GCQ Initial Impression/Early Review

[Shawk]

I'm a totally GCQ fanboy as I've had my unit now nearly 3 months. However, Over the last two weeks I'm getting a ton of false HMT type club data from the Quad mainly with my driver. It's showing Hossle hits and far toe hits with in to out angles of 30 degrees and attack angles of 25 degrees down although ball data remains accurate with great ball flight. The quad does have a way to save shot data and I've been sending it to foresight engineers who are supposedly analyzing it to determine what is wrong.

How are things at this point RC? Still happy... what are the bugs still (if any)?

[Andyman33]

Wow and I just got a quote today that my gc2 which is less than a year olds tradenin value is 2950...they definitely are not targeting or taking care of their individual consumer market at all. Sad. Maybe it was a typo?

[RCorsa]

I'm a totally GCQ fanboy as I've had my unit now nearly 3 months. However, Over the last two weeks I'm getting a ton of false HMT type club data from the Quad mainly with my driver. It's showing Hossle hits and far toe hits with in to out angles of 30 degrees and attack angles of 25 degrees down although ball data remains accurate with great ball flight. The quad does have a way to save shot data and I've been sending it to foresight engineers who are supposedly analyzing it to determine what is wrong.

[col forbin]

Would love to buy a Quad way down the road, but absolutely no rush since bluetooth is disabled at the moment. Salesman told me it will eventually be active, but still don't know if it will be encrypted. Have FSX, E6 & TGC. FSX is really good at getting/extracting data from the GC2, so I imagine it would be even better showing data with the Quad. Range is very good and you can practice a shot by placing it anywhere on a course that you own. Problem is the courses are running on a graphics engine that already looks aged. (i.e. Redchain) Very expensive software as well!! Some courses look much better than others and the 3D grass is cool, but if you take a look at Akron for example, the trees and coloring are cartoonish. I much prefer E6 & TGC when actually playing a round, so I don't really use FSX anymore. It was definitely moving in the right direction, but then they decided to do Zombies.
I got to believe that after some time they will allow 3rd party software. Maybe after initial sales of the Quad slow because all retail and improvement centers have bought one. Residential owners will want more options and Foresight will at sometime have to address this or not.

[A.West]

In terms of technology, I'm not so much focused on accuracy, I'm thinking about the LED vs degrading flash, the larger ball recognition area, alignment, and generally more modern communications systems built into it. In general, it's just the more modern device that should last longer between problems. Does Foresight even have active message boards where people talk about having online tournaments together? Not that I've heard of. Do they actually think that they will have this happen someday? Zombie golf isn't going to do it. Maybe as a novelty for someone paying for 30 minutes of simulator time. But not owners for very long. Foresight salesman suggested I buy a GC2/HMT and then within 6 months I could trade back for a GCQ upgrade. But if GCQ never allows for a third party simulator connection, I don't know that I'd want to do that.
GCQ owners - how much do you enjoy the Foresight software you're using with it? What is the most useful/most entertaining parts of the software?

[Point280]

I agree mthunt

[mthunt]

My understanding is the quad is better outside but the difference inside is really small. Features are better but accuracy is negligible. The barometric reading is nice. The alignment is nice but the GC2 is so damn accurate, how can the quad be that much better. So carry reads 255 instead of 256? I'll live with 255.

[Ports]

That's a very tempting. Pm me an offer.

[rrobinson]

I went for the GCQuad since I was "new to the market" as you suggested. But as I'm learning more and more I find myself wondering if perhaps I should have gone the GC2/HMT route since I really like TGC (I still use it with SkyTrak) and I'm finding out alot of other software is only working with the GC2 (i.e. Swing Catalyst). Anybody want to trade their GC2/HMT for a GCQuad + some cash?

EDIT: I was only half joking - I think I'll wait a bit longer to see what Foresight does before I bail on the GCQuad. It's just too nice to give up on - but indeed very frustrating to not be able to use it with TGC!

[Point280]

What I'm still waiting for is for someone to do a head-to-head comparison between the GC2/HMT vs the GCQ... Me thinks the diffferences might be "stomachable" given the price point difference and lack of Bluetooth support. There was another post (maybe earlier in this read) explaining the differences in tolerances. It was a good read, basically inferring that the older (yet still very reliable tech) is potentially capable of the the same accuracy, just maybe off by slight percentages a fraction more of the time. No technology will achieve perfection. Show me the money! I've said this before... I do like the new convenience features. I have the money to switch. But I rarely take mine to the range. The deal breaker for me would be a huge difference in accuracy, and Bluetooth is a major consideration after that. Trust me, I understand the lack of comparisons out there... If I just traded up my GC2/HMT for the Quad or dropped the coin as someone new to the market, I wouldn't be in any hurry to learn that the Quad might not significantly outperform the GC2's data.

[Point280]

Commented on the wrong post

[A.West]

I'm surprised there's so little discussion of the GCQuad. Perhaps it's because Foresight hasn't opened up the equipment for third party simulators. The only hope is that they will enable Bluetooth and not encrypt it. I cannot stomach buying old GC2 technology when the GCQuad is better, but I also cannot stomach a fully closed system that virtually everyone proclaims is an inferior simulator vs third party providers. I suspect that Foresight will eventually see that they will make more money opening it up to third parties. Maybe they will follow the Skytrak business model and charge a fee for allowing the third party connectivity, due to its ability to widen the customer base and improve the customer experience. Golf pros aren't going to care about the third party simulators anyway. But the other customer base does.

[rrobinson]

You'll love it. For me the best part is the alignment stick and the LCD readout of the club data (dynamic loft, dynamic lie, etc..). I have been working hard on reducing my dynamic lie to zero (more flush shots) and reducing my dynamic loft (more lag). Turns out that I had a slightly steep swing but would have never known unless I had this to tell me. Worth it right there!

[legendsfan]

That screen looks like Gregg Rogers Golf Performance Center. I'm hoping to receive my Quad next month. Would love to hear more about your experiences with it.

[RCorsa]

Here are some comparisons with my 8 iron indoors compared to TM4 I took today. Didn't want to spend a lot of time of this as I was working with my coach and his time is expensive. Make of it what you will.