CGQuad reported numbers vs TGC 2019

[mthunt]

OK, the mismatch between TGC calculated ball flight and GCQuad is something I have just investigated having purchased TGC 2019. I will summarize my findings here but can post more details and graphs if there is interest.

First of all, I can confirm that GCQuad is only passing ball data and not club data because reported Ball Speed, Launch Angle, Side Angle (lateral), Backspin and SideSpin are identical although TGC 2019 rounds off the numbers for display (but presumably uses more significant figures in its calculations).

After that, TGC 2019 makes up a Path, Club Speed, Face to Path and Impact Point (horizontal only) for presentation purposes only. It is miles from Club data from the GC Quad. The main reason is that impact location (especially on a driver) has a huge effect on the relationship between club and ball stats. I have no idea if this is unique to TGC 2019 with GCQuad or whether it is generic for all Launch Monitors where TGC doesn't get club data provided to it.

So, GC Quad and FSX 2020 are starting with the same ball data but calculating VERY DIFFERENT trajectories. To summarize:
1. Carry isn't much different ON AVERAGE within 1% (though with standard variations up to 9 yards at 250 yards and 1 yard at 30 yards), but
2. OffLine Angle (OffLine Yards relative to Target Line at Total Distance) from TGC 2019 is about HALF AS MUCH as from GCQuad. I assume this is to make playing "more fun", but serious golfers will be very annoyed by this - I look way too accurate on TGC 2019 with my lateral dispersion effectively cut in half. Serious golfers should probably avoid TGC 2019 ranges altogether.

Some Data

I hit shots from 4 yards carry to 240 yards on a flat range with a variety of distances and (intentionally and otherwise) a variety of OffLine Angles from narrow to as wide as 10 degrees. Then I made up charts and linear regressions comparing the Carry and OffLine Angle from FSX 2020 and TGC 2019 for each shot. There is a relatively simple empirical relationship (not a model, but a correlation) between the amount of curve calculated by various ball flight models between (OffLine Angle - Side Angle) and SideSpin. For the GC Quad, this relationship is approximately:
OffLine Angle - Side Angle = SideSpin / 100 which means that every 100 RPM of Side Spin results in a curve of 1 degree starting from Side Angle (with many clubs, not just drivers). The 100 RPM number has a standard deviation of about 3 (i.e from 95 to 101). SideSpin is not the only ball flight parameter affecting OffLine Angle, but it (and Side Angle) are super dominant (and Tilt angle is the next most important, which is mathematically the angle between SideSpin and BackSpin vectors.

TGC also reports OffLine Yards and Total Distance, from which I can calculate OffLine Angle and then subtract the same starting Side Angle both TGC 2019 and GCQuad used. The TGC relationship is more like:
OffLine Angle - Side Angle = SideSpin / 185 (+/- 9) for the same series of shots
The divisor is significantly different (nearly twice as much) and the difference is very signficant in statistical terms. Basically, TGC 2019 calculates a ball flight lateral curve that is about 55% of the curve that FSX 2020 and GCQuad calculate. THIS IS NOT A MINOR DIFFERENCE and is therefore likely intentional by design. Maybe this is why TGC 2019 doesn't support GC Quad. TGC 2019 may or may not do the same for other Launch monitors - I'd be interested in other users feedback.

For the golf nut who wants a golf sim experience based on the GCQuad, the super expensive FSX courses or Foresight's Creative Golf offering seem to offer greater realism in lateral dispersion....

What serious golfers need is for software geeks to merge a realistic ball flight model with a package of courses. The ball flight model and course graphics are fully independent for the developer. ProTee could do it, but would they want to?

Meanwhile, for this GC Quad user, I've just purchased software about as reality-relevant as Optishot 2 (which doesn't even measure ball data but has nice graphics and user interface)!

"2. OffLine Angle (OffLine Yards relative to Target Line at Total Distance) from TGC 2019 is about HALF AS MUCH as from GCQuad. I assume this is to make playing "more fun", but serious golfers will be very annoyed by this - I look way too accurate on TGC 2019 with my lateral dispersion effectively cut in half. Serious golfers should probably avoid TGC 2019 ranges altogether."

This shouldn't be happening. Are you saying that if you hit a shot that should be 4 degrees right, it'll only be 2 degrees right? What about spin? I'd like to look at this. Can you please hit some shots offline with both TGC and FSX running and give me the numbers? I'd like to see if it's in the interface. I suspect that there is a setting in yours that is off. What version of interface are you using? QSQX or GSQX2?

