Tweet
IF budget wasn't an issue, would you spend more to get the GCHawk? I'm really worried about my kids destroying the floor monitor if I went with the Quad 
-
-
The plus for the GCHawk is the ability to have right and left-handed players without moving the unit. And, as you suggest, it's out of the way being above versus off to the side. If you have the ceiling height, and budget isn't constrained (not that the GCQuad is cheap), I would choose the GCHawk -
And if you don't think you want to take it to the course or range.Comment
-
I had both 1st quad then hawk go with the hawk much better .. I’ve since moved on to trackman sold my hawk on hereComment
-
Thanks guys. Can you play with other friends online? I have a few buddies w Foresight already and that's why I want a Foresight. Plus it seems like their selection of course is sweet, granted I haven't looked into anything elseComment
-
FSX2020 live online play (Netplay) is completely unreliable. You might get it to work, or maybe not. I am crossing my fingers that the anticipated 2021 release gets this right because it is a real shortcoming.Originally posted by SimGuy555 View PostComment
-
Just looking at pictures online, it looks like the Hawk is placed slightly in front of the golfer. Is there a risk of skying a wedge shot and smoking/breaking the monitor?Comment
-
Yes. I’ve seen the hawk get hit by a pop up as well as a pretty good player trying to demonstrate a flop shot
unless you hit a lens it seemed pretty durableComment
-
Gcquad club data and portable.
gcHawk not portable and I don't think it has club data???
I'm thinking it should be Gcquad or Eyeexo????Comment
-
If indoors from my personal experience the Quad or Hawk no question. TM4 or X3 just cant give accurate data indoors with limited room, TM4 and X3 are designed to follow entire shot and then calculate data, they are just not designed to track only 10 or 12 feet of flight time. That being said the TM4 and X3 do have ability to work indoor and do a decent job but its not worth 20K-30K. GCquad, Hawk and EYEXO are designed to read shots and club data in a short window, so they work indoors/outdoors and they do a great job. I am a scratch golfer and hit the ball fairly consistent and the TM4 indoors spits our crazy numbers quite frequently indoors even with stickers on ball. The Quads numbers are a lot tighter shot to shot so I believe it is the more accurate one in my comparisons
I am not a TM4 hater or X3 Hater. Actually, outdoors I do like the radar systems as they follow the ball the entire flight so ball data is going to be spot on and systems will do a much better job calculating club data in an outdoor setting. Also the radar system read what the ball is doing in real time environment (humidity, wind, temp) GCQaud will be accurate outdoors as well as it still sees what happened at impact for both ball and club and has a setting to simulate outdoor environmental influences but may not be as accurate as radar since it is not actually tracking ball for full flight.
Essentially both radar and camera systems have to rely on algorithms to get outcome. Indoors, TM4 has to rely on incomplete ball data to form a solid conclusion of what happened which makes it fall short of being best for indoor setting (my opinion only).
Outdoor the TM4 is able to read ball for the entire duration of flight which gives it the upper hand on ball data in real environmental conditions which gives unit complete date to form a solid conclusion on impact data. I still believe the Quad wins on club data outside and inside based since it takes real time images of club thru impact.
Hope this helps.Comment
Comment