GCQ Initial Impression/Early Review

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TorchRedRob]

Hello and welcome, Trackman employee with generic screen name!

[sorensen]

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

[mbuck45]

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

[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

[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.

[sorensen]

https://youtu.be/gCGF2WqWRp8

[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?

[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.

[Dax]

I think we need to get back on topic!

[Snaphook]

Which trackman?

We could not se any difference between TM4 and TM3. They have both. ,
In a perfect world i would get both.. GCQ for home/sim use and Trackman for range work.
I am not saying that TM doesnt work for indoor use, it works just fine. But i do believe gc2/gcq is a better option.

[RCorsa]

Lol. Clearly a trackman troll. Indoors the trackman was giving abnormally high spin numbers when ball flight was the mandatory 16-17 feet into a screen. However when taken outdoors and hitting on he exact same hitting mat, the spin numbers went down to what I would have expected and trackman was spot on perfect. However, the quad was the same indoors and out with regards to spin. Thus indoors the quad was better hands down and outdoors they were the same with relation to ball data. However dealing with club data the quad is better hands down. Based on high speed video recording we did the club data mainly with angles of attack appear to be more accurate and of course you get face contact with the Quad. As everyone knows what the face is doing accounts for 85% of the ball flight. Lastly it's pretty clear that trackman records club speed at point of max compression which is why club head speed is low and with accurate ball speed you get crazy high smash factors. Based on conforming club requirements, Smash should max out at 1.5 and I get 1.52 and 1.53 all the time with trackman whereas my absolute best drive with he quad is 1.5 as expected with most being 1.47-1.49

[mbuck45]

Lol. Clearly a trackman troll. Indoors the trackman was giving abnormally high spin numbers when ball flight was the mandatory 16-17 feet into a screen. However when taken outdoors and hitting on he exact same hitting mat, the spin numbers went down to what I would have expected and trackman was spot on perfect. However, the quad was the same indoors and out with regards to spin. Thus indoors the quad was better hands down and outdoors they were the same with relation to ball data. However dealing with club data the quad is better hands down. Based on high speed video recording we did the club data mainly with angles of attack appear to be more accurate and of course you get face contact with the Quad. As everyone knows what the face is doing accounts for 85% of the ball flight. Lastly it's pretty clear that trackman records club speed at point of max compression which is why club head speed is low and with accurate ball speed you get crazy high smash factors. Based on conforming club requirements, Smash should max out at 1.5 and I get 1.52 and 1.53 all the time with trackman whereas my absolute best drive with he quad is 1.5 as expected with most being 1.47-1.49

I wonder if Trackman can approve upon calculating their indoor data through updates? The quad is awesome, but if you can't play TGC or JNPG then it makes it a tough choice. Then again, it does come down to most accurate data realistic ball flight simulation.

[goatbarn]

The main downfall of doppler indoors is purely a limitation of the technology used and space restrictions of most indoor setups.

Spin axis cannot be measured (although it's really more like derived) with less than 30 yards of unobstructed flight...ie. can't happen indoors.

Spin measurement is obtained by reading the return signals bounced back from the metallic sticker as the ball spins. It needs at least 2 revolutions to obtain a spin rate. This rate is the total spin, not the backspin. So if there is less than 2 observed/measured return signals from the sticker, spin is guessed. This is why if you're a high speed/low spin player, you'll have trouble indoors.

Spin axis is estimated from spin loft/face to path numbers when used indoors. Normally, clubface is derived from the measured ball flight/collision model when used outdoors...since the radar can't see your club face. With that known, club face measurements are an estimate when used indoors. So for spin axis, you're using an estimated clubface number, combined with an estimated spin loft number, to produce ball curvature. You can start to see why you'll see some varied ball curvatures when using doppler radar indoors. It's just a downside of the technology.

It can still do club speed, ball speed, azimuth, club path, AOA, swing planes, total spin (if enough revs), and launch angle measurements very well when used indoors. The nature of how it obtains spin axis/club face is just not possible indoors.

[A.West]

Professionals are constantly outside and living in nice weather, usually on a golf course. People on a golf simulator forum probably are not. Most of us playing in relatively small spaces in basements or garages. Thus indoor performance is pretty crucial. Especially indoor performance that can be calculated in a small space. Looks like GCQ and GC2 come in first and second place in that category. But spending this much money on a GCQ without the ability to play on a third party simulator is a kick in the teeth to this well-established home simulator user base. I'd order one as soon as I found that there was a way to play 3rd party simulators, or if I was convinced that their own online play offering was attractive and competitive.

[FaultyClubs]

...However dealing with club data the quad is better hands down. Based on high speed video recording we did etc, etc.....

I doubt a home brew "high speed" video is the gold standard to verify the quad's accuracy. If anything it is the other way around so your logic sounds backwards to me.

As everyone knows what the face is doing accounts for 85% of the ball flight.

A lot of people think that...but the number varies SIGNIFICANTLY with club type and impact. Important to understand for anyone trying to assrss club data accuracy of these devices.

Lastly it's pretty clear that trackman records club speed at point of max compression which is why club head speed is low and with accurate ball speed you get crazy high smash factors...

Pretty clear?? Trackman explains how they measure this and it most definitely isn't at max compression.

There are a few issues around smash factors that people should understand given these new devices are becoming available so I'd recommend at least reading the trackman newsletters to understand the issues and then seeing how your favorite device handles them.