[Scottygolf]

We took club data out of the Quad interfaces because of the way Foresight transfers data and the way TGC accepts it. The Quad and GC2/HMT sends 3 data packets. 1 is speed and direction, 2 is spin, 3 is club data. TGC waits for all 3 with club data on and 2 if off. If you wait for HMT (Which was left in for the version of GC2 from me) then the ball will not launch for almost 3 seconds. FSX launches the ball on packet 1, then adds spin then club data so it's seamless and not noticeable to the user. If TGC does not get club data it just uses best guess club data. I worked on the algorithms for months with Bubba to get it as close as possible. Personally I use Schogolf for club data. Works great.

mthunt - talk to me regarding Schogolf.. How does it connect with GC2, where do you download etc. Then why is it better the what comes with FSX2020? Is there an accuracy difference? This is the first time I have ever seen it.

[mthunt]

mthunt - talk to me regarding Schogolf.. How does it connect with GC2, where do you download etc. Then why is it better the what comes with FSX2020? Is there an accuracy difference? This is the first time I have ever seen it.

https://schogolf.net

download it then connect the GC2 via USB and Schogolf via Bluetooth. It shows all ball and club data as an overlay.

[GullLakeMi]

I have a GC2, FSX, and TGC 2019. I frequently hit balls on FSX range and then play in TGC. I sensed this phenomenon as well that my shot dispersion results in TGC are a little better than I deserve. I ran my GC2 today with FSX range connected via bluetooth and TGC 2019 "mthunt dead flat range" connected by USB. Tedious to collect TGC data manually. I'm not smart enough to provide a scientific analysis, but more times than not the distance offline is less in TGC than FSX.

[Wizard of Coz]

Interesting find. I thought the ball curved more in tgc2019 than fsx. So it's harder to hit it straight. I tested 3 softwares in a video awhile back. Software x was the easiest to hit it straight followed by fsx then tgc2019. In terms of movement. Cut/draw

[GullLakeMi]

How many shots is a reasonable sample? Anybody know a better way to get data from TGC besides hitting "I" after each shot and writing it down?

Are the formula's proprietary for taking the ball data and calculating a flight path?

I see a dispersion trend off a small sample, but don't have actual results to compare to (other than I can hit it offline IRL!). Maybe ball and climate assumptions factor in as well as fairway conditions, bounce, roll so some deviation is unavoidable. This isn't a better/worse pursuit for me, rather trying to better use the technology to improve my game.

[Wizard of Coz]

I feel tgc2019 moves more than outdoors. If you can hit it straight on tgc2019 then you are crazy straight outdoors. Spin decay outdoors???

[GullLakeMi]

I logged 47 shots across SW, 8I, 5I, and driver. Scattered two way miss without much effort! 40 shots of 47 were less offline on TGC 2019 vs FSX dead flat range having 68% the variance. Carry distance essentially the same.

I agree I see curved wedges in TGC 2019, which I don't notice outdoors.

After seeing my results this closely, clearly I have room to improve separate from any math debates! Back to the grind.

[mthunt]

How many shots is a reasonable sample? Anybody know a better way to get data from TGC besides hitting "I" after each shot and writing it down?

Are the formula's proprietary for taking the ball data and calculating a flight path?

I see a dispersion trend off a small sample, but don't have actual results to compare to (other than I can hit it offline IRL!). Maybe ball and climate assumptions factor in as well as fairway conditions, bounce, roll so some deviation is unavoidable. This isn't a better/worse pursuit for me, rather trying to better use the technology to improve my game.

You can get your shot data for TGC from here. Copy the data and paste it into excel. If you run FSX at the same time both on the range you’ll get matching data.

https://golfsimulatortours.com/tour_players

[GullLakeMi]

Agree the data from GC2 gets to both software's precisely. I don't see range data there. TGC shot tracker must only collect for society play? Is more convenient to collect that way, but assume course topography affects ultimate ball flight details. I collected my data from your dead flat range assuming that was most similar to other range. Also, still have to grab total yards and yards offline from screen after each shot.

[mthunt]

If shot recording is on properly it will record both tour and non tour shots. If I remember correctly, it will only record tour if not on correctly.

[Magilla]

Today I tried moving ProTee Golf Interface "Forgiveness" setting to 0% (professional), but this had no effect on TGC 2019 Driver dispersion - still about half of GC Quad. Maybe that is only used for ProTee devices and is not generic. Too bad, as it would have been the easiest route to realistic long club dispersion.

