GCQuad vs GC3

[2ndcut16]

Long time reader, finally have space that I can use for a sim. I'm looking at the GC3 and the Quad. I have the opportunity to buy a used quad, with club data for about $12k, but also have seen Foresight offering the GC3 with FSX for 8k.

The unit would be used during the winter time ( living in CT) as a SIM / Range to practice. Once the season opens up, mostly at the outdoor range / course.

I was hoping to get some feedback / personal experience with those who may have had both. I'm trying to decide if the Quad is worth the additional $4k - knowing I will have to get FSX or another sim function at some point.

[Sixmudd]

Is the extra club data points worth it to you? Only you can decide that. Also does the $12k for the used quad include fsx?

[bubbtubbs]

I read that as a no, judging by the last couple lines.

[2ndcut16]

Sixmudd The $12k doesn't include FSX, I'd likely try and use a different software until next Winter and then buy FSX.

I think the extra club data could be super valuable - I do test a lot of gear, so possible trying driver shafts and seeing the full impact may be very useful. I also am working through a dynamic loft problem, but once it's fixed, not sure how much more valuable it will be.

[davidgolfer]

FSX is not worth it you would be happier with TGC 2019. IMO

[MongoOnlyPawn]

The Quad is worth the 4K. I have a CGQuad for the righties, GC3 for the lefties. Bothers me when the lefty is working on stuff and we can't see Face Angle & Loft/Lie.

I've used FSX & TGC. I acknowledge I'm a bit of a snob, but the ball dynamics are so much better in FSX that even though I love the graphics in TGC, we use FSX to play golf, it's just, IMHO, that much more realistic for what happens to the ball. TGC doesn't accurately report everything, and I have a hard time with that.

I hope FSX Play will remedy the sub-optimal (poor?!?) graphics of FSX 2020. But if you've got a Quad & FSX 2020, you're going to have all the data you need.

[2ndcut16]

Thanks - I appreciate the feedback. I think I'm going to go with the Quad, especially as we move out of winter in CT, I will mostly be on the range / course and I can evaluate the software side for SIM purposes closer to next fall /winter. I think the club data may be just too valuable right now, with where my swing is

[Tom Howarth]

There has to be many reasons why one unit cost $3,000.00 (with three cameras), plus software and the other cost $11,000.00 (with four cameras) plus software. I'm guessing the quality of the cameras are different, etc.? The Quad is larger and more rugged and gives you the ability to upgrade to get club and putting data, but the components have to be different. Does anyone know?

[Dax]

I had thought the QUAD had two high res cameras and two lower res cameras. The GC3 has three of the lower res cameras from what I understand.

[Tom Howarth]

Thanks Dax. That does make sense.

[sinkingputts]

It totally depends on if your a golfer that is happy with the way you swing and your reluctant to make changes. If the answer is yes then buy a GC3. Now on the other hand if you want to make changes to your swing to get better definitely the QCQUAD with club data is 100% worth it. Before i bought my quad i had the a frequent ball go hard left. I had always thought i was coming over the top and pulling the shit out it. After my first 30 minutes session with the quad the club data showed me that no only was i swinging out i was like 7° in to out and my face was 5° open open relative to the target line. That was producing a nice little push draw The snaps were coming from the same 7° in to out path but the face was squared to the target and sometimes closed. I wasn’t even close to over the top. To straighten everything out i had to do the complete opposite of what i had thought. So yes club data is awesome.

[bubbtubbs]

I'd say it depends how specific you want the data points to be. FTP can be inferred from ball flight results compared to swing path + HLA and you can make changes to see how it affects the result without needing to know the precise degree value for it.

Quad is objectively the better device and at this pricing I'd definitely buy it, but GC3 is no slouch.

[jmeshowsay]

The Quad is worth the 4K. I have a CGQuad for the righties, GC3 for the lefties. Bothers me when the lefty is working on stuff and we can't see Face Angle & Loft/Lie.

I've used FSX & TGC. I acknowledge I'm a bit of a snob, but the ball dynamics are so much better in FSX that even though I love the graphics in TGC, we use FSX to play golf, it's just, IMHO, that much more realistic for what happens to the ball. TGC doesn't accurately report everything, and I have a hard time with that.

I hope FSX Play will remedy the sub-optimal (poor?!?) graphics of FSX 2020. But if you've got a Quad & FSX 2020, you're going to have all the data you need.

The whole point of getting a quad is for the additional clubface data and isn't that an additional $4,000? So the quad is basically $8k more?

[TD22057]

It totally depends on if your a golfer that is happy with the way you swing and your reluctant to make changes. If the answer is yes then buy a GC3. Now on the other hand if you want to make changes to your swing to get better definitely the QCQUAD with club data is 100% worth it. Before i bought my quad i had the a frequent ball go hard left. I had always thought i was coming over the top and pulling the shit out it. After my first 30 minutes session with the quad the club data showed me that no only was i swinging out i was like 7° in to out and my face was 5° open open relative to the target line. That was producing a nice little push draw The snaps were coming from the same 7° in to out path but the face was squared to the target and sometimes closed. I wasn’t even close to over the top. To straighten everything out i had to do the complete opposite of what i had thought. So yes club data is awesome.

Interestingly I'm exactly the same. I thought I was coming over the top (I used to all the time when I was younger) and hitting hooks from there. But nope - I'm 5-6 deg in to out with a very shut club face. I figured all that out easily using the GC3 by looking at the horiz launch angle and club path. I agree - if you have the $$ for the quad, I'd say get it. I'd love to see the additional parameters but you can still tell a lot from the data the GC3 does give you.

[agresset]

Interestingly I'm exactly the same. I thought I was coming over the top (I used to all the time when I was younger) and hitting hooks from there. But nope - I'm 5-6 deg in to out with a very shut club face. I figured all that out easily using the GC3 by looking at the horiz launch angle and club path. I agree - if you have the $$ for the quad, I'd say get it. I'd love to see the additional parameters but you can still tell a lot from the data the GC3 does give you.

I have the exact same problem! How did you fix it?