updates. What about the Mevo. No way it was correct. How do u know which one was off? Maybe it was correct. Either way for the price and what it can and does do it’s amazing.
Isn't this a kinda flawed test as you have no baseline known accurate data to compare the Sqaure too? The Mevo could be off and the square more accurate, or vice versa? I mean, I've just purchased a Square but this comparison doesn't really tell us which one is more accurate.
1: Garmin golf software is really poor. They put so little into updating errors or improving interfaces. Just look at any Garmin golf forum, nothing but feedback that's totally ignored for years. 2: You still need a PC to use GSPro 3: The output from the unit is not 4k 4: Most importantly, it's not accurate. Spin and flight shape are way off. 5: It's way too bulky vs GC3/QUAD. You'd look like a right tool pulling it out at a range.
In my opinion, nothing but the GC3/GCQuad or Trackman are worth buying. I'd rather have no launch monitor than one that's not accurate. These other brands offerings are only toys. I also believe you cannot do an 'accuracy test' without comparing it to a Trackman, Foresight or a rangefinder/meterwheel.
Foresight has the low spin boost issue with drives. So I wouldn't say Foresight is 100% the best. Trackman stinks inside but rules the outdoor range. There are LM's from Uneekor and more expensive Flightscope that compare well to both Foresight and TM. So I would NOT call those toys.
@@Tubezilla I’m not sure. I just know that GSPro will fix it with its own algorithms and people get confused as to why they are not carrying it as far.
Nervous about stickers. Lol. Where do I even begin unpacking this? For starters, anyone nervous about stickers is the exact type of person I’d gladly play for money. Because they’re likely not very good. And if you’re worried about stickers, better not ever try regripping your clubs. First you have to use a utility knife. 😱 And if you manage to not ruin your shaft, you’ll be shocked at how much sticky tape is under the grip. Are there no capable men in this world anymore with even the most basic DIY skills? I mean, didn’t your brand new club come with stickers on the shaft from the MFG? Did you just leave those oem ones on there because you’re stumped at how to remove them. If so, here’s a pro tip. Grab a heat gun. Oh wait, if you need someone to explain this, I doubt you have a heat gun. So, go grab your wife’s hair dryer. Heat up the sticker and pull it off. Done. FFS.
After listening to an hour podcast with a Ping engineer about impact with wedges I would say neither is incredibly accurate. Their testing across all handicaps is 86% of wedges shots hit ground first. So where is the launch monitor recording the club data? Impact with the ground or ball? I’d guess the Mevo+ is resting it at first contact whether that’s ground or ball. The square probably ball contact since it’s optical. Either way, while he didn’t overtly say it, the conclusion is even TM and GC4 have a really hard time with this since hitting mat first causes the club to bounce at varying degrees depending upon how far begging and how step the initial AoA is.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Two suggestions for you. 1). You have the Mevo plus setup incorrectly by having a “valley” in between the unit and the ball. Setup allows for a single step up or a flush surface. Fix that and you may see better club data from the mevo plus. 2). Add a metallic sticker to the balls for the mevo and you will get accurate ball data for the mevo while using the square golf balls (assuming it won’t interfere with the square launch monitor).
The numbers being consistent from swing to swing makes it worthy of a great practice device.
Thanks for the video. I agree, for most of us we should consider this unit. Due to space I was looking at and bought the ST+. I was also looking at the EML & the BLP. The ability to use an iPad, have several courses to play and still get 1080P had me get the Square and the ST+.
Bottom line I sent the ST+ back. I really like the Square. 12 courses, putting and chipping practice, 2 ranges, etc. it works for me.
I really like the Square.
Really? Youre nervous about putting A STICKER on a golf shaft?
great breakdown. I absoluely love my Square LM. It intergrates with GS Pro so easily... for the price, it's a winner IMO
The small differences in swing path and face angle can be explained by a 1 degree difference in alignment of the two units.
Not sure why the dynamic loft is an issue with the square. It seems like the square was much more accurate than the Mevo. Mevo was way too high.
