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.
-
I suspect they know what they are doing as well, but one thing that stuck out to me was how every shot the guy hit started left of center. Some faded back but most hung out left. He was obviously a strong player and had to be hitting the ball at his intended target. So, that leads me to believe that there is a good chance that his target line was not what the TM or GCQ were on. What doesn't make sense is that the two pros doing the talking never mentioned anything about it. The guy hitting was going trough a detailed pre shot routine on each ball, and checking his alignment to something. Would have been nice to know if the guy was pull fading the ball on his actual target line, since that is what the flight/data appeared to be showing. -
Looks like a pretty good test. While looks like TM might be a little close to be in the sweet spot for accurate club measurement, at the start of the video they seem to indicate that they are a TM shop and have done vids with the TM in he past. As such, inwould suspect they know what they are doing on set up.Leave a comment:
-
The distance from the TM4 to ball seemed shorter than recommended. Difficult to appreciate depth perception on video but appeared to be about 8 feet.Leave a comment:
-
Here is a GCQuad vs TM4 shootout I found
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkLeave a comment:
-
No updates but to be honest haven't really worked on it as I've been slammed at work. Hope to have some updates by end of the week.Leave a comment:
-
@RCosta - Any update on this? Has Foresight managed to get your network setup working? I'd still like to see some screenshots or video of the improved ESX.Leave a comment:
-
I guess the big question is... Was is worth the upgrade? Or does it have some more convenient/cool features that you could probably do without?Leave a comment:
-
Let's get this back on track with the GCQ and FSX 3. I'd like to see a screen shot of the sharper FSX for sure. Will you be working with Foresight again this week to get the connectivity issues resolved? Running multiple networks on a PC shouldn't be too difficult unless you have overlapping IPs. I'd hint at just going with bluetooth
Leave a comment:
-
To the question above, it's probably two or three seconds with my TM3. My putting is handled with a sensor from Trugolf. Chipping from about 12 feet or more gets a read, but nothing less.
I have still not run into a situation where I could not hit a shot Around the green for the most part.
To be honest i was underwhelmed with e6 and so most of my time is spent prescribing right off of the TM software which really is amazing IMO.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: