Announcement

Collapse

TGC Tour - Congratulations!

Congrats to @Gary Satterwhite winning the TGC 2017 Summer Tour - PGA Championship !

Join this weeks TGC 2017 Summer Tour - Wyndham Championship with 2 rounds at Tobacco Dunes Golf Club ProTee : https://golfsimulatorforum.com/forum...m-championship
See more
See less

GCQuad Failure

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by A.West
    Glad I didn't become an early adopter on this one. Sounds like there are a lot of kinks to work out in the basics of this new system, and it's unclear Foresight will ever allow this machine to work with 3rd party simulators. Thus, the sad reality is that the machine that alleges to be the best new launch monitor tech in the world is barely discussed on the world's most active golf simulator forum. I guess playing pros/golf teachers/fitters are a bigger market that Foresight doesn't want diluted by home enthusiasts? Foresight will sell them refurbed GC2s for the time being, while Skytrak actively courts them. Other systems aren't as small/portable.
    There is indoor Trackman, ES16 and Flightscopes for portable device segment.

    Comment


    • #17
      LEO, yes they exist, but my understanding is that those wouldn't have enough ball tracking distance to be accurate in a smaller indoor space. Trackman & flightscope need 20 feet or more I believe, while the ES16 manual says at least 10 ft distance to net or screen. The pure camera based systems only need the room necessary to swing a club.

      Comment


      • #18
        the Quad is a great piece of equipment and wish it was opened up and if it was i would have that in my garage right now i have not heard anything bad on this LM and if your up for the reason that this is so good for the techies i would go after it.
        Last edited by aeroburner; 08-03-2017, 01:41 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by A.West View Post
          LEO, yes they exist, but my understanding is that those wouldn't have enough ball tracking distance to be accurate in a smaller indoor space. Trackman & flightscope need 20 feet or more I believe, while the ES16 manual says at least 10 ft distance to net or screen. The pure camera based systems only need the room necessary to swing a club.
          Yes if you want to use indoors you need some space. I was only talking about portability not indoor usability.

          But all in all it doesn't mean those system I mentioned are not going to be accurate just like you can't say GC2 is pinpoint 100% accurate. Provided you have enough space these monitors will provide reliable data. To be completely honest we can't decide which one is de facto and 100% accurate indoors. But one thing for sure is that GC2s and TrackMans are the most used system in the world. And TrackMans are mostly used by PGA pros while GC2s are mostly used in golf stores. I would trust GC2 and TrackMan data both indoor and outdoor.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LEO MODE View Post

            Yes if you want to use indoors you need some space. I was only talking about portability not indoor usability.

            But all in all it doesn't mean those system I mentioned are not going to be accurate just like you can't say GC2 is pinpoint 100% accurate. Provided you have enough space these monitors will provide reliable data. To be completely honest we can't decide which one is de facto and 100% accurate indoors. But one thing for sure is that GC2s and TrackMans are the most used system in the world. And TrackMans are mostly used by PGA pros while GC2s are mostly used in golf stores. I would trust GC2 and TrackMan data both indoor and outdoor.
            Id say PGA pros hit 99% of shots outside and Trackman is the best outside therefore PGA pros use Trackman. Golf stores are 100% in doors.

            Comment


            • #21
              Got my quad back about 10 days ago. The firmware upgrade is working well. I have not had any errant shots since getting it back and after talking with the senior engineer it was tough task to sort out the cameras to localize the club but keep the large hitting area. That said, looks like they nailed it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RCorsa View Post
                Got my quad back about 10 days ago. The firmware upgrade is working well. I have not had any errant shots since getting it back and after talking with the senior engineer it was tough task to sort out the cameras to localize the club but keep the large hitting area. That said, looks like they nailed it.
                That is great to hear. GC Quad will be a much better upgrade than GC2+HMT if working properly. Wish Bluetooth gets enabled soon.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Much better for who? And in what sense? I agree, the new features sound great... but I'm only interested in the stats. Show me a few legitimate side-by-side comparisons between the GC2/HMT & the Quad. If the GCQ has it beat substantially--accuracy wise--I'm all in. I'll abandon the TGC ship to know I would have "hands down" the most accurate launch monitor in the world... The GCQ has some serious "convenience" features. No disputing that. And for some, that might make it the best LM ever... I just wanna be impressed if I'm gonna drop few $K more. I'm waiting for the comparisons. No one has ponied up yet.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Point280 View Post
                    Much better for who? And in what sense? I agree, the new features sound great... but I'm only interested in the stats. Show me a few legitimate side-by-side comparisons between the GC2/HMT & the Quad. If the GCQ has it beat substantially--accuracy wise--I'm all in. I'll abandon the TGC ship to know I would have "hands down" the most accurate launch monitor in the world... The GCQ has some serious "convenience" features. No disputing that. And for some, that might make it the best LM ever... I just wanna be impressed if I'm gonna drop few $K more. I'm waiting for the comparisons. No one has ponied up yet.
                    My pro friend has both and he's an ex mini tour player. He says accuracy wise it's not a big difference. The GC2/HMT is already very accurate.