I would have hit 5-10 shots on gcq first to know what your seeing was like that day, then done this test. You are teasing two variables at the same time... Impossible to tell which one was more accurate swing to swing with out baseline
This looks like a decent little unit. It's a big price jump up to a mevo plus, skytrack plus, eye mini lite. So it's competition is really the aging OG skytrak and the rapsodo MLM 2 pro
He was comparing club data. MLM2 Pro doesn't have club data yet. So, the MEVO Plus is a fair comparison to test club data.
@ oh i wasnt disputing that just the price range. What does the mevo plus cost with club data?
@@tjy698I understand, but for club data, he was trying to test Square’s accuracy. However, I concur that you can test the squad overall to OG Skytrak and MLM2 to see which would be better.
When you were using the Square and showing the data from the irons, it showed AW for approach wedge and then showed Tee. When you went to driver, it showed Tee. Is there a setting for irons that is not on a tee? That could be a lot of your difference. Maybe.
I have been really happy with the Mevo + . I have ran it at the same time as a DC4 and their numbers were a lot closer than these two running against each other.
So when you have two monitors giving different readings, how do you know which is the accurate one out of the two?
I mean... My takeaway was they are both not accurate enough..
I'm far from an expert but I'm starting to think this is why people say to wait until you can afford a good camera based system.
I wonder when anyone has ever tested a Launch Monitor on a range, actually measuring the Carry distance. Instead of comparing it to values reported by another launch monitor.
@@wernerheenop people literally do all the time.... Have you ever watched a single RUclips golf video?
I dunno if I fully trust the item taking pictures from behind on things over the square which is face on at impact. I think the angle of attack is a bit off on the square but it's closer to that than the flightscope in my opinion
I was thinking the same thing
@RetroLandon ya especially since you have to buy a subscription for club data on the mevo ... hard pass... ill enjoy my square (if it ever arrives) ha
Trackman also sets behind the ball which is the gold standard so that really doesn’t matter
@@4HotSauce04 fair point! I imagine the camera and what not is exceptionally better in trakman.. but your point makes sense
I think the giveaway is the launch angle. A camera system should be measuring the launch angle very accurately. I am not convinced that a launch angle of c.20 degrees is consistent with 36 degrees of dynamic loft. Might be possible, just feels off.
Personally, and probably wrongly, I have never really looked at dynamic loft, I care about launch angle.
Overall I doubt either the Square or Mevo+ are accurate but I think the Square might be closer to real than the Mevo+
You mention being updated to the latest software but I suspect you may have recorded this before the most recent version because club data is now overlayed on the range.
I bought one after your first video. It's a very fun piece of equipment! Although it did shatter my ego seeing the ACTUAL numbers for each club lol 😅
🤣
Keep in mind you will probably see some difference using the Square balls. From what I have found they tend to fly a fair bit shorter than premium balls like the Pro v1. You can change the settings in the app to add 5% or 10%. I have it set to the 5% setting and it is more true to real life for me.
People are already making UV covers for the front so you can take it outside
Nice, got any links / locations I can look for one?
Tried a google search but did not come up with anything
Would love one as well
Yeah where are you seeing this??
Someone recently, cannot remember the video, explained that different lunch monitors take a snap shot and measure at different points. e.g. for path measurement: some are based on where the ball is physically hit and when hit, whereas, another is based on the geometric centre of the club face ( such as the middle of a driver) at the time of maximum ball compression. Obviously the way they measure other club data e.g. dots on face, with different location for each one also has an impact on when the measurement is taken. There could also be an issue based on the accuracy of how the stickers are added. e.g. if square is using the shaft stickers to measure angle of attack and they have not been placed on at a pure 90 degree angle there was be difference or inaccuracies. Impact location can also effect the measurements. It would be interesting to know how and when the square takes the measurements. Square calculates face angle and Dynamic loft. It only measures Path and angle of attack so it is the calculations that are off for Dynamic loft.
When using the Mevo Plus you should really follow the setup instructions if you want the most accurate data and put the unit at the same level / elevation as the ball without putting a “valley” between the two as shown. That is likely why the dynamic loft numbers were alittle high.
First off, great video. A lot of what you are saying is very true and you make some good points.
But one thing that I think was missed was how big of a difference a few degrees is in regards to swing path and face angle.
