GC quad for fitting vs Trackman 4

[Patator100]

Hello all

I ve been reading many posts in this forum above TM, GC Quad...and also Uneekor QED.
I personnaly have a QED and I m very about it for simulation and training. Nevertheless, it s not adapted to fitting at all (at least ignite is not - View a bit more).
I use my launch monitor for personal training and simulation 80% of the time. The rest is for occasional fitting.

I put my uneekor on sale and will be looking at buying a TM4 or Quad for indoor use (my sim room is 6m long).
I really like the TM4 software and all its features. Nevertheless, as many others have commented, Doppler radar are not the best for short indoor use (spin axis measurement).
Most of users recommend GC Quad for indoor use but I read FSX2020 is not as good as TPS 7.2 for fitting. Actually, I saw some screenshots of the foresight “fitting module” in comparison to TPS.

i would like to have some comments from users :
easy of use of the software
access to data online for different users
possibility to export data to excel, pdf, send my mail
bag mapping
driver optimizer (as Flightscope or Trackman)
...

also, is it mandatory to purchase the putting option to be able to put in TGC ? (Or is the putting option just for advanced data collection ?

thanks a lot for your comments !

[FCMTX75]

See if the guys at TXG Tour Performance can you give you some advice on why they switched from TM to GCQuad. One of the best fitters in the world.

[Aapo]

They switched because they got paid for doing so

[Dax]

Please be aware that Ian has noted he has some form of connection with FS.

[Dax]

If it were me, I would do a side by side if you can and then decide. I think TMs software is amazing and something that others try to replicate. Another suggestion would be to call TM and see if they are willing to discuss more on the new golf ball that they are working on for indoor use. If they get this right, then your spin axis comments should all but be eliminated. I don’t see that to be as much of an issue with the latest updates this past year, but others will always find a way to put doubt in your mind.

my concern is that you are just a tad under 20 feet and this could be the deal breaker for what you are looking for if that distance will also require a net and the unit up against the back wall as you will loss about 1.5 feet for the screen to wall distance and the distance of the front of the TM to the wall behind it. This will give you just over 18 feet. To get really good club measurement, you will be about 8 feet to tee area and ten feet of ball flight, which might not be enough for high swing speed players and their driver fittings.

Another pint is that you will see that TM does some things better on the club measurement than what you will get with the QUAd and the QUAD will be better at other things.

while I think TPS is the best and love my TM4, you could either wait for TM5 and see what that will be before making a decision.

for my final comment, and I do hope people are sitting down, regardless of what I just wrote, I think for your space the QUAD might be the way for you to go. I think if you did the plus and minus on the two for what you want you will likely be about even between the two and then you will need to look at your space and I believe this might be where the scale tips to the QUAD given the 10 feet of ball flight. However, this could be changed depending on what you learn about the new ball that TM is working on.

hope this helps a little.

[sulli182]

Full disclosure, I own a Quad. With that bias explicitly stated, I think that indoor fitting is significantly more reliable with Quad. First of all the quad being able to read dynamic lie angle at impact is significant... I am pretty sure TM cannot measure dynamic lie angle, but that is a big piece of a quality fitting and is way more precise than a lie board.

I went to club champion recently and was fit using TM. I am a 2 handicap player and am a pretty decent ball striker. I had so many balls that during my fit (especially with Driver) that I knew I heeled a little and were definitely going to fade, that showed up by TM as a pull hook. I also had at least 75% of my shots show up as italicized spin, meaning that it was estimating spin and not measuring it... Those spin numbers were all over the place... I had a hard time trusting the data when I knew half my shots were not measured. My shots with 6 iron seemed very accurate but Driver was a mess.

All that said, TMs software is awesome and if I was using it outside I would definitely use TM. But indoor fittings are better with quad in my opinion.

[Patator100]

Sulli

Thanks for your feedback - really appreciated.
Were you fitted on TM4 or TM3 (indoor I guess to have bad spin readings with your driver).

Can you tell me a little bit more on the club fitting module sold with the quad ? (It s part of fsx from what I understood)

Pat

[Patator100]

Hi dax
thanks for your comments. I measured my space again and the distance from wall to screen is exactly 5.9m, so I m on the limit but should be ok
i will have the TM rep coming to my place in two weeks time to run a demo, so I will be able to see by myself.

I will have a video conf tomorrow by the uk sales manager to show me FSX to give me an idea...

More important to me is to get feedback from users and particularly the fitting module in FSX...

thanks again for your advise !

[Dax]

I have heard that a fitting centre like that mentioned above did not add the metallic sticker to the ball for another person who went and had a fitting. I Was shocked to learn this.

[markooi]

I have a GC Quad and FSX 2020. I also watch the TXG quite a bit. I may be wrong here but I don't see them using any special fitting module. I can replicate what they're doing on my Quad / FSX 2020 with club head data. My main complaint is there's no detailed user guide for FSX2020, so I had to play around quite a bit to get the settings / view that I wanted. But once that's done and now that I'm more familiar with the software, it's really helped my game.