                    Comment


                    • Point280
                      Point280 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Good to know. Thank you for this mt. Pretty much what I figured. I'm not bagging on those who've purchased and/or traded up to the Quad. I understand it's potential. Especially for someone who'll be using it primarily at a driving range. Very nice features for that. Mine sits in the sim. Rarely take it to the range. So, I seriously doubted I'd see the value in an upgrade, and this supports that.
                      Last edited by Point280; 08-07-2017, 02:45 PM.

                  • #25
                    Originally posted by Point280 View Post
                    Much better for who? And in what sense?
                    I was wondering how this "statement" was going to be backed up too!
                    I'm a GC2 owner, and have been swaying about upgrading to the CGQ for a while. I only really use FSX, so the bluetooth issue isn't an issue for me.
                    After the various GCQ teething problems, I decided to buy a refurbished HMT instead. Even if I used this for a year, and sell them both - I won't lose too much money.

                    Obviously the GCQ has advantages... single unit / more portable, bigger hitting area, better screen, target alignment.
                    It also claims to be slightly more accurate.

                    Spending my earlier years as an instrument calibration engineer, I can point something out.
                    Often manufacturers claim an accuracy. This is the WORST CASE it's allowed to be, to be within tolerance.
                    For example... I could have 2 pressure transmitters. 1 with a much higher accuracy than the other - yet both would give the same readings.
                    All it meant was that the higher accuracy one would be chucked in the trash earlier down the line - as it wouldn't be able to meet its required specification!

                    Even if this is not the case in the manufacturing of Golf instruments, Foresight claimed for years that the GC2 was the most accurate launch monitor out there.
                    Surely the GCQ can't be THAT much more accurate. At my level, a yard here or there isn't going to make a huge difference.

                    Comment


                    • Point280
                      Point280 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Exactly my point!

                    • andygg1986
                      andygg1986 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Not only that, but there is more than a yard or two variation in the flight algorithms that different software packages use. So even if you have the exact ball speed, spin RPMs, launch angle, etc your shot will not end up in exactly the same place if you hit it on TGC or FSX. And once you step outside and have variables like temperature, altitude, and humidity, your distance can also vary a few yards for conditions that feel identical.

                  • #26
                    Originally posted by Point280
                    Much better for who? And in what sense? I agree, the new features sound great... but I'm only interested in the stats. Show me a few legitimate side-by-side comparisons between the GC2/HMT & the Quad. If the GCQ has it beat substantially--accuracy wise--I'm all in. I'll abandon the TGC ship to know I would have "hands down" the most accurate launch monitor in the world... The GCQ has some serious "convenience" features. No disputing that. And for some, that might make it the best LM ever... I just wanna be impressed if I'm gonna drop few $K more. I'm waiting for the comparisons. No one has ponied up yet.
                    I'm not even talking about accuracy here. They should be the same. Are you saying if their price is negligible assuming the data output is the same you will still go for GC2+HMT? I definitely wouldn't. It's like a TrackMan 1 or 2 vs 4 comparison here. I'm a TrackMan 4 owner and I went with 4 instead of 3 because some of the differences that some people wouldn't care but I do. And I know Foresight makes a great product which was a serious contender vs my current TrackMan. GC Quad was created to be an upgrade product over GC2 all around. Don't forget that.
                    Last edited by LEO MODE; 08-08-2017, 05:54 AM.