[Magilla]

Nov 17, 2021: TGC 2019 vs GC Quad/FSX 2020 – Data behind the conclusion TGC calculates about Half the Lateral Dispersion!

TGC 2019 is a collection of simulated golf courses to play using ball data (launch angle, side angle (lateral launch), backspin and sidespin) from many different launch monitors. I wanted to compare their calculated shot results (Carry, Total distance, OffLine Angle) with those provided by the GC Quad with FSX 2020. I have a scientific background, so please excuse reliance on statistical and error analysis which indicates these conclusions are robust.

• GCQuad passes the same ball data to FSX 2020 and TFC 2019 when they run simultaneously:
  1. Ball Speed
  2. Launch Angle
  3. Side Angle (lateral launch angle)
  4. Backspin and
  5. SideSpin

Data Analysis
I hit 53 shots from 4 yards Carry to 240 yards with Lob Wedge, 5-Iron and Driver on a flat range (mthunt range on TGC 2019 and the FSX 2020 range) with no wind with a variety of distances and (intentionally and otherwise) a variety of OffLine Angles from narrow to as wide as +/- 15 degrees. FSX 2020 provides a .csv table which includes calculated trajectory results Carry, Total Distance and OffLine Yards, which can be compared with TGC 2019 results from the very same shots.

Carry Comparison
Carry is the most reliable distance calculation because it results from motion through the air, which is well modeled (especially when wind = 0). Total Distance is less consistent between ball flight models because it depends on where the ball lands (fairway, rough, sand) and the different assumptions about these made by ball roll models. Indeed, about 35% of these hits spent at least some time in mthunt’s range rough and bunkers (so 65% landed and rolled in the fairways). This doesn’t matter to Carry calculation, but the 35% would need to be eliminated to compare fairway roll between the models (and maybe OffLine Angle).

Reference my upload of Figure 1 here

Figure 1 shows a plot of X = GC Quad Carry from FSX 2020 and Y = TGC 2019 Carry for the same shots. Generally there is a linear correlation and the overall slope of the data is 1.0151.

• Scatter (differences between the FSX 2020 and TGC 2019 ball flight models) seems to be greater with longer Carry distance.
• Note the open circle labeled “Weird Point”, well off the correlation line. This is a driver hit with GC Quad / FSX 2020 calculated Carry of 158 yards and TGC 2019 calculated Carry of 230 - a huge difference considering the two ball flight models used the same (very typical) driver hit ball data: Ball Speed = 139.2 MPH; Launch Angle = 12; Side Angle = -0.7; BackSpin = 2689 RPM and SideSpin = 51. This should carry about the same as any of the other driver hits (say 225 yards), so we can blame this breakdown on the GC Quad / FSX 2020 data transfer or models. Generally speaking, the Weird Point is not important to our conclusions, but it does indicate that scatter can arise from either ball flight model.

Regression Comparisons

Reference my upload of Figure 2 here

Figure 2 shows various regression results on the Carry data with three statistically significant models highlighted in green.

• When the Weird Point is excluded the slope of Figure 1 is 1.0086 +/- 0.0057 (standard error is for a 68% probability range). This is slightly greater than 1.00 because the mthunt range has a driver landing area about 1 yard below the tee: the downhill slope of 1 yard is expected to increase Total Distance by about 1.5 – 1.8 yards (about 0.7% increase in slope). Since this is very close to 100.86% observed slope ratio, I conclude that: TGC 2019 and GC Quad ball flight models give the same AVERAGE Carry Distance, although with some scatter represented by the Fit Error.
• For Drivers only, the Carry Fit Error neglecting the Weird Point is 9.4 yards (4.3% of average Carry), while for the Lob Wedge (LW) it is very much lower at 0.6 yards (1.7% of average Carry). So the differences are very sensitive to the distance or ball speed, and the spread is not a simple percentage of the average distance.
• I should note that the LW landing area is flat with respect to the tee on the mthunt range, yet the slope in the last column (1.0171 +/- 0.040) is significantly different from zero. However a 1.7% systematic difference in Carry is not that meaningful over a distance range of 4 to 70 yards and the average difference is 0.65 yards (equivalent to forcing Slope = 1 and Intercept = 0). This is getting to be on the order of a rounding difference (0.5 yards because TGC Reports Carry in whole numbers while GC Quad reports one decimal point).

Overall TGC 2019 and GC Quad compute the same AVERAGE Carry distances, with a DISPERSION in calculation of about 1.7% at 36 yards and 4.3% at 220 yards.

OffLine Angle and Curve Comparison

OffLine Angle is the angular deviation between the final ball position and the target line. In this study I used the exact mathematical relationship:
OffLine Angle = ATAN(OffLine Yards / Total Distance) , where ATAN is the ArcTangent.

But, on the golf course, this can be approximated with:
OffLine Angle = OffLine Yards / Total Distance / 0.0175, which is good to less than 0.1 degrees error at OffLine Angles less than +/- 9.

OffLine Angle has to use Total Distance rather than Carry because OffLine Distance is only provided for the ending ball position. This does introduce a small amount of scatter in relationships between ball flight models and users have to be careful about curving bounces into bunkers or rough. In my analysis of OffLine Angle I deleted hits on the mthunt range that rolled into rough or bunkers.

OffLine Angle itself is made up of two components:
OffLine Angle = Side Angle (lateral launch) + Lateral Curve (i.e. the initial lateral direction plus the lateral curve during flight and roll)

Side Angle (positive or negative with respect to Target Line) is provided by the launch monitor and Lateral Curve (positive or negative with respect to Side Angle) is calculated by the ball flight algorithms. Side Angle and Lateral Curve may add up in many ways: they could reinforce each other (e.g. positive Side Angle and positive Curve is a push fade); or they could cancel each other (e.g. positive Side Angle and equally negative Curve is a slight draw to center so OffLine Angle = 0); or one could be much bigger than the other. Typically, though not always, the magnitude of Lateral Curve is greater or much greater than the magnitude of Side Angle and so is its variation between shots.

Lateral Curve Comparison
I computed Lateral Curve Angles from the exact formula from OffLine and Total Distances provided by TGC 2019 and GC Quad / FSX 2020. Among other things (mostly BackSpin, though it doesn't change these conclusions), Lateral Curve Angle depends primarily on SideSpin (see Figures 3, 4, 5).

Reference my uploaded Figures 3, 4 and 5

Each Figure shows the relationship between the two ball flight model calculated Lateral Curves (Y) using the same input SideSpin (X) with linear regressions. The GCQuad / FSX 2020 data is in blue with closed circles and the TGC data in red with open squares. The slopes of these lines represent the sensitivity of the two Lateral Curves to the same SideSpin provided by the launch monitor. Generally, the blue lines are steeper (more sensitive to Side Spin for the GC Quad / FSX 2020) than the red lines for TGC 2019. This is summarized in Fig 6 in the Ratio of TGC Lateral Curve angle to GCQ/FSX curve.

Reference my uploaded Figure 6

Propagating the statistical error estimates through the ratio calculation provides a “Ratio Error” that gives great confidence in the conclusions:

• TGC 2019 calculates 56 +/- 10% of the Lateral Curve that GCQ/FSX does for drivers.
• The same ratio is 56 +/- 4% for 5-irons, but for Lob Wedge it was a noisy 128% +/- 22% (i.e. at 68% confidence interval).
• So the 5-Irons and drivers have calculated Lateral Curve of 56% (a "Forgiveness" of about 45%) while the Lob Wedge Lateral Curve is about the same for TGC and GCQ

Lateral Curve dispersion calculated by GCQ/FSX will be almost half that from TGC 2019. This feeds into overall OffLine Angle dispersion in the following way by mixing with Side Angle St Dev:
OffLine Angle St Dev = SQRT (Side Angle St Dev ^2 + Lateral Curve St Dev ^2)

So for this set of shots

Reference my uploaded Figure 7

The OffLine Angle St Dev from TGC 2019 for this shot set varies from 60 to 77% of that from GCQ/FSX 2020. Side Angle (and its St Dev) is an input from the launch monitor, so this variation in OffLine Angle = Side Angle + Lateral Curve is only different because TGC greatly under computes Lateral Curve compared with GCQ/FSX.

A golfer with repeatable path and impact who has a consistent narrow lateral curve dispersion of St Dev 2 degrees, for example, may find TGC 2019 OffLine Angle dispersion not much lower than GCQ/FSX. The rest of us, with path and impact distributions will find lateral curve dispersions more like 3-5 degrees and TGC will dramatically reduce that to 2-3 degrees with the result we hardly ever miss a TGC 2019 fairway by much, even when GCQ/FSX puts us 45 yards offline.

Concluding Remarks

Both GCQ/FSX and TGC 2019 use their own "black box" ball flight models, but we don't need to know their details, we only need to look at their results in terms of Carry, Total Distance and OffLine Distance to calculate (a) OffLine Angle and then (b) Lateral Curve = OffLine Angle - Side Angle (Lateral Launch Angle). From that it is quickly evident that TGC 2019 calculates a Lateral Curve that can be almost as low as half that from GCQ/FSX with 5-irons or drivers.