I've been fitted on both a Quad and TM4 before, with the TM4 being used for an outdoor fitting. Both are good. I believe the TM4 derives some of the club head data, such as impact location, but for the most part it's pretty ok. The really bad shots show weird data, but those are probably shots you're removing from the sample for fitting purposes anyway.

[Patator100]

Hi all

thanks for your feedback.
I had an online demo today. A lot of data but I was not impressed by the design of the range and the way tiles are on the left of the screen (not customizable at all).
The screen summarizing all shots is ok and data can be exported on pdf or csv. Data are also accessible on line which is good.
Foresight is very comparable to Flightscope in terms of software design...but leaves a lot to desire to look more modern.
I will have a onsite Trackman demo in 2 weeks time and be able to to check if the software is as good as I ve seen it on various videos.

Now, what s put me a bit off foresight is the official incompatibility with TGC2019. I read that people have found a way to make the gcq and TGC2019 work together....until foresight decides to stop it through a software update. They have just signed a deal with e6 (2500€ !).
I have designed a couple of local courses on TGC and don t want to lose that...Trackman is fully compatible with tgc2019

pat

[aledavidov]

If money no problem TM for sure but i can’t justify 30-35% it’s crazy expensive to us
just my 0.02

[Patator100]

TM indoor is actually cheaper (18K€ incl.VAT) than GCQuad here in Europe (22K€) - VAT/taxes = 20%

Let me put in USD excl VAT
Trackman indoord : 18KUSD
GCQ : 22KUSD
EUR/USD=1,2

Current price of GCQ in US with FSX2020 and clubdata info : 18USD excl taxes. 18% cheaper to buy in the US rather than in Europe (no duty taxes from the us to europe for electronic devices)

[sulli182]

Yes I was fitted with a TM4... It was not done with a metallic sticker. I am not sure if the metallic sticker damages the screen over time or why they would not use it.

As far as FSX, I much prefer the range on FSX, where I am hitting into a green during the fitting process (although I love TM4s virtual range, but it's not part of the fitting software.

I agree, I wish the tiles were customizable, although the only one that isn't included on the screen that I ever check is apex. There are very few others that aren't on there. Who needs closure rate.

I truly think the decision between these comes down to if you are using inside or out and do you have both left and right handed players... I use it almost exclusively indoors and have no lefty friends, so I chose quad. If I used it more outdoors or I had a lefty in the family that used it alot, I probably would have gone TM4

[AdamV]

Totally agree, indoor/outdoor and left/right.

And in Australia, TM is way more expensive, plus has ongoing annual costs.

[Patator100]

Indeed. 1000€ for software maintenance + 1000€ for hardware maintenance. None of them is mandatory to keep using the TM.

my use : 90pct indoor - nobody left handed who does not play gold (not yet at least !)

but I can’t afford 22k€ incl. vat for my launch monitor...except if I can find a second hand in the European market...

[Dax]

I only have the software license and bought a three year licence for US$2000. This gives me all the software updates as well as full use of all software and courses. Breaking it down and comparing to what others pay to e6 makes it seem pretty comparable. Plus they will be coming out with online play for those of us at home soon I believe. I do not pay for the hardware license.

if the rumour that Foresight will come out with a big upgrade to their graphics etc in the next year, then one must ask what they are going to charge for that next round of software. Also, will they go the route of others and also charge a yearly subscription. Seems to be the direction that others are taking.

Also, TM works for TGC which is another option. I know the same can be said for GCQ, but the recent issues seems to cause some concern as to potential future problems.

fron what I am reading, it is sounding more likely that the GCQ will be the route taken here, but will be interested in your comments after you get a chance to demo their software.

[Patator100]

Dax

i m a member of various facebook pages related to launch monitors and one of the latest empiric analysis comparing TM4 to gcq makes me believe that gcq is not worth paying an extra 4000€ !

https://golfsimulatorguide.net/research/

https://golfsimulatorguide.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/IndoorsQuad-vs.-TMFinal.pdf

[Dax]

I had thought that TM was the more expensive launch monitor? Unless you are referring only to TM indoor pricing. For indoor only is the better deal not just a GC2 with HMT? I do believe the GCQ may have an edge over the TM for indoor only use still (subject to change potentially when TM releases their new ball).

For the study,

I do note that one thing that I recall the study not mentioning was whether or note they input the irons head measurements into TPS. I assume based on the other things this would have been done, but they should have noted this in their testing. Another thing that caught my eye as strange was they had no issue putting the dots on the face of the club, but not a metallic dot on the ball. However even though they did not do that, the results were still surprisingly close.

While I have not tested this, their results seemed to have indicated that the ball landed 2 yards right of what the Quad measured. If @leomode 's testing is still accurate I believe he noted that Quad was slightly draw biased and this seems consistent to what this reports testing had found. However, I would argue 2 yards at 150 yards is not all that bad.