Carl's Place Tests Uneekor EYE XO Outdoors

After a long, cold winter we finally were able to test the Uneekor EYE XO Launch Monitor outdoors. Wind and all, the EYE XO handled it. See the results!

We've already put some of the more budget friendly, portable launch monitors to the test at the driving range, so we thought: "Why not try a higher end, but much less portable Uneekor EYE XO setup at the range?" We like to make things hard on ourselves so it's easy on you. Isn’t that so nice of us?

Here are all of our other tests for reference: 

• SkyTrak

• SkyTrak+

• FlightScope Mevo+ - Original

• FlightScope Mevo+ 2023

• Garmin R10

• Full Swing KIT

• Uneekor EYE MINI

• Foresight GC3

• Foresight GCQuad

How We Set Up the Uneekor EYE XO Outdoor Test

Let us start by saying the EYE XO is by no means meant to be used outdoors. However, we wanted to see how accurate the carry distances on the simulator were compared to real life. So we set up a Carl’s Place Pro Enclosure frame made out of 2-inch Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT), mounted our EYE XO to the frame and protected it, brought our Carl’s Place 4’x9’ Hitting Mat, and hooked up a computer to test it out at the 59er Bar and Grill driving range.

We used a hitting mat to help the EYE XO see the ball better, but also to protect the grassy area near the bar and restaurant; we needed to be close to the building to get power for both the EYE XO and computer, but the actual grassy hitting area is much farther away from power.

Tim, a product specialist at Carl’s Place, made sure our EYE XO was set up properly and calibrated before teeing off. Mike was out in the field tracking down and marking where balls landed, Brianna was recording the data and Jon captured it all on video.

Tim took 20 swings each with a pitching wedge, 6 iron and driver on a hot, steamy and slightly breezy day, and the results are below.

EYE XO FIELD TEST VARIABLES

After a long, cold winter and wet, chilly start to spring, we finally were able to get outside to perform our EYE XO outdoor test. It was one of the first hot and humid days of the season, meaning some exhaustion might have come into play with Tim’s swings and Mike’s legs in the field.

We postponed our test once due to high winds. The next day was a little breezy, but not enough to have too much of an impact on numbers. The breeze was mostly right-to-left, but also might have been a bit of a tailwind at times. Since the EYE XO is not made as an outdoor launch monitor, we were unable to change weather conditions in the Uneekor Refine+ (formerly Uneekor Succeed) software to match our real life conditions.

Our driving range was relatively flat until about the 200 yard point, where it started going uphill a bit. Typically hitting uphill will take off some distance in real life, while the EYE XO would have no idea about the hill we were dealing with in real life.

We also were using some well-loved driving range balls for our test, which could affect stats as well. 

EYE XO FIELD TEST RESULTS

PITCHING WEDGE

Tim started the session with his pitching wedge. On average, the real life and simulator carry distances were 4.3 yards (or 3.92%) off, and typically the simulator was reading less yardage. This could be partially due to a little helping wind in real life.

One interesting thing to note is the EYE XO did a great job of picking up any fat or pure shots that Tim hit. The distances were never more than 10 yards off, and were within three yards 40% of the time.

6 IRON

The shots from Tim’s 6 iron proved to be the most accurate, just an average difference of 3.35 yards (2.19%). As opposed to the pitching wedge, it varied whether the carry distance was longer in real life or on the simulator.

Either way, the largest difference was just 8 yards, and the two readings were within three yards an amazing 60% of the time.

DRIVER

The driver is where we saw a little more inaccuracy, but not a whole lot considering the hill we were dealing with once we got past 200 yards.

Some of the readings that were further off seemed to be paired with a shot that was hit at a higher ball speed and at a lower trajectory. So, if the hill wasn’t there, that ball would have traveled much farther, which is what the EYE XO was anticipating.

The more accurate shots were the higher arcing shots that would have landed at a steeper angle of descent, meaning it would not have traveled much farther after hitting the hill.

Hopefully all that makes sense.

Either way, we had just a few outlier readings that topped 15+ yards different, but on average, the two readings were just 7.8 yards (3.63%) off. If you get rid of those outliers, the average difference drops all the way down to 5.38 yards.

And, 7 of the shots were within 3 yards.

CONCLUSION

While no outdoor test is ever perfect, we were still able to show the accuracy of the Uneekor EYE XO.

Out of the 60 swings Tim took on test day, the average difference between the real life and simulator carry distance was a meager 5.15 yards, or just 3.25%.

As we said earlier, this launch monitor is not made for outdoors, so the fact that we had such accurate results with the EYE XO outdoors was amazing. We can see why it is one of the most sought after indoor (in a controlled environment) launch monitors on the market.

How can we improve these field tests? Let us know in the comments!