Pongbot table tennis robot - review and comparison

[Jslick89]

Thanks! I kinda figured it was for pre-programmed drills. It def would be useful for custom drills too, or decreasing the minimum drill length from 1 min to say 30 seconds. I'm practicing FHs right now, and at 60-70% frequency that's 54-63 FH shots in a minute! Even pros get tired after 40-50 FHs in a row.

Definitely second the wish to decrease the minimum drill length to 30 seconds! It would be best if we could select drill lengths in increments of 10 seconds or even 5 seconds.

 

[pongbotstore]

does the app updated automatically? we just had our baby so I haven't used the robot since last week. Excited to clone some of my drills to vary the placements.

edit: just had to relog back into the app and the new duplicate drill feature was there. sweeeeeet!

Like other apps on your device, the app will remind you when new features are available.

 

[pongbotstore]

Definitely second the wish to decrease the minimum drill length to 30 seconds! It would be best if we could select drill lengths in increments of 10 seconds or even 5 seconds.

PONGBOT is dedicated to providing an excellent user interaction experience. Please stay tuned for future updates to the PONGBOT app for more new features. ❤️🍺

 

[JackJohnson]

@pongbotstore Whats the difference between the OMNI-PRO/HALO-Pro (Chinese version) compared to OMNI S PRO/HALO S Pro (English version).

Looking at the prices the Chinese versions of these robots around 45-50% cheaper than the English version.

 

[pongbotstore]

@pongbotstore Whats the difference between the OMNI-PRO/HALO-Pro (Chinese version) compared to OMNI S PRO/HALO S Pro (English version).

Looking at the prices the Chinese versions of these robots around 45-50% cheaper than the English version.

Different apps, different languages supported, different guarantees, also higher cost on delivery given the global shipment, etc

 

[rova]

I use 200+ balls, there are def frequent "jams". It's not a matter of pressure, I don't think, maybe you just haven't used it long enough? I don't recall many instance during my first few months using it, but now it's very frequent. Anyhow, where did you get the retrofit mechanism? I'd like to try it out, give it a fair chance against the Pongbot.

I also had so many ball jams on my amicus prime it made doing multiball drills useless. I had the issue from the get go and decided to contact support. After sending the robot three times to Butterfly in Germany (they handled my case quickly and always free of charge, kudos for that) they told me I was a difficult customer and they do not experience these jams. I am sure they never tested it the way a real player uses his/her robot (different drills, spins and placements).
I was very disappointed and decided to fix it myself (cardboard, new and clean balls, butterfly only balls,...).
Fix was VERY EASY in the end: just some tape (I used paper like tape you'd use for painting walls) around the metals responsible for feeding the balls in the base of the robot. See picture. Never had a jam for over a year now. This is really a design issue imho.

 

[plunder]

I also had so many ball jams on my amicus prime it made doing multiball drills useless. I had the issue from the get go

I guess i'll open a separate thread for NEW owners of the amipong, since it's OT in this nice pongbot thread but until then lemme comment anyway.

Thanks @rova for this interesting contribution and i'll keep that in mind, if i ever needed it. Honestly, my robopon sessions take between 2.25 - 3.00 hours nonstop (time flies with robopon even more than with rbpon!) and i haven't experienced a single ball jam so far (and with the retrofit kit the performance has been stable, i.e. with no buildup anywhere in the deflector assembly unit). My proactive remedy was the installation of a, as mentioned earlier, mini ramp. So far i diy'ed two prototypes made out of cardboard (since it's more available than paperboard) and soon i would want to make my final build in polypropylene sheet (2mm thickness), just for the sake of owning something more beautiful and lasting, more professional/commercial.

In a humid environment, cardboard and paperboard become softer, they deform and age. The mini ramp would still do its job of adv1 100% preventing ball jams, and adv2 making the robot use each and every ball (i.e. no more dead balls in "black spots") but my cardboard build looks very diy if you know what i mean lol.

Function over form, i am in no hurry to rebuild the ramp in a more premium material such as polypropylene. Working 2mm hardplastic sheets ain't easy/fun, so i like the simplicity of your method of preventing ball jams (adv1). It doesn't address the issue of dead balls though (adv2; not that it would matter — one could easily ignore their existence).