Carry, on average, is essentially the same from both models (though with scatter), while Lateral Curve and OffLine Angle have much lower dispersions from TGC 2019 than GCQ/FSX because TGC is much less sensitive to SideSpin.

[Magilla]

[Magilla]

Answers to 2 other questions from mthunt on this thread or the GC3 thread going in the same direction:

1. I am using GQSX2.exe
2. Forgiveness setting for the study reported above was default 30% in the Pro Tee Interface. It would look like this is just a simple forgiveness setting issue, as mthunt suggests, but I changed the Pro Tee interface to 0% forgiveness and played a round noting TGC 2019 OffLine on driver hits and comparing it later with GCQ/FSX for the same shots. Again, even with 0% forgiveness, I got the ratio of TGC to FSX slopes of Lateral Curve vs SideSpin to be 57% with an error estimate of 4% on unlevel TGC terrain with ball rolling on hills, rough and bunkers. Basically identical to the above within the error estimate. So this particular forgiveness setting is not the answer, maybe there is another forgiveness setting somewhere?

[GungHoGolf]

Magilla, really nice data analysis here. It would be interesting for you to compare the TGC and FSX ball flight model results with a neutral and generally respected 3rd-party ball flight model like FlightScope's - available at https://trajectory.flightscope.com/ (wow nice new interface for it since the last time I used it!)

The only wrinkle is you'll need to convert backspin/sidespin to total spin and spin axis for the FlightScope input. Let me know if you don't have the calculation for that, can look it up in some of my own code.

Will be interesting to see which flight model is closer to FlightScope's - which I trust very much.

[mthunt]

Ron, I find that TGC moves the ball too much on spin. In E6 it takes 500 rpm to curve the ball but TGC curves it easier. It’s not earth shattering but it happens.

[Magilla]

Yes, I can do this when I get a chance and will report back. I think Flightscope and FSX 2020 are going to be very similar.
The other day I hit an 8-iron on TGC 2019 range when "Driver" was showing up on the top right - supposedly went 207 yards when my normal is 165-175, which is also the distance I get when I set TGC 2019 range to 8-Iron. If TGC 2019 results depend on the club in this manner, it sure looks like all is lost in terms of meaningfulness.....

[Magilla]

Well, that is interesting. I sampled about 20 data to compare FlightScope Trajectory calculation suggested by GungHoGolf with GCQuad and the results are even worse than TGC 2019 (see pics):

1. FlightScope Carry = 96.5% of GCQuad Carry. This difference does not worry me - it could be due to different assumed conditions: FlightScope Sea Level, no wind, 50% RH, 77F with GCQuad Sea Level, no wind, "dry", 80F, so maybe that explains 3.5% more carry with GCQuad. I'm not worried about distance, I'm worried about lateral dispersion.

2. FlightScope Curve Angle = 45.5% of GCQuad Curve Angle (TGC 2019 was 55%).

I can tell you that with a 6 handicap I work hard to get Driver OffLine Standard Deviation below 4.5 degrees on my GCQuad. And I also know this is a very realistic number to the golf course (OffLine Yards vs Total Distance with all wood shots, for example). If these games like TGC 2019 and FlightScope are nearly halving the dispersion, they will make me look like a pro!

Conclusion: the FlightScope Trajectory calculation is very very unrealistic for Lateral Curve and OffLine (OffLine Angle = Lateral Launch Angle + Lateral Curve Angle).

It is difficult to find on line measurements and assessments of angular dispersion (which I want to minimize in order to improve), Almost nobody deals with anything but distance accuracy and OffLine is generally less of an issue for the scratch golfers who often evaluate these devices (and possibly also delete the "bad" shots).

I would be happy to analyse anyone else's data for any program or launch monitor where GC2 or GCQuad is used on the same shots as alternative ball flight models or launch monitors.

The question remains - how do we / can we turn this off in TGC 2019?

Stimulated by mthunt's suggestion to look at “forgiveness settings”, I contacted ProTee support. They had a curious answer to my query on this that others may understand better than me:

My Enquiry, Nov 28, 2021, 3:25 GMT+1: “I know ProTee doesn't support Foresight GCQuad, but maybe this is a question that is more generic. Attachment shows that REGARDLESS of the ProTee Golf Interface "Forgiveness" Setting, TGC 2019 calculates 55% of the Lateral Curve that GCQ/FSX does (I tried default 30% and Professional 0% with the same results). Is there somewhere else to make Forgiveness = 0 in TGC2019?”