A few degrees change in those metrics can be the difference between a playable draw or an OB slice, but hopefully as they keep doing updates this will only get better and better
What cameras are you guys using? Video looks real good. And as always content is great.
Also, as a previous Mevo+ owner, setup is paramount to accurate data. Sitting it on the case is higher than the mat, and having that gap between it and the mat can affect it too. They don’t recommend it.
Guys, you have set up the M+ the wrong may. It should be a flat surface from radar unit to ball as stated in their manual. To compensate for your height difference, there is a setting in the Flighscope app where you can add the surface height, which should be the height of your hitting area relative to the unit.
The Mevo+ should have a smooth uninterupted surface from the lauch monitor to the ball on your hitting mat. You have obviously tried to match the height, but you have the lower wood floor & the black edge of your turf area that could be causing reading issue on the dynamic loft (just something I noticed in your setup)
Not sure if this is the issue but these lower end units often still use ball data for some club data calculations. Again not sure if that is the case but the Mevo could be giving bad dynamic loft because it isn’t getting good ball data to help calculate dynamic loft via some kind of algorithm that uses spin as an input.
Dynamic Loft has to be a guess for both units given the MEVO can;t see it and the sticker has nothing to do with the face so I have to guess that the dynamic loft on the Square is tied to vertices launch and I think the black surface is an issue
Dynamic loft seemed ify on both. Maybe with more updates the square will get more accurate. For the price its hard to beat. If its consistant and can read the flight path/axis of the ball properly its all you need. I think eye mini, gc3, skytrack + are hugely over priced. They are taking advantage of no competition. Mlm and square are showing accuracy can be had for much less. Are these other units 6-10 times more accurate? I dont think so.
Any chance the infrared off the square is interrupting the Doppler on the Mevo+?
Can a covered range bay count as indoor? like, is it a question of the sun hitting it directly, or is outdoor ambient light bad too?
Are y’all going to be at the PGA show this year?
That dynamic loft could be low because the reference point is on the shaft?
I’m loving my Square lm. So much fun to play and imo beats the mlm2pro, r10, and og Skytrak. I’ve had all of them.
But why haven’t you had the Uneekor Eye Mini Lite ?
But what's the point if the numbers are questionable? I don't get it
After listening to an hour podcast with a Ping engineer about impact with wedges I would say neither is incredibly accurate. Their testing across all handicaps is 86% of wedges shots hit ground first. So where is the launch monitor recording the club data? Impact with the ground or ball? I’d guess the Mevo+ is resting it at first contact whether that’s ground or ball. The square probably ball contact since it’s optical. Either way, while he didn’t overtly say it, the conclusion is even TM and GC4 have a really hard time with this since hitting mat first causes the club to bounce at varying degrees depending upon how far begging and how step the initial AoA is.
I know there’s no standard for dynamic loft because we have different swings and different levels of compression, it shouldn’t just be a couple of degrees. From what I’ve been told it should be around 70% of static loft. For instance in your 48 degree, with good swing path and good shaft lean it would take your static 48 to around 34 degrees dynamic.
So I know we don’t care about ball data, BUT wouldn’t dynamic loft be effected by WHEN the club hits the ball? If the square doesn’t know when the club came in contact with the ball, then wouldn’t the numbers be off?
How does it compare to the Uneekor Eye Mini Lite ????
Any updates on Square having better ball options (like Prov1 or Chrome premium) ?
Could you mark a prov1 or chrome with the square's pattern?
@@leehrat9591 the marker will get on your impact screen. No way I'm using a marker.
Skip to 1 hour in for this guy to get to the point
What is the point of comparing the SQUARE with something that you did not think was very good can’t tell who is right or wrong
Do it again. This time use the little sticky pads that come with the Mevo+ and is recommended for indoors. You should be able to put the reflecting pads on the Square balls and get comparisons for each shot.
