Announcement

Collapse

TGC Tour - Congratulations!

Congrats to @Golf18 (NET) and @Bardford (GROSS) winning the TGC 2018 SUMMER TOUR - PGA Championship !

Join this weeks TGC 2018 SUMMER TOUR - Wyndham Championship with 2 rounds at Oakland Hills CC (South Course) - Green ProTee : https://golfsimulatorforum.com/forum...m-championship
See more
See less

ES16 vs GcQuad

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ES16 vs GcQuad

    Man, this is a lot of work getting these to work together. Here are a few things to look at. I hit some 5i shots and some driver shots. Some good swings and some not. One no read from the ES16 on driver.

    This is with the new 137 ES16 Firmware.
    Driver Shots Comparison Table Iron Shots

  • #2
    Nice to be able to see a side by side, thanks for doing it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting test.

      Comment


      • #4
        Very interesting test.

        Do I have this right? There are many data points that are similar, differences in club data for sure, but the one that seems to cause the most difference is ball speed. The ball speed data point also appears to be impacting other parameters such as carry distance and smash factor.

        Comment


        • RangeRunner
          RangeRunner commented
          Editing a comment
          Ball speed has been my biggest beef with the ES16. So I'm not surprised to see the differences here. It seems to provide further evidence that the ES16 isn't doing a good job of measuring ball speed. A 1.52 smash factor from a 5-iron?!?! That's impossible with legal equipment. A best case smash factor from a 5-iron should be around 1.349. (I found that info here: https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballfl...mashfactor.php). Honestly, if Ernest could get the ES16 to get ball speed to within 2 or 3 mph, it'd be a decent machine. Here's my question: Can you accurately doppler ball speed from a device that starts its measurement side-on? All other radar devices are place behind the line of flight.

          It's really nice to see that launch angle is really close, and spin rates are probably the best I've seen from the ES16. I think it's obvious which one of the iron shots was 'guessed' by the ES16 (#4), as the 4800 falls into a 'standard' spin rate for a 5-iron. I'm going to guess that a non-premium (ie: two piece, distance or range ball) was used for this test? For the professional, an error of 400rpm in spin rate is unacceptable, but is close enough for the competitive amateur.

        • Baller
          Baller commented
          Editing a comment
          I used a Pretty new Titleist NXT Tour Ball.

        • RangeRunner
          RangeRunner commented
          Editing a comment
          Silly me. Not all premium balls are high spin. I thought your spin rates for the 5-iron were low of 'standard'... but the NXT Tour is a lower spinning mid-range ball, so your spin numbers off the 5-iron make sense.

      • #5
        Did you try without a ball to see the results? 😂

        Comment


        • #6
          Thanks for doing this Baller. How did you setup the units Baller? What was your impression on the horizontal measurements? Did you try hitting some shots far right and far left to compare?

          Comment


          • Baller
            Baller commented
            Editing a comment
            I do plan on doing some wedges most likely next.

          • Bubba22
            Bubba22 commented
            Editing a comment
            Cool. So what do you think so far?

          • RangeRunner
            RangeRunner commented
            Editing a comment
            Yes, Thank You, Baller! This has been very enlightening!

            I will admit: I am hung up on ball speed. Everything I've seen so far and tests I've done myself, has shown the ES16 is way off on ball speed. I would like to see a test that is: Hitting a 5 iron (or any single iron, for that matter) for all shots, telling both machines that you are hitting irons 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. One swing each should be sufficient, two would be better, three would be considered 'data'. (But that'd be a lot of swings, too.) My theory is that the GCQuad will show nearly the same ball speeds and swing speeds, but the ES16 will show a steady increase in ball speeds (not swing speeds) going from #9 to #2 iron.

            You said you want to do wedge tests. That will probably put the ES16 in the poorest light possible. The ES16 doesn't know if the ball rotated 0 degrees, 180 degrees, 360 degrees, or 540 degrees. I think that's why they wanted the specially marked ball to help with that particular case.

            Baller, do you have the club tracking unlocked on your GC Quad? Are you also using the reflective dots to determine club face data?

        • #7
          You CANNOT select a club on the Quad and it doesn’t matter if you select it in the software. It is for your info only and for club tracking. The ball will do what the ball will do regardless of what club you use, and that’s what I told ES am long time ago. (They never responded).