ProTee Support, Nov 28, 2021, 11:20 GMT+1: “The settings in the ProTee Interface will have no effect. GSX will be able to do that, but its not compatible with GCQuad. The people who made the Quad interface did not build this in.”

Is anyone out there one of “the people who made the Quad interface”? I wonder if ProTee Support is referring to GQSX2.exe and perhaps also its predecessor GQSX. Are these the program equivalents of "GSX" referred to by ProTee and do they do any processing other than simply pass along the ball spin, launch and speed to TGC2019? Can anyone out there direct me to someone else who could make this connection?

Is there a way to either

• Set TGC2019 or GQSX2 forgiveness to zero?
• Increase by 1/55% the Side Spin passed from GC Quad to TGC2019 to effectively remove this bias (which is similar for all clubs but side spin has its greatest effect on low launch angles)?
• Calibrate each club within TGC2019 for lateral dispersion (rather than for distance, which might be straight forward through the config files).

[MongoOnlyPawn]

You are awesome! Can I come live with you?

[Kcct82]

Well, that is interesting. I sampled about 20 data to compare FlightScope Trajectory calculation suggested by GungHoGolf with GCQuad and the results are even worse than TGC 2019 (see pics):

1. FlightScope Carry = 96.5% of GCQuad Carry. This difference does not worry me - it could be due to different assumed conditions: FlightScope Sea Level, no wind, 50% RH, 77F with GCQuad Sea Level, no wind, "dry", 80F, so maybe that explains 3.5% more carry with GCQuad. I'm not worried about distance, I'm worried about lateral dispersion.

2. FlightScope Curve Angle = 45.5% of GCQuad Curve Angle (TGC 2019 was 55%).

I can tell you that with a 6 handicap I work hard to get Driver OffLine Standard Deviation below 4.5 degrees on my GCQuad. And I also know this is a very realistic number to the golf course (OffLine Yards vs Total Distance with all wood shots, for example). If these games like TGC 2019 and FlightScope are nearly halving the dispersion, they will make me look like a pro!

Conclusion: the FlightScope Trajectory calculation is very very unrealistic for Lateral Curve and OffLine (OffLine Angle = Lateral Launch Angle + Lateral Curve Angle).

It is difficult to find on line measurements and assessments of angular dispersion (which I want to minimize in order to improve), Almost nobody deals with anything but distance accuracy and OffLine is generally less of an issue for the scratch golfers who often evaluate these devices (and possibly also delete the "bad" shots).

I would be happy to analyse anyone else's data for any program or launch monitor where GC2 or GCQuad is used on the same shots as alternative ball flight models or launch monitors.

The question remains - how do we / can we turn this off in TGC 2019?

Stimulated by mthunt's suggestion to look at “forgiveness settings”, I contacted ProTee support. They had a curious answer to my query on this that others may understand better than me:

My Enquiry, Nov 28, 2021, 3:25 GMT+1: “I know ProTee doesn't support Foresight GCQuad, but maybe this is a question that is more generic. Attachment shows that REGARDLESS of the ProTee Golf Interface "Forgiveness" Setting, TGC 2019 calculates 55% of the Lateral Curve that GCQ/FSX does (I tried default 30% and Professional 0% with the same results). Is there somewhere else to make Forgiveness = 0 in TGC2019?”

ProTee Support, Nov 28, 2021, 11:20 GMT+1: “The settings in the ProTee Interface will have no effect. GSX will be able to do that, but its not compatible with GCQuad. The people who made the Quad interface did not build this in.”

Is anyone out there one of “the people who made the Quad interface”? I wonder if ProTee Support is referring to GQSX2.exe and perhaps also its predecessor GQSX. Are these the program equivalents of "GSX" referred to by ProTee and do they do any processing other than simply pass along the ball spin, launch and speed to TGC2019? Can anyone out there direct me to someone else who could make this connection?

Is there a way to either

• Set TGC2019 or GQSX2 forgiveness to zero?
• Increase by 1/55% the Side Spin passed from GC Quad to TGC2019 to effectively remove this bias (which is similar for all clubs but side spin has its greatest effect on low launch angles)?
• Calibrate each club within TGC2019 for lateral dispersion (rather than for distance, which might be straight forward through the config files).

Any news on this issue regarding GCQ and GQSX2? I just got mine up and running, thanks.