Gc2/hmt to gc3 or eye mini?

[fortysixandtwo]

Has anyone traded out their gc2/hmt for the gc3? Did you miss anything going from 4 dots to one?
How about the eye mini? It look’s interesting. seems like those two are going to be competitive.

I’m just trying to future proof somewhat but I haven’t taken the gc2/hmt out of the house ever. It might be easier with a gc3, etc.

I haven’t completely dismissed the gcquad but the price for a few extra parameters is quite expensive.

I do like having face angle, and loft. I don’t care about lie angle, impact location or closure rate.

Ok let me know if y’all went with the gc3 and how you like it compared to the hmt..
Thanks

[mthunt]

I use both all the time. I'd take the GC3 any day. You get enough club data with the GC3. What you miss is impact location, face angle, and a bunch of other stuff.

[fortysixandtwo]

Ok! Yeah the only thing I would miss looking at would be face angle and maybe dynamic loft but it’s not that big a deal.
I haven’t read much on the eye mini, did you say you used that one too? I already have fsx2020 with about 50 courses and fsx play. I also I use other new software on occasion.

I guess best option is to sell private but I don’t need another fsx license and foresight seems to want to package it even with previous customers…

[bubbtubbs]

They announced today that the Eye Mini will also be geolocked and require Refine to be compatible with simulation software, so it's basically the same as GC3/BLP now.

[wbond]

I saw that as well, but now someone posted a screen shot supposedly from Uneekor that that's not the case. Very confusing. There are posts from the distributors saying it is required to purchase refine and now this.

I will say though that using the GC2 with HMT and getting certain data is very helpful when coaching and explaining things. I'm not sure I'd like to give that up to go to one dot readings.

They announced today that the Eye Mini will also be geolocked and require Refine to be compatible with simulation software, so it's basically the same as GC3/BLP now.

[bubbtubbs]

Operating under bad/old information, it seems.

I don't suppose you have a link or image from the correction?

Edit: for supplying the WRX discussion and Facebook group that I found the email screenshot on, I mean - not implying I don't believe you.

[wbond]

bubbtubbs it's in the FB group Uneekor QED & EyeXO & Eye Mini golf simulator user group. There is a thread there commenting about this, started by Matt Sherlock. In the comments are people who say they are distributors and go over the cost and refine requirements. Then one comment shows a snippet appearing to come from Uneekor that states the following "The eye mini is compatible with (they list the 3rd party software options) without purchasing refine. The Eye mini comes with our view software which allows you to run at the same time with 3rd party software". I can't figure out how to post the image, that would have been easier.

[bubbtubbs]

wbond thanks. I'm a member of another Mini group but I'll join the combined Uneekor one as well so I have more sources without having to resort to Instagram or Twitter.

[Gstmike]

Made the decision a couple years back to stick with GC2/HMT rather than spend another $9 to $12k or whatever it would be to sell/trade-in and upgrade to Quad.
I would love the portability of the Quad, the larger hitting area, the alignment stick, etc.. but it just wasn't worth the cost to upgrade.
GC3 has the portability but I don't want to give up dynamic lie/loft and impact location.

But now I'm a bit worried about future support for GC2/HMT as they get older and things start to fail. I get the sense that Foresight is moving away from supporting these. I hope I'm wrong but
I think they realize they made GC2/HMT is too good and it's eliminating would-be GC3/Quad customers because it still offers more than GC3 and enough when compared Quad minus portability.

As the Full Swing Kit ($5K) and/or other radar units become more accurate and affordable, you could just use that for outdoors and keep the lesser/older Foresight monitors for sim/indoor use.
I think Foresight is going to continue to market the GC3 for the personal launch monitor folks and keep it's capabilities slightly below the Quad.

Quad will be for commercial/professional use and stay priced as such even though they could probably just add those additional club parameters to the GC3 and still come in WAY less than an additional $11.5k which is the price difference between the Quad with club data and the GC3 at the moment.

I just hope Foresight will continue to support the long time GC2/HMT customers that have been with them from the beginning. At least until they offer something like an $8k version of the GC3 with all the missing club data or the Quad becomes more affordable.