The purpose of my method (mini ramp) was to make each and every ball count, adv2. Only then i realized that, as a side effect, it eliminated the potential of ball jams too (adv1). Killing🤺☠️ two birds🐣 🦖with one stone💎

Anyway, i am HAPPY to repeat myself in this forum, any threads, that in-the-past-reported ball jams and because-of-buildup wonky ball productions are to be regarded as non-issues because they are easily solved by mini ramp and retrofit kit. If an OLD amipong owner refuses to implement both these 2 measures, then whose at fault please? 🤷‍♂️

Ah, on an intriguing side note (since nobody seems to have done the comparison):

The standard height setting of the Amicus Prime device (and obviously its Prime app) is "3 rings visible". Imho that's hilarious. Whereas.
The standard height setting of the Powerpong device (and obviously its Omega app) is "2 rings visible". Ofc i prefer the lower setting of the Omega because it makes the ball fly more realistically and harder to smash. In theory, Prime users could simply lower the head to the 2 rings setting, but let's hear it: in practice, i guess they prolly doht do it, also because the Prime app is configured to work with the 3 rings setting. Just watch the Prime vids on youtube, they all have it in the standard setting of 3 rings. Mazing lol.

 

[Jslick89]

Anyway, i am HAPPY to repeat myself in this forum, any threads, that in-the-past-reported ball jams and because-of-buildup wonky ball productions are to be regarded as non-issues because they are easily solved by mini ramp and retrofit kit. If an OLD amipong owner refuses to implement both these 2 measures, then whose at fault please? 🤷‍♂️

I would still assign the fault to the machine. You and Rova have to retrofit your $2000+ robots for it to perform its intended function. My robot looks like a spaceship. Your robot needs to get taped up to function properly. You cannot call that a non-issue when there is something you literally have to do to fix the issue lol, even if its a so called easy fix. For me, a better solution would be to save $700-$1000 a buy a Ponbot OMNI S pro, which performs as well or BETTER than the Amicus Prime / Power Pong Omega that requires ZERO retrofitting to perform its INTENDED function.

Anyways, since I've used multiple robots, I am well aware of the pros and cons of each robot. When I had a newgy 2055, there are 3 little springy prongs that gather the balls into the robot. One of the prongs snapped off. Newgy sent me the replacement part for free, and I was able to perform the repair in less than 30 minutes. It was an ISSUE, but an easily fixed issue. Going forward, I was extra careful to not snap off the prong when i was manually removing the balls from the tray for serve practice. However, I still considered it a design fault that an essential part of the robot could snap so easily. I was pleasantly surprised when I opened my OMNI S pro and I saw ball gathering mechanism was made of a solid polymer. There's no way for this thing to break or jam. BUT...if it DID...i would have no problem reporting to this forum what the ultimate solution was.

Still- since i've used all types of robots, I can only thing of one advantage a power pong has over a PONGBOT- a more mature app. That's it. You can argue about the height of the robot, but for me, as a 1700 USATT rated player, it's been a non issue so far. I dont anticipate it would be an issue once i'm 2000+ either.

 

[jk1980]

I also had so many ball jams on my amicus prime it made doing multiball drills useless. I had the issue from the get go and decided to contact support. After sending the robot three times to Butterfly in Germany (they handled my case quickly and always free of charge, kudos for that) they told me I was a difficult customer and they do not experience these jams. I am sure they never tested it the way a real player uses his/her robot (different drills, spins and placements).
I was very disappointed and decided to fix it myself (cardboard, new and clean balls, butterfly only balls,...).
Fix was VERY EASY in the end: just some tape (I used paper like tape you'd use for painting walls) around the metals responsible for feeding the balls in the base of the robot. See picture. Never had a jam for over a year now. This is really a design issue imho.
View attachment 33663

thank you for your input. What do you think does this tape improve ? Is it better because you extend the arms or is it just making them bigger and taking more balls with them ? I just tried this with duct tape. Lets see if this changes anything.

 

[rova]

thank you for your input. What do you think does this tape improve ? Is it better because you extend the arms or is it just making them bigger and taking more balls with them ? I just tried this with duct tape. Lets see if this changes anything.

It loosens up the balls better so they fall in the hole. The metals alone don’t have much grip and surface and often glide over the balls instead of stirring up the balls.

