Club Head Data Workaround w/GC3?

[beefsupreme]

Hi All,

Been spending a lot of time reading various threads in this forum for my garage simulator build I just started, and I wanted to see if anybody could help answer a two specific questions I have regarding club head metrics with GC3.

Question 1:
Does anybody know if there’s software out there that would allow me to get GC3 to measure the additional club head data that GC2/HMT and GCQ offer if I were to add more club face stickers as one would for quad?

Question 2:
Is it possible to couple the HMT with the GC3?

Seems like the GC3 is almost a slight downgrade to the previous model knowing that the GC2 (coupled w/HMT) could do this to a high degree of accuracy with one less camera. I suspect that Foresight’s marketing team did this to get more people into GCQ units, but I have a hard time stomaching the thought of casually dropping an extra $10K for a few extra data parameters...

[StanMI]

That I know of, no, there is now work around. GC2/HMT = poor man's Quad.

But just in case........I'd like to know if anyone with a GC3 can confirm ?

[ENadeau]

GC3 is built to only read club data via a single sticker with its 3 cameras. GCQ requires 4 stickers for the additional metrics with its 4 cameras. GC3 will not read a club with 4 stickers.

There is no connection compatibility with GC2/HMT.

[Bubba22]

The answer to both questions is no.
The poor man’s Quad is GC3 for simulation and Mevo plus for club data and practice with video support.

[mthunt]

IMO, the GC3 gives you enough data to give you everything you need. If you have path, AOA and speed and add ball data you can deduce the face pretty well. The tour players usually only use 1 dot data on the range.

[Wiegs]

Agreed. The only thing missing, imo, from the GC3 is impact location (which does throw a bit of a wrench into the calculation). That can be remedied by face impact stickers that show your contact location without too much impact on the other metrics.

[mthunt]

A line on the ball transfers nicely to the face giving both impact and lie angle. The only problem is it transfers to the screen if indoors.

[generalpatton47]

foot spray will give you impact location.

[MongoOnlyPawn]

I have both a GCQ & a GC3. Have had the CGQ longer than the GC3. I would never give up the GCQ, but I like data, even if I can't fo anything to correct my flaws, of which there are too many!

Attached is a great way to interpret ball striking from the flight path. Use impact markers (or spray foot powder ) to determine impact location. Foot powder is messy but wipes off from the screen easily.

[JaybirdCU]

The answer to both questions is no.
The poor man’s Quad is GC3 for simulation and Mevo plus for club data and practice with video support.

It annoys me to no end how much more data you get from a Mevo+ compared to my GC3. I do believe the numbers I get indoors are probably more accurate on the GC3 than a radar, but my buddy has a Mevo+ and their software and data points are miles ahead of Foresight. GC3 also cost 4 times as much, you know because...

[Bubba22]

I don't disagree. The problem with the Mevo plus is that with certain shots the spin axis is way off. That's with drivers and off center strikes due to gear effect. In those shots it's uncertain whether the club data is off as well. Other than that it is a great device given the data you get, no subscriptions and decent free software off the bat. Just tougher to setup indoors for some folks.