Also, wasn't there significant information on what the ball does? Especially for the dynamic loft you're worried about, the height. Such a big difference should have been confirmed by ball behavior shouldn't it?
not sure why use the mevo+ as the baseline, as it's not a gold standard product as say a GCQuad or GC3 would've been
I'm not convinced. With either really. Even with the swing path degrees "close", a lot of them were opposite directions. That is a big deal when trying to work on swing plane. The dynamic loft is definitely messed up. Maybe they can address with firmware. Hopefully they support this the way others due like Uneekor and Foresight. I think any other higher end LM with club data would have been better to use. Even an eye mini lite. I need to watch your ball data comparison again on the square as that is most important for people looking to play sim golf and don't care about club data.
You really didn't have an accurate baseline, you should have used a Trackman or GC quad or a full blown Flight Scope. You're basically making a comparison between the 2
Guys. The numbers are way off from both units. You guys are acting like 2 degrees off is a small thing, it’s not. It’s a huge different . The square is not it right now
The square is new and updating all the time. For the price nothing compares. For the price and the things it can do it’s pretty good. For us regular guys (not rich) enough to afford the large price tags it’s the next best thing.
@ nothing compares? It doesn’t matter if the numbers are way off. You are acting like off 2 degrees for club path isn’t a big deal. It is.
@@aarongates1171 it will be addressed im sure in future updates. What about the Mevo. No way it was correct. How do u know which one was off? Maybe it was correct. Either way for the price and what it can and does do it’s amazing.
Isn't this a kinda flawed test as you have no baseline known accurate data to compare the Sqaure too? The Mevo could be off and the square more accurate, or vice versa? I mean, I've just purchased a Square but this comparison doesn't really tell us which one is more accurate.
Trægulv kan få få den monitor til at hopppe, når han bruger et jern
should give that square to canadian veteran?
Garmin r50 next!!!
1: Garmin golf software is really poor. They put so little into updating errors or improving interfaces. Just look at any Garmin golf forum, nothing but feedback that's totally ignored for years.
2: You still need a PC to use GSPro
3: The output from the unit is not 4k
4: Most importantly, it's not accurate. Spin and flight shape are way off.
5: It's way too bulky vs GC3/QUAD. You'd look like a right tool pulling it out at a range.
In my opinion, nothing but the GC3/GCQuad or Trackman are worth buying. I'd rather have no launch monitor than one that's not accurate. These other brands offerings are only toys. I also believe you cannot do an 'accuracy test' without comparing it to a Trackman, Foresight or a rangefinder/meterwheel.
Foresight has the low spin boost issue with drives. So I wouldn't say Foresight is 100% the best. Trackman stinks inside but rules the outdoor range. There are LM's from Uneekor and more expensive Flightscope that compare well to both Foresight and TM. So I would NOT call those toys.
@@mpkelley20 I think the spin boost is only in the FSX software, not on the GCQuad itself
@@Tubezilla I’m not sure. I just know that GSPro will fix it with its own algorithms and people get confused as to why they are not carrying it as far.
Nervous about stickers. Lol. Where do I even begin unpacking this?
For starters, anyone nervous about stickers is the exact type of person I’d gladly play for money. Because they’re likely not very good.
And if you’re worried about stickers, better not ever try regripping your clubs. First you have to use a utility knife. 😱 And if you manage to not ruin your shaft, you’ll be shocked at how much sticky tape is under the grip.
Are there no capable men in this world anymore with even the most basic DIY skills? I mean, didn’t your brand new club come with stickers on the shaft from the MFG? Did you just leave those oem ones on there because you’re stumped at how to remove them. If so, here’s a pro tip. Grab a heat gun. Oh wait, if you need someone to explain this, I doubt you have a heat gun. So, go grab your wife’s hair dryer. Heat up the sticker and pull it off. Done.
FFS.
Try it without those bright, white shoes. Some photometric LMs have issues when people wear shoes like that.
First
SIIIIICK
How are things back there in 2005?
After listening to an hour podcast with a Ping engineer about impact with wedges I would say neither is incredibly accurate. Their testing across all handicaps is 86% of wedges shots hit ground first. So where is the launch monitor recording the club data? Impact with the ground or ball? I’d guess the Mevo+ is resting it at first contact whether that’s ground or ball. The square probably ball contact since it’s optical. Either way, while he didn’t overtly say it, the conclusion is even TM and GC4 have a really hard time with this since hitting mat first causes the club to bounce at varying degrees depending upon how far begging and how step the initial AoA is.