 

[dingyibvs]

It loosens up the balls better so they fall in the hole. The metals alone don’t have much grip and surface and often glide over the balls instead of stirring up the balls.

Kind figured, the metal rod just brushes right below the balls and don't do anything to stir them up

Having used both considerably now, I think I can make a solid comparison. Also, I think my level of play should be right around the target audience of an advanced robot.

IMO the service height thing is a non-issue. For topspins its very rare to have a ball below the middle ring position as it enters above the table. Only one common type of shot does that--a brush loop of a half-long ball. Despite being able to launch balls from that height the Amicus/Powerpong cannot actually simulate that ball correctly because it cannot generate the correct spin/speed ratio. It needs a spin level inbetween +5 and +6 to do so.

The main advantage of the Powerpong, and to a lesser extent the Amicus, over the Pongbot is IMO the functionality of its software. You can program more complex drills by 1) adding variations to the landing spot of each individual programmed shot, 2) being able to combine combos into sequences. There are other minor advantages as well, such as allowing 10 balls in a combo as opposed to 7, can make each drill much shorter than 1 minute, having a remote control that can start/stop a drill more easily, etc.

The biggest advantage the Pongbot has is the hardware. The balls are simply far more realistic in every single way. The speed/spin ratio is more realistic, it can generate far faster balls, the sidespin is much more realistic, and there's no unwanted sidespin so you can actually do multi-position drills. Until I actually see this mythical retrofit in action (@plunder can you show a video of your robot shooting balls to the corners?), none of them can be fixed whereas software can and is being incrementally improved on the Pongbot.

The of course, there's the price, but I don't need to tell you about that. I'm not very price sensitive, I just want the best robot. At my level and for my needs, at least, the Pongbot is a superior product right now. The realism of the ball it generates simply cannot be replicated and is crucial for my training.

With that said, I cannot fully recommend it yet. Software CAN be improved, but will it? Perhaps I'm a bit jaded after the frustrating experience with my Amicus, where software updates in 2 years have resulted in no discernible improvement, not even fixing the simple issue of unable to save the drill name correctly, and actually broke the random order service function. Pongbot has already updated their app to add a much requested function, but I need to see more to be convinced of their dedication to their product. I've emailed them about my suggestions for improvement, and as someone who was trained as an engineer once upon a time most of them do not seem to be difficult modifications. So I'm gonna wait and see if they will continue to improve their products.

They are a new company, and they've already got an excellent product. But I want to see them to do more, I want to see them to strive for perfection. They have a LOT of potential. If they keep working at it I can see a future of them combining their eagle-eye product with their robots to dynamically return balls to you, even adding in AI for analytics and designing training regimen, and/or adding cameras to connect with coaches for remote coaching. What level is their ambition?

 

[Jslick89]

Kind figured, the metal rod just brushes right below the balls and don't do anything to stir them up

Having used both considerably now, I think I can make a solid comparison. Also, I think my level of play should be right around the target audience of an advanced robot.

IMO the service height thing is a non-issue. For topspins its very rare to have a ball below the middle ring position as it enters above the table. Only one common type of shot does that--a brush loop of a half-long ball. Despite being able to launch balls from that height the Amicus/Powerpong cannot actually simulate that ball correctly because it cannot generate the correct spin/speed ratio. It needs a spin level inbetween +5 and +6 to do so.

The main advantage of the Powerpong, and to a lesser extent the Amicus, over the Robopong is IMO the functionality of its software. You can program more complex drills by 1) adding variations to the landing spot of each individual programmed shot, 2) being able to combine combos into sequences. There are other minor advantages as well, such as allowing 10 balls in a combo as opposed to 7, can make each drill much shorter than 1 minute, having a remote control that can start/stop a drill more easily, etc.

The biggest advantage the Robopong has is the hardware. The balls are simply far more realistic in every single way. The speed/spin ratio is more realistic, it can generate far faster balls, the sidespin is much more realistic, and there's no unwanted sidespin so you can actually do multi-position drills. Until I actually see this mythical retrofit in action (@plunder can you show a video of your robot shooting balls to the corners?), none of them can be fixed whereas software can and is being incrementally improved on the Robopong.