I would love a GC3 with all the additional club data. I don't need the larger hitting area, the alignment stick, barometer or whatever.
Just give me a GC whatever that has ALL club data with the same accuracy and portability of the Quad for $8k that will be supported for the next 10 years min and I'll be first in line to buy one.

Has anyone traded out their gc2/hmt for the gc3? Did you miss anything going from 4 dots to one?
How about the eye mini? It look’s interesting. seems like those two are going to be competitive.

I’m just trying to future proof somewhat but I haven’t taken the gc2/hmt out of the house ever. It might be easier with a gc3, etc.

I haven’t completely dismissed the gcquad but the price for a few extra parameters is quite expensive.

I do like having face angle, and loft. I don’t care about lie angle, impact location or closure rate.

Ok let me know if y’all went with the gc3 and how you like it compared to the hmt..
Thanks

[fortysixandtwo]

I agree with all your points and will probably just keep the gc2/hmt until it’s completely obsolete. Considering I haven’t taken the gc2/hmt out of the studio the 2 years I’ve owned it, I’m just not motivated to lose some data to possibly take something to the course. Even if foresight doesn’t support gc2 there is still a following of other software that has embraced it, and there’s some good people around here who can fix things if they break. Maybe a few years down the road there will be a next generation of launch monitors that have all those data points without needing any dots at all..who knows..

[orangeman]

I recently went from GC2/HMT to GC3. Honestly don't miss the 2. The GC3 boots faster, is easier to take to the range, the alignment stick makes sure I'm dead on, the hitting area is bigger and it misses fewer shots (hardly any so far). I do miss face direction/angle the most, but not enough to have regrets. I can get impact location with spray (outdoors) or impact tape. Bluetooth was also easier than Wi-Fi, but again, not enough to make a difference.

[Gstmike]

I didn't realize that the GC3 had the same alignment feature of the Quad. I know it has the slightly larger hitting area. I guess I'll have to re-evaluate how important those additional club parameters are again. I use the launch monitor indoors and occasionally outside with a net return when it's just nicer to be outside.
Moving the GC2/HMT is just more cumbersome than the GC3/Quad and I likely won't ever take it to the course because of that.

I use my unit mostly for game improvement.
For impact location, you can certainly get that by other means. But it's nice to have it all right there and stored with the rest of the data. You can look back at your data and see strike/how you delivered the club to better understand all the numbers. How face to path correlates with club path and spin axis. Just a more complete picture of how you're delivering the club and all the data in one place.

I'd be interested to know, for those that converted from GC2/HMT to GC3 specifically, are they mainly using their units for sim play, or did they really not find those additional club parameters that the HMT provides that critical for game improvement/lessons/coaching? I agree for mostly sim play, they are probably not that critical.

I live in CA so if I play golf, it's going to be on a real golf course 98% of the time.
I've played maybe half a dozen full sim rounds in the 10 years I've had it.
I understand not everyone can golf year round though.
But I see impact location, loft/lie, and face angle just as important if not more important than any of the other club parameters you ARE getting with GC3.

[fortysixandtwo]

Yeah I use my gc2/hmt just for swing improvement and range work, occasionally testing out equipment or having friends over that want to tweak their gear and see some numbers. I hardly ever play sim rounds and even when the weather is good here I only took the gc2 to the range a couple times when it had that new factor. I don’t go to the range anymore with my setup in the studio and I just can’t see bringing a gc3/quad to an actual course and putting it down during a round. I guess during a scramble your buddies could see their ballspeed, etc but who’s going to have their clubs with dots on them and get club data during a round? Maybe a pro gets more out of taking it on course before a tournament or something…
I was just reading up on the eye mini and that’s going to be interesting when it hits the market next month. Anyway I think I talked myself out of getting a gc3/quad until the gc2/hmt actually fails completely…

[KidDoc]

If you play any level of tournament golf, the on course use of the GC3 is a feature that you should utilize.

On course swings are different than range swings.

[fortysixandtwo]

I’m revisiting this thread since I’m still deciding on going with the gc3 and losing some of the gc2 hmt data.
When it comes to self improvement of my own swing or having lessons, it was rare that we ever looked that close to impact location or loft.. it was always body movements or video analysis of the swing.

So this has me questioning especially at my level even though it’s single digit handicap, how important really is the 4 dot data over just one dot when comparing gc2 hmt to the gc3?