          Yes, I do have club data on the GCQ and yes, I do have to use at least one sticker for it.

          GCQUAD DATA:
          Ball data:
          Ball Speed, H-Launch, V-Launch, Spin, Spin Axis, Carry (only thing that is calculated)

          1 dot will give you:
          Club speed, AOA, Path, Smash

          4 dots will add:
          Face angle, Dynamic Loft, Dynamic Lie, Impact position on club face

          The hardest thng isnt doing the test (other than the emotional toll), it is putting the data is a place to view it. If the ES16 could export to CSV, that would make it easy, because the GCQ does.

          Comment


          • BGCurtis2nd
            BGCurtis2nd commented
            Editing a comment
            Thank you for doing it, I like seeing the information and how it compares on each system. When I bought my ES-16 I was told that the club selection on it was only to keep track of my club data and was not needed for anything else.

          • Baller
            Baller commented
            Editing a comment
            Yeah I was to,d the same thing at first, but for the GCQ, it really is.

        • #8
          Originally posted by Baller View Post
          The hardest thng isnt doing the test (other than the emotional toll), it is putting the data is a place to view it. If the ES16 could export to CSV, that would make it easy, because the GCQ does.
          I hear you! That's been one of my suggestions to Ernest for awhile now. I think they've suggested it would be in the software for the 20/20.

          If there's anything I can do to help, I'd be happy to. If you want to send screenshots (PM me), I'll put them in a table like you did. That's not much consolation... I'd do the whole thing, but I don't think you'll loan me your GCQ for a week.

          Comment


          • Baller
            Baller commented
            Editing a comment
            I may take you up on the offer to compile. Will let you know. Thanks!

        • #9
          Where are you located baller? Hope you are in Southern California.

          Comment


          • RangeRunner
            RangeRunner commented
            Editing a comment
            There's a pretty good video about testing the GCQuad vs. Trackman. Jump to 18:00 to see the analysis.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfFzBI5LWMM

            Of all the videos I've seen, the GCQ is the more comprehensive machine because of it's advantage of presenting accurate club data. Otherwise, the machines perform almost identically.

          • Stonebattle
            Stonebattle commented
            Editing a comment
            RR:
            Good catch, that is just a great video

          • LEO MODE
            LEO MODE commented
            Editing a comment
            At a considerably lower price, GC Quad is a very good alternative to Trackman 4 (roughly about $10k cheaper which you can buy another GC Quad with just the ball data) in my opinion, since Trackman 4 is overpriced for its performance. I would definitely say it's a better deal financially but I wouldn't confidently say with about being comprehensive because Trackman 4 offers just more data (swing direction, swing plane, low point, etc.) and its TPS program is absolutely by far the best program out there. All companies try to copy what TPS offers (Combine for instance). This is something Foresight has to step up in order to capture other 90% of the PGA pros that they're missing. I'm glad there is competition in the market so we can get better products at a lower price. Simple economics.

            I do believe Club Data on GC Quad is more trustworthy for now until I test out the impact location with the Trackman when it comes out. I wish I can Dr.Scholls on the club face and compare the difference on both devices. The only thing I would need to test out is some ball data on GC Quad since his younger brother GC2 gave me some weird ball numbers at times during my testing which that video mentions about it too. I'm sure GC Quad got better than its sibling since it captures more data at the same time.

            It will be an interesting test if Baller is willing to test with me. When I test it, I would like to show the ball flight as well as all other data in the video. I would just need GC Quad or I should just buy one for myself... Perhaps spending a plane ticket over to Baller's place or my place will be a cheaper route lol.
            Last edited by LEO MODE; 03-11-2018, 07:08 PM.

        • #10
          I’d love to do some testing too, but I’m not sure yet if that day works. I read a lot between the two units and did watch a few videos comparing but would love to do my own. TM was not an option for me due to me indoor setup 95% of the time and space restriction behind me.

          To verify the test, you don’t need Dr Scholls, you just need the beige painters tape, which I did use and my Quad was spot on. I very much rust the quad data and indoors there is no comparison.

          Outdoors, I think the TM will beat it on ball data (since it is actually reading and following the ball), but they won’t be far off. The Quad calculates ball carry and nothing else. TM calculated a lot of club data, I believe, but have not looked up which points. I also heard that TM uses a Quad for calibration. Not sure if that’s true, but that came from Foresight.