The of course, there's the price, but I don't need to tell you about that. I'm not very price sensitive, I just want the best robot. At my level and for my needs, at least, the Robopong is a superior product right now. The realism of the ball it generates simply cannot be replicated and is crucial for my training.

With that said, I cannot fully recommend it yet. Software CAN be improved, but will it? Perhaps I'm a bit jaded after the frustrating experience with my Amicus, where software updates in 2 years have resulted in no discernible improvement, not even fixing the simple issue of unable to save the drill name correctly, and actually broke the random order service function. Robopong has already updated their app to add a much requested function, but I need to see more to be convinced of their dedication to their product. I've emailed them about my suggestions for improvement, and as someone who was trained as an engineer once upon a time most of them do not seem to be difficult modifications. So I'm gonna wait and see if they will continue to improve their products.

They are a new company, and they've already got an excellent product. But I want to see them to do more, I want to see them to strive for perfection. They have a LOT of potential. If they keep working at it I can see a future of them combining their eagle-eye product with their robots to dynamically return balls to you, even adding in AI for analytics and designing training regimen, and/or adding cameras to connect with coaches for remote coaching. What level is their ambition?

I think you mean PONGBOT not robopong

I hope this company really strives for perfection too. The potential is there!

 

[plunder]

and there's no unwanted sidespin so you can actually do multi-position drills. Until I actually see this mythical retrofit in action (@plunder can you show a video of your robot shooting balls to the corners?), none of them can be fixed

I'll think of something ... prolly a bird's eye view would do the trick? 🧐

Anyway let's stay fair in the comparison!

It makes very much a difference from which height a ball gets shot out from the "orifice" (Stichwort potential energy!). If you want me to video-prove my statements , then i want you to video-prove your claims as well, e.g. can you guys show us a fast long and a slow short serve (= "1st ball" of a legal rally) which both clear the net at their max bounce heights AND at 1cm over the net (= low-clearing 1st balls)?

On the Amipong, the optimal and correct setting for 1st ball production is the lowest setting, i.e. with 1 ring visible, as explained on YouTube and in the fine manual. So, yes indeed, the height of orifice does make a clear difference!

it's hard to imagine that the Halo and the Omni can produce really low 1st balls, fast or slow. i wanna see video-proof.

Btw your experiencing of Amicus performance issues (wonky balls, inconsistent placement, unwanted side spin) are all caused indeed by the deflector assembly in its original unmodified state because there's SLIDING FRICTION upon contact. Now imagine that there were no friction at the 3 contact points (left right top).

 

[dingyibvs]

I'll think of something ... prolly a bird's eye view would do the trick? 🧐

Anyway let's stay fair in the comparison!

It makes very much a difference from which height a ball gets shot out from the "orifice" (Stichwort potential energy!). If you want me to video-prove my statements , then i want you to video-prove your claims as well, e.g. can you guys show us a fast long and a slow short serve (= "1st ball" of a legal rally) which both clear the net at their max bounce heights AND at 1cm over the net (= low-clearing 1st balls)?

On the Amipong, the optimal and correct setting for 1st ball production is the lowest setting, i.e. with 1 ring visible, as explained on YouTube and in the fine manual. So, yes indeed, the height of orifice does make a clear difference!

it's hard to imagine that the Halo and the Omni can produce really low 1st balls, fast or slow. i wanna see video-proof.

Btw your experiencing of Amicus performance issues (wonky balls, inconsistent placement, unwanted side spin) are all caused indeed by the deflector assembly in its original unmodified state because there's SLIDING FRICTION upon contact. Now imagine that there were no friction at the 3 contact points (left right top).

Why don't you show a video of those services by the Amicus/Powerpong? I've had it for 2 years now, I'm probably far more aware of its limitations than you. Try doing a strong sideback spin ball, you'll see that it simply doesn't jump to the side the way you'd expect. Try a short, heavy topspin service, you'll see that even at +7 spin it won't jump from your racket the way a real heavy topspin service would.

 

[dingyibvs]

I think you mean PONGBOT not robopong

I hope this company really strives for perfection too. The potential is there!

Man, the power of imprinting! The Newgy robots were the first ones I used and coveted many years ago, and to my brain Robopong is still synonymous with TT robots! Fixed it now.

