Foresight vs. Trackman...business strategy vs lack thereof

[onehandicap]

First, a little background: I have been a long time Foresight GC2 and HMT owner. Really great hardware combination. Mostly used indoors, but occasionally take outdoors. Previously owned a FlightScope many years ago (probably 6 or 7), but got rid of it because of a complete lack of consistency in measurement. Constant problems with firmware. Actually live in Michigan where the Trackman rep at the time lived and he came out with Trackman to compare Flightscope side by side. Night and day in measurement quality and consistency...right out of the box, no screwing around with firmware updates and sending logs, etc. I couldn't really justify the cost of the Trackman at the time, so went with the GC2/HMT.

As mentioned above, the GC2/HMT hardware combo is fantastic. However, Foresight continues to fall down on software. I can certainly understand gen 1 software being an issue (I am a CTO a relatively large company, so have a decent understanding of software delivery), but Foresight is many, many years into this. Both there desktop and mobile solutions are below average at the very best. It is one thing if you are inventing the space, but you have another company, Trackman, where you could be a relative fast-follower (i.e. a year to 18 months behind) and still have a very good product if you just imitated what they do.

But, they don't do that. And herein is my business strategy rant...Trackman continues to develop and enhance their software with innovative features. The latest being Tracy...which is their AI platform. Looks fantastic. What did we get from Foresight this week...an entry into the powered golf cart / trolley business for $2k that may at some point be able to follow you around. What the absolute !@#&!? kind of business strategy does Foresight have?

As mentioned, I live in Michigan, so indoor simulation is required to survive the winters. So I will keep my GC2/HMT with TGC for now. Plan on moving to the Carolinas in a year or so...will sell the GC2/HMT and buy a Trackman at that point since I won't need an indoor unit for simulation. This space is now a software vs. hardware game for the most part...Trackman gets it (and has gotten it for a long time)...Foresight does not. I wonder how many ForeCaddies (tm) they are actually going to sell? I take that back. I could give two !$@&!.

Rant over.

[StalefishFS3]

Onehandicap, couldn't agree more. I am currently in the design phase of a new house, which has been delayed due to some other issues over the last year. Originally, when I was first designing the room, the options I had at my disposal were Foresight (GCQuad) and Trackman 4. Given the indoor space limitations, I was leaning towards the Quad and actually contacted Foresight for purchase plans and help to design my space.

Then the Hawk came out, and I was considering that. In the meantime, my house plans were delayed for close to a year (I was unsure if I was going to relocate, so wifey and I wisely held off). In the meantime, zero contact from Foresight as you would expect a reasonable company to do to try and close the sale (Ex: "Hey StaleFish, haven't heard from you in a while? Is there anything we can do to move this process along?). This has left a bad taste in my mouth -- heck, if you can't even focus on a sale for tens of thousands of dollars, what makes me think they will be supportive after the sale happens?

Contrast this with Trackman, and now Uneekor. The new Eye XO is truly mind-blowing, for less cost, and from what everyone says, incredible support from the Uneekor team. And they listen to their end-users. While I have no experience with Trackman, everyone has said their support and attention to detail is also top-notch.

All this being said, I have heard almost no complaints about Foresight's hardware and its accuracy. The complaints are price, software and support. And yes, those are pretty big issues given the alternative. LOL on the powered golf cart/trolley --- who gives a $#@%?

I think Foresight has about six months - prior to the 2021 PGA show if there is one - to get their act together and reboot, or they are destined to always be in 3rd place behind Trackman and Uneekor. To be honest, I'm not sure what they can do now to get out of the (arrogant) hole they have dug for themselves. If they had any business sense they would be monitoring these forums and have the courage to have someone post here and listen to all the feedback they no doubt would receive. Yes, there would be a lot of "knife-throwing" at them here if they did have a representative post, but I believe that would toughen them up to make the hard decisions they eventually are going to have to face.

[Jay28]

Not so sure I really agree with the sentiment here.
Foresight products still lead the field hardware-wise for indoor use imho.
I prefer FSX2020 to TGC - sure graphics and course options are not as good but they are still plenty good enough. FSX2020 just feels more like a game-improvement tool that can also do simulation.
Trackman is not feasible for most for indoor.
Uneekor EYEXO looks decent, but for confidence around accurate measurement can Foresight really be beaten for indoor use?
Seems to me a strategy of hardware first and software second makes more sense.

[onehandicap]

As I said in my original post, their hardware is second to none for indoor use. But there is no reason their software for desktop and mobile can’t be comparable to Trackman. I am not talking about simulation software, I am talking about fitting, teaching, and game improvement software. I’ve used both Foresight and Trackman software and it isn’t even close...like comparing Windows 3.1 to Mac OSX.