          Comment


          • RangeRunner
            RangeRunner commented
            Editing a comment
            In looking for more information to understand how doppler works, I found Trackman's explanation complete with pictures. Pretty wild what you can 'see' with doppler. https://blog.trackmangolf.com/tracking-club-ball/

          • LEO MODE
            LEO MODE commented
            Editing a comment
            There shouldn’t be too much debate about indoor vs outdoor on camera vs radar any longer since Trackman will now come out with impact location soon, and we’ll see if Trackman stands up to what they claim. In the meantime, it’s never to say GC Quad will be inferior to Trackman outdoor because camera system is supposed to perform exactly the same whether you’re indoor or outdoor (as long as it’s normalized). Thus, I will never say camera is better indoor and radar is better outdoor. It’ll just be Trackman will be better than GC Quad and vice versa. I questioned on that Trackman article to see if they will respond since I see too many camera users claiming camera is better indoor, which I think it doesn’t make any scientific base sense. It’s about the device itself, not a type of a device.

            One thing for sure is that you can buy 2 GC Quads with 1 Trackman. That is a crazy bargain and just shows how Trackman has dominated this industry monopolizing the top end market. As long as both indoor and outdoor GC Quad gets the same ball flight as Trackman in the test, I would say GC Quad could be the next contender for an accurate launch monitor. In the meantime though, Foresight definitely needs to spend more time not on FSX golf course, but more on FSX software on both PC and iPad. And by using any other means necessary, they should also focus on getting more data such as Swing Direction which a lot of PGA pros look at, than now since camera could be limited in itself to obtain some data that the radar can’t. It could be a simple calculation like Trackman does though.
            Last edited by LEO MODE; 03-12-2018, 01:56 AM.

          • LEO MODE
            LEO MODE commented
            Editing a comment
            And I can be willing to spend a plane ticket for you if you want to come down for a day to try it out intensively both indoor and outdoor lol. Unfortunately there is just no GC Quad devices that are displayed/used in the golf stores around here. All of them are GC2s.

        • #11
          Originally posted by Baller View Post
          I’d love to do some testing too, but I’m not sure yet if that day works. I read a lot between the two units and did watch a few videos comparing but would love to do my own. TM was not an option for me due to me indoor setup 95% of the time and space restriction behind me.

          To verify the test, you don’t need Dr Scholls, you just need the beige painters tape, which I did use and my Quad was spot on. I very much rust the quad data and indoors there is no comparison.

          Outdoors, I think the TM will beat it on ball data (since it is actually reading and following the ball), but they won’t be far off. The Quad calculates ball carry and nothing else. TM calculated a lot of club data, I believe, but have not looked up which points. I also heard that TM uses a Quad for calibration. Not sure if that’s true, but that came from Foresight.
          In terms of TM using Quad to calibrate, I believe this came from the interview video that was done with Foresight. I think the point they were trying to make in the video is that TM uses camera tech to validate their readings. However, if I recall from some old discussions on this topic, TM was using some very high end and expensive camera tech to validate their measurements. So I believe they use camera tech, just not the quad. Although I could stand corrected on this.

          I think looking at this the other way, what is FS using to validate their calculations etc to make sure their unit is providing accurate results?

          I think Leo summed up things pretty nicely above in that both are giving extremely accurate data now and the only issue being that TM is much more expensive and Quad needing better software.

          I am a couple of years away from buying my next launch monitor and at the moment, I would still lean towards TM, but I would argue that I am not as confident in this decision as I would have been before the release of the Quad. From a dollar perspective, this is the biggest thing that would sway me from going for a TM.

          Comment


          • #12
            Baller By the way how do you do an impact test with a beige tape? Can you tell me more in details? That wouldn’t damage the screen either right?

            i am wondering if dr scholls will have some negative impact on the screen. I never tested it yet.

            Comment


            • #13
              Yeah, when I have a day at the range or indoors, whatever, I always use painters tape. It's just like impact tape, but comes in a roll for cheap.

              Here is a pic of the roll, a pic before any hits, and a pic after a hit.

              You leave a tab of tape so you can lift and put it back down. Works for a number of shots and then tape eventually breaks and you replace the piece. It may slow your ball down a hair, but if you're working on impact then no biggie.

              Comment


              