                    Comment


                    • p3eps
                      p3eps commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Completely agree. My GC2 / HMT are going to sit on my garage floor and monitor balls being hit into my screen.
                      The only upgrade feature that really appeals to me is the larger hitting area - but it's not worth me paying about $11000 to upgrade my GC2 to.
                      Instead, I bought a 'pre-owned' HMT for $4500, which essentially does the same job.
                      The GCQ is still in it's early stages, and only seems to have had its bugs ironed out now. I'm mainly in the UK, but buying my kit from the US as it's way cheaper. I can't risk having warranty issues with an unproven unit - that I'd have to send back for repair. The GC2/HMT is a proven combo.

                      None of the new features are vital to my use. Ok, I'd be nice to hit on other areas of my mat other than a 30cm square, but that's hardly worth paying the extra for. Maybe in time once the GCQ IS proven, then I'll upgrade - but at that time there might be a GC'x' model coming out!!!

                    • mthunt
                      mthunt commented
                      Editing a comment
                      The reality is the GC2 was too good. It's hard to upgrade something that good.

                    • mmlincon
                      mmlincon commented
                      Editing a comment
                      It's not so much the improvement, that's always there. It's expecting twice the value on the minor improvements that's a problem. The quad is maybe 10-20% better than the GC2/HMT and you want 100% for that. Uh, no thanks. A better trade in value for existing users would get this out in the market more but they had inventory issues so that wasn't a driver. I personally won't touch one until open bluetooth is available and the price comes down but that's just my opinion.

                  • #27
                    GCQuad owner and first launch monitor I have owned... I think the Quad makes sense to buy over a GC2/HMT setup but if you already own a GC2 then buying the HMT makes the most sense to me. I love being able to take the GCQuad to a grass range and hitting a bucket of balls without moving the launch monitor but I know few people on here bring theirs to the range. Maybe I won't after I get my sim room built. Still hitting on a mat in the backyard. I haven't used my GCQuad for putting but curious how the GC2 performs for putting. I've seen the game improvement tweets for the GCQ and I'm anxious to start working on that aspect of the game.

                    Comment


                    • #28
                      I use mine quad outdoor with net return for couple months and I do see some false data. (1 out of 100? It says something like 20 degree upright and 30 in to out path) . Just take the false data out and it's fine.

                      Comment


                      • #29
                        In addition GCQuad has a barometer and thermometer which can make a slight difference in the carry/total distance. GC2 doesn't have that and only bases on San Diego environment.

                        If GC Quad enables bluetooth I would love to try it out. Although putting stickers on a club head is not my type.

                        Comment


                        • Point280
                          Point280 commented
                          Editing a comment
                          I'll add that, while the GC2 doesn't have built in barometric and temperature capabilities, both FSX and FR1 software allow you to adjust for altitude (rendering the barometer unnecessary in a sim), wind direction, wind speed, and ground conditions (soft, normal, firm, slow, medium, fast). Although actual temp and humidity certainly affect the end results to a slight degree -- I can adjust for the aforementioned conditions at home. Again, the differences for the cost involved are negligible unless primary use is for heavy range use.

                          I'd agree that the dots/stickers are an inconvenience... but the accurate info obtained is worth it IMHO. Knowing precisely where the ball contacts the club face, and even dynamic lie angle are what truly differentiate the Foresight camera tech and current radar tech. TM does give swing plane info which is nice!

                          One could argue that impact tape, dry erase marking of the ball or foot powder spray on the club face could give you that info, but those options aren't exactly convenient either -- not to mention the potential damage/markings that would occur on my impact screen from the residue. Lie boards and divot reading have their limitations, as well.
                          Last edited by Point280; 08-12-2017, 10:31 AM.

                        • LEO MODE
                          LEO MODE commented
                          Editing a comment
                          I definitely do respect Foresight's club impact info which I think is so invaluable and that TM should really implement on. And the fact that camera system can capture the impact it can really add a lot of information. Yes altitude and temperature is a slight difference (well altitude can play some role if it's 1000+ft or more difference) which can be adjusted.

                          The most ideal of combining both camera and radar technology is Ernest Sports ES16, but maybe wait for the next iteration on it. Time will tell whether TM or GC implements both technology...
                      Working...
                      X