 

[plunder]

Why don't you show a video of those services by the Amicus/Powerpong?

so your robot cannot produce LOW-BOUNCING 1st balls? let's see the bouncing limitation first 🥇

 

[Musaab]

Thank you so much for your detailed feedback! We’re thrilled to hear that you’re enjoying the OMNI S PRO and that it’s meeting your expectations. We take pride in providing high-quality table tennis robots, and it’s always rewarding to hear how our products are helping players improve. If you have any further questions or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out. Keep up the great training!

M-One is 18k euros ? This is an insane price you realize that right ?

 

[dingyibvs]

so your robot cannot produce LOW-BOUNCING 1st balls? let's see the bouncing limitation first 🥇

let's be honest, detailed, clear, and fair in our posts, as i have ever been!

nobody writes clearer, more detailed, fairer, more honest, more informative, more helpful in this thread than me!! no vague bs'ing, downplaying, exaggerating, whitewashing, as you guys have been doing. so unfair and unobjective. i could counter your posts and claims the same way, if that's what you want.

Of course it can, I'm traveling right now but I'll record one when I get back. I'm doing this out of good faith, more to show others, but you're clearly being dishonest here. You know how I know? Because I have an Amicus, and I use the middle ring or higher position for services.

You can't use the low ring position on the Amicus/Powerpong to make short heavy backspin services. I've tried. The issue is the service mechanism that requires bouncing the ball off the top rail. If you set it to low speed, the ball doesn't have enough energy to get over the net. If you set it to high speed, the first bounce will be too close to the net to get over the net. The service mechanism simply doesn't allow for the speed/landing spot combo which creates a short backspin service.

 

[pongbotstore]

M-One is 18k euros ? This is an insane price you realize that right ?

The regular price is USD 15k. If you want to get one, please email us to discuss it in detail. @Musaab

 

[plunder]

The service mechanism simply doesn't allow for the speed/landing spot combo which creates a short backspin service.

you misunderstanding, i never talked about 1st ball production of the amipong from my own experience. Honestly, so far i haven't trained 1st ball receive drills with the Omega. I am too busy training other bot drills for hours nonstop. There are plenty of yt vids showing/explaining how to setup the Omega (if not the Amicus) for 1st ball production, and they (incl. the Omega manual) explain that the "1 ring visible"-setting be the correct/optimal one. Sounds like that you've been operating your Amicus your whole life wrong, sh*t da happenz.

Oh you're travling rn? Oh i am on vacation myself rn. Always same same then. Whatever you throw at me, i'll throw back at ya.

Ah and ofc one could use the amipong on the higher-levelled settings (2 rings visible, 3 rings visible, etc) for 1st ball production. I was just repeating what the other authors told about the perfect setting. Regarding 1st ball production, i am not too keen AT THE MOMENT on testing it on my Omega, since i've experienced that the amipong's side spin production is different from a human's side spin (humans vs amipong use a different component pair out of the triplet <x-axis y-axis z-axis> for the ball's angular velocity vector), resulting in side-kicking bounces; one should expect that a Pongbot produces more human-like side spin, okay. But what about the 1st ball bouncing height?

So you're interested in 1st balls which land short (=are slow) and have heavy backspin? Sounds good to me. But lemme add the requirement that the height during the entire flight path should be LOW, reaching its max height right above the net line. I suggested 1cm clearance as an arbitrary measurement. So let's be clear, detailed, and informative: the net height is 15.25cm. Then my requirement be: the 'butt' of the ball can never surpass 16.25cm during its entire 1st ball flight path, until the ball is hit by the bat/racket/paddle of the human.

Here for clarity's sake a quick pic of the nomenclature used:

In other words, it's pointless to have a short slow heavy backspin serve coming at me, which bounces up to 17.25cm (measured from table level to ball's butt). High-bouncing balls are useless, even if they have much backspin and are short!

And to be clear (yet again), i never said or claimed that the amipong is or would be a great robot for 1st ball production. I do have higher hopes for this task with the Pongbot, at least with regard to human-like side spin. But first let's hear the full details and then witness how well your bot does that!

My own evaluation of the quality and capabilities of amipong's 1st ball production will be detailed in future, possibly in my amipong review thread. It will be an epic thread, discussing all details, possibilities and limitations.