Their R&D / capital would be better served in getting their software up to par vs bring out a golf cart / trolley...unless they are planning on exiting the launch monitor business. Hmmm???

[Jay28]

OK, but if Foresight's strategy is to be the best for indoor use then they are executing their strategy perfectly, no?
I am not sure that is their strategy and I take your point about the new golf trolley (strange), but being the best at one thing always struck me as a sound focus for any company.
By the way - I'd rather have Windows 3.1 to OSX

[a98cr125]

I plan on adding a Quad to the Golf Simulator Videos ( https://www.youtube.com/c/GolfSimulatorVideos ) studio soon. More 3rd party integration is coming and I will be sure to demonstrate it as soon as I can. I think they are now embracing that customers want software options and there is a lot in the works. I will be sure to get content out asap and keep everyone up to date as it unfolds.

[AdamV]

Agree 100%. Wasting R&D capital and time on fairgrounds, soccer golf and glasshouse smashing when your sim and fitting software is buggy and graphics are from 2010, is just stupid business.

Maybe the golf buggy is a branding/joint venture thing, don’t know, but it seems way off piste for a business who’s vision should be to bring the finest indoor golf experience to discerning users. They have the hardware nailed, fix the software.

[a98cr125]

I plan on adding a Quad to the Golf Simulator Videos ( https://www.youtube.com/c/GolfSimulatorVideos ) studio soon. More 3rd party integration is coming and I will be sure to demonstrate it as soon as I can. I think they are now embracing that customers want software options and there is a lot in the works. I will be sure to get content out asap and keep everyone up to date as it unfolds.

[gibbiesmalls]

a98cr125 - Dude, we get it, you sell this stuff. Stop spamming this board and others pretending to contribute to the discussion and taking it as an opportunity to spam your site. You should reach out to the site admins and become a sponsor and you can get your own Forum on this board. Your ads masquerading as comments to topics are getting old. You're doing it on facebook too!

Onehandicap - I agree. We paid grade A+ prices for grade C software. Forget the value of the hardware (I love it too, but I paid for it)- the fact is, all of us that own FSX paid more than top dollar for software that continues to be grossly inadequate relative to its competitors. I don't know about you guys, but my FSX software wasn't free, and I expect to get the software experience that I paid for. Investing capital to a golf cart for a launch monitor/golf sim company is just mind blowing.

[Brettster]

gibbiesmalls - exactly right, I thought it was me on how much junk I see from a98cr125. Not that some of it is not good, just that the impression I get is that he's the end all/be all for golf simulators (WTH?). a98cr125 there are plenty of us who have been-around-the-block and understand this stuff and don't need to see your comments that you have all the answers.... I'm still curious how you will compare Quad to some of your other simulation launch monitors (Mevo+, and SkyTrak), but we still have our own ideas on how all of this works and fits together...AND works for us.

Basically, there are ways to review Golf Simulators that assist the Low Handicap, Fitter, or Coach/Trainer to understand which simulator is right for them, without all of 'look at me', I'm reviewing another launch monitor.... maybe you don't care 'bout those golfers, as they won't buy from your link? I get it, but if you want to do that, listen to gibbie and look into better ways to do it... which doesn't have you replying so much.

If you're so up on Foresight now, provide the details on a separate post, and maybe Foresight needs to have their own rep(s) or internal sales team up here watching these boards anyway?

[soupy]

any idea when they are releasing 3rd party integration? is it soon or many months away?

[FCMTX75]

Rep told me in July. Exact words, "that's what I was told".

[soupy]

Is it going to be E6 integration?

[mthunt]

I’ve had GC2/HMT for years and love it. I used TGC/ E6/ FSX and ProTee. For me, TGC has been the go to. The community and tournaments are amazing. I abandoned the rest.

[sulli182]

I have had a Quad for almost a year and love it, hardware cannot be best indoors... I agree that the graphics of FSX 2020 are not up to snuff, however, I bought the Quad to get better at real golf, and I think FSX is the best option for that right now... The physics of FSX are way better than anything else I've played. I used to go to a local place near me that had the full trackman installed bays with the flex cages... It was really impressive, but it was nearly impossible to play a round on their system... There were hardware issues (negative spin readings, any drive struck in the heel of the club showed up as a pull hook) and software issues (wedges ripping back on greens or balls bouncing super high). TGC and E6 both have their quirks as well (I have played them at other local places). Foresight also runs package deals several times a year where FSX is included or discounted in your bundle (I got it free last summer with Quad + Club Analysis). So I guess long way of saying, I don't have a big problem with their software vs hardware approach... If they made the graphics 20% better, I would literally have 0 issues with the software at all...

[FCMTX75]

I 100% agree. I own a GCQuad. I have never played on Trackman other than being fitted, so I can't comment on it. I did have TGC19 on SkyTrak for about 6 months and I feel FSX20 is far better at being realistic. Graphics are not up to par to TGC, but I will take the far superior hardware of the GCQuad and truer bounce and roll of FSX20. IMHO

[Dax]

sulli182 how long ago was this and was it on their virtual golf or was it e6? Nothing is perfect, but apart from balls spinning back excessively on greens while playing e6 and having owned a TM3e and TM4 not sure I have ever experienced what you describe?

[sulli182]

I have had a Quad for almost a year and love it, hardware cannot be best indoors... I agree that the graphics of FSX 2020 are not up to snuff, however, I bought the Quad to get better at real golf, and I think FSX is the best option for that right now... The physics of FSX are way better than anything else I've played. I used to go to a local place near me that had the full trackman installed bays with the flex cages... It was really impressive, but it was nearly impossible to play a round on their system... There were hardware issues (negative spin readings, any drive struck in the heel of the club showed up as a pull hook) and software issues (wedges ripping back on greens or balls bouncing super high). TGC and E6 both have their quirks as well (I have played them at other local places). Foresight also runs package deals several times a year where FSX is included or discounted in your bundle (I got it free last summer with Quad + Club Analysis). So I guess long way of saying, I don't have a big problem with their software vs hardware approach... If they made the graphics 20% better, I would literally have 0 issues with the software at all...

[Taco]

To each their own, obviously, but I have read similar comments on here for 15 months or so I have been coming to this forum and I still don’t understand them. That’s ok, everyone has what it is they’re looking for, and for me what I thought would be an easy choice to buy a TrackMan became an easy choice to instead go with foresight. I love my foresight products, I started with GC2 and HMT, moved on to a Quad, purchased FSX and some courses. I have no interest at all in the golf club or any of the other platforms, I’m not playing real golf off real grass so the graphics are pretty much irrelevant to me. The Quad is far superior inside to TrackMan for obvious reasons, but I think outside it has some advantages as well... mainly that you don’t need to try and read a washed out screen in an iPad or computer and that it can be setup and ready to hit beside in about 10 seconds. Sure the range software and shot tracking aren’t as good as trackmans, but I’m not fitting people and the data is all there.

as for the motorized cart... yeah, I agree, whatever. It’s clear foresight sees themselves as a technology company... fine with me. This wreaks as one more ridiculous attempt for engineers trying to prove that they can improve a made up problem. We have seen countless “innovations” to make walking “easier” or “more enjoyable” yet nobody wants to acknowledge that in reality the only people who walk do so because they want to and the people who don’t walk don’t want to and I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

[TrueGolferNorth]

“ for me what I thought would be an easy choice to buy a TrackMan became an easy choice to instead go with foresight.” I went through similar process by starting torn between GCQUAD and TM4 and made the decision with TM4. I had a little bit of “buyer’s remorse” last year with the indoor performance of TM, but the latest TM software update TOTALLY changed this, and it’s amazing how accurate TM4 is now for indoors tracking. I still believe GCQUAD is very good but TM4 has made huge strokes in indoors arena.

[onehandicap]

There are some good points here that have made me realize that I need to clarify my OP. First, as stated originally, hands down the best indoor hardware. And ProTee has the simulator software piece covered with TGC. So my rant is more targeted at the the desktop and mobile launch monitor, fitting, teaching, and learning software. I certainly stand by my assertion Trackman's software is significantly better that Foresight's in those areas. Now, this being a forum targeted at simulation...maybe that critic doesn't belong here. However, a friggin golf trolley???...come on!!!! LOL.

[Brettster]

Yeah, have to agree with that onehandicap, a golf trolley???? WTH are they thinking?

[TheBogeyMan86]

I agree with some of your comments, but I've been told by my sales rep that Foresight is working hard on adding new software improvements, including improved graphics far beyond what we've seen in FSX2020. Assuming that's true (and I think it is), don't you think it makes more sense to invest in a company with great hardware than great software?

I mean, think about it this way. If I spent $$$ on mediocre hardware and great software but then the hardware improves, I will need to spend MORE MONEY on the new hardware (and wait for it to be delivered / set it up).

BUT if I spend $$$ on great hardware and mediocre software and then the software improves, it's a simple download (remember, Foresight didn't charge us to upgrade from FSX2018 to FSX2020).

There have also been noticeable improvements in the software, at least since I've been a customer. The online contests are pretty great which were basically nonexistent 3 years ago. FSX Live is also much better than it used to be for viewing shots/data online. Soccer seems like a waste to most of us but that's not surprising since this is a golf forum. If it means extra revenue for them to spend on improving golf, that's a bonus.

Ultimately, I guess it just depends on whether you have faith in the company to deliver on improved software in the near future. If you do, then you would be crazy to buy any other hardware.

[mthunt]

So is the argument that foresight is coming out with better software.

[TheBogeyMan86]

I honestly think Foresight is the right choice even with the current software, but I do believe they will continue to improve their software lineup and make what is currently a difficult choice a no-brainer. Right now the others are correct that you are sacrificing software for hardware by choosing Foresight, but I think hardware is a better investment.

[Brettster]

TheBogeyMan86

Wow, I'm confused now??? I posed a few days ago about Foresight software history, and now I'm trying to understand where they are going as a company, if they have all of this great hardware, why would they not being working fully on getting their software to the next level?

I found that the course files are quite large with FSX2020, which tells me there must be enough detail there to produce astounding graphics (on the 4K level), but why is not being done - maybe that is what is ahead? Or, maybe they are not able to go there, because they don't have those type of details in their older graphics files and no way to upconvert, in software to 4k??? But as a software developer/coder for almost 40 years that seems impossible - they should be able to find upconversion libraries and get that part in place.

Is there something I'm missing?

[Ryan_luan@yahoo.com]

I totally agree with OP. I wouldn’t be too surprised if Foresight continues to lose ground to Uneekor in middle market and to TrackMan in high end simulation market. This can be mostly attributed to the rudimentary and buggy software. I actually feel bad for the hardware people of Foresight.

[Kmurray]

What he said . So true , great hardware let down by absolutely massively overpriced cack software . Software Dev team should have been fired a long time ago. Delusional Board of directors does not help. Dodo fate looming for that particular organisation.

[gibbiesmalls]

If we had all paid one price for the entire package of hardware and software, then I could can understand the arguments some of you are making regarding taking the great (the hardware) with the bad (software).... BUT WE DIDN'T! We paid top dollar in the market for the hardware and we paid top dollar for the software. That we're getting an excellent hardware experience is irrelevant to this discussion because we paid for it!

What we aren't getting is the same value for the $$$$ we paid for the software. I don't know about you guys, but my invoice included a separate 4 digit item line for the FSX software. What I'm getting for my money, relative to Foresight's competitors in the market, is subpar graphics, an atrocious software update process, historically slow bug fixes, and when they release a new version we're left to guess what was changed with no release notes.

I won't get into the simulation side of the software because frankly, E6/JNPG/TGC put it to shame, but the game improvement side of the software hasn't really changed since FR1. It's effectively the same data presented in a newer view. There has been little to no innovation in improving the game improvement side of the software. Have you guys seen the AI Trackman's Tracy is now using?! Deep analysis of shot patterns and then makes recommendations on improvements like "improve path control" or "club face control". Uneekor hit the U.S market with better software right off the bat. Yet here we are, stuck with Skills Challenge. lol

To OneHandicap's point, who cares if they're last to market on innovation, but for goodness sake just COPY the rest. Drop the zombies! I don't want to play wack-a-mole with a golf ball, and I don't care to see whether I can lob one over the ferris wheel in fairgrounds!

[pwade3]

This is an interesting topic. It’s probably not right for me to chime in since I don’t have a foresight product and never have, but I am in the market for a new LM so as a non bias and perspective buyer I thought I might add what I see from the outside looking in. I have used a GC2 but never a Quad. I understand how good these units are. They are a solid reliable units that are used to measure the rest. If you own one, you know that you have something that few could dispute. Are they perfect? No, no LM is perfect but you see very few discussions about issues with this hardware.
From being on this site for 5 years, the one thing I have noticed about foresight products is the complaints about the software and poor support. I’ve never seen it so not qualified to judge. Just was always a observation about the product. I truly don’t remember people talking about how good it is. Again, just an observation. It has always stuck with me and more noticeable now that I’m in the market.
In my search, I thought about a GC2 and Quad. Personally I just don’t want something on the floor in my hitting area and the lefty righty issue. Personal choice. What struck me as odd was the price of the quad. Not saying its not worth it, but with the observation of software that seems mediocre at best struck me as odd. If I want software, club data and putting data its $27,900 cdn before taxes. Personally at that money the software should be as good or better then the hardware. At that price I could purchase an overhead LM and purchase a radar unit for the range and have money left over with 2 sets of decent software.
From the outside looking in, they nailed the hardware, I disagree with the price but seems like they missed badly on the software and for me, the s/w is very important. This for me is all only perception from what I have mostly seen on GSF and what I have been able to research. Maybe they will make a bundle off the carts and put it into s/w r&d. Just my 2cents.