GCQ Initial Impression/Early Review

[Dax]

https://youtu.be/gCGF2WqWRp8

Thank you I believe that was the source of the issue that I mentioned in my post above, which TM was quick to dispute and point out the flaws in the analysis.

[mbuck45]

I have brought my GC2 to an indoor golf simulator place that uses trackman. And we did some comparisons (did not save any data) The concensus was that the GC2 is more accurate. There were some really good players (+ caps) hitting the shots and they all felt that gc2 was more accurate. These guys know their numbers.
When you hit a great iron shot they both were really close on the numbers, that's showing that TM does a pretty good job with the calculations. But if you misshit just a bit TM was showing some dodgy numbers.
Another problem with TM indoors, is if you hit up a lot on your driver, you get zero spin reads, meaning your ball just drops out of the sky. (Maybe because the club blocks the ball?)

Outdoors TM wins easy.

Which trackman?

[sorensen]

https://youtu.be/gCGF2WqWRp8

[Snaphook]

I have brought my GC2 to an indoor golf simulator place that uses trackman. And we did some comparisons (did not save any data) The concensus was that the GC2 is more accurate. There were some really good players (+ caps) hitting the shots and they all felt that gc2 was more accurate. These guys know their numbers.
When you hit a great iron shot they both were really close on the numbers, that's showing that TM does a pretty good job with the calculations. But if you misshit just a bit TM was showing some dodgy numbers.
Another problem with TM indoors, is if you hit up a lot on your driver, you get zero spin reads, meaning your ball just drops out of the sky. (Maybe because the club blocks the ball?)

Outdoors TM wins easy.

[Dax]

For simulation purposes, How accurate is TM at calculating spin access and dispersion indoors compared to GCQ?

unfortunatley, while we read about comparisons and people's thoughts all the time, I believe we are yet to see a head to head comparison. I recall reading one article or comparison that was done using cameras a number of years ago that tried to argue how far off TM was, which Was followed by an article in a TM newsletter article showing how TM does its measurements and how the other test was flawed.

The only other thing I recall seeing is where TM posted their accuracy a number of years ago, it seemed to look like they did this using cameras and with a unit indoors. Please note this was only an impression I was left with after reading and looking at pictures and may not be true.

Until someone does a head head to head comparison and posts the results we just won't know. This has led me to start thinking of picking up a used GC2 and seeing, which will then also let me join the online tour here

[mbuck45]

For simulation purposes, How accurate is TM at calculating spin access and dispersion indoors compared to GCQ?

[mthunt]

Nothing compares to TM outdoors as it tracks the ball until it lands but this isn't the outdoor launch monitor forum and nothing compares to Foresight in 8-10 feet of ball flight which is ideal for the simulator world.

[sorensen]

If you have paid a million dollars, it is hard to be convinced that something cheaper is better or as good :-)

[goatbarn]

It's taking pictures of the ball and the club. There is no guess on impact location/gear effect. The spin axis is measured from pictures taken from the ball. Unlike TM (or any doppler radar unit), spin axis is measured vs derived from ball flight. That's why it's better indoors, since TM does not measure spin axis. When indoors with less than 30 yards of flight, TM's spin axis number is a estimation based on spin loft and face to path.

Trackman or any doppler radar unit will give more accurate carry and dispersion simply based on the fact that it's tracking the ball in flight until it lands or the visual is obstructed...duh. That doesn't mean to say that GCQ's ball flight algorithm doesn't calculate those parameters very accurately though.

[TorchRedRob]

Hello and welcome, Trackman employee with generic screen name!

[John Smith]

So we finally had a break in the weather and I was able to do some more outdoor testing. My pro at the club uses a TM 4 as well so we did some outdoor comparisons. It's interesting but outdoor the numbers on ball data were nearly identical whereas indoors we saw some odd spin data on the TM. Clearly TM shines outdoors for ball data since it's actually watching what the ball does. Indoors we would occasionally question the quad numbers when there was discrepancies. However it's actually more likely the TM numbers are the ones that are off since we know TM is estimating the ball numbers indoors and when we went outdoors the numbers on both were nearly identical.

However the club data points are much better on quad without question. The face point strike location is also key on determining gear effect etc. The alligment works perfectly and given the large hitting area for the ball placement the usability of he quad surpasses anything else I've used.

Overall I'd give the quad an A+. No question it's worth the upgrade for me. If you are just playing courses and not doing game improvement indoor and outdoors then maybe not. Honestly if the TM was better I would simply sell my quad and get it but I really feels we are seeing a changing of the guard.

The biggest obstacle foresight has right now is getting over the trackman name which I agree will be an uphill battle but as far as tech goes, there is no question they've done it.

Can you please elaborate on the "odd" spin numbers on TM? Odd in relation to what, the Quad's readout? If measured, TM is accurate to within 10-15 RPMs of the actual spin of the golf ball. On gear effect, how accurate were the L/R numbers on the Quad outdoors on off center shots? I find it very hard to believe that it can give a very accurate estimate based on the varying number of golf clubs on the market and how their perimeter weighting varies. I.e. an extreme game improvement club will have completely different gear effect on a heel/toe shot than a forged blade. I get that the Quad is close on the distances, but direction is pretty important too. A side by side dispersion chart would be helpful to see. Also, when comparing numbers, when is the quad reading it's club numbers? First touch or maximum compression?

Lastly, I would probably start using a GC Quad too if the company was paying me (or my coach/acquaintance) to use it! Strategic move on Foresight's part to get Ricky to practice on one, not sure if he owns it? I guess TrackMan works well enough for the over 400 tour players that purchased their own and do not get any sponsorship dollars for using it week in and week out.

[col forbin]

I'm ok with the bluetooth being disabled at this point because I think their primary market is club fitters and pros right now. In a year or two, when maybe I can afford the Quad, they will realize that there is a demand for people who want different options than just FSX. That is what I am hoping anyways. FSX is pretty solid and great for numbers, but the graphics are not up to par with TGC or E6.

[Ookie]

I have a GC2 with HMT, FR1, and TGC software. I would definitely upgrade to the GCQ if they would enable the bluetooth to enable integration with TGC. Heck, I would even buy FSX as prerequisite to them enabling the bluetooth.

This is the rub for me as well. I can understand the business model. But if you already buy FSX, it's tough to justify not giving consumers what the want. Only remaining angle is to sell courses.

[RCorsa]

They are starting to get a little PGA tour love. Ricky Fowler and Russell Knok just signed on to use the quad.

[onehandicap]

I have a GC2 with HMT, FR1, and TGC software. I would definitely upgrade to the GCQ if they would enable the bluetooth to enable integration with TGC. Heck, I would even buy FSX as prerequisite to them enabling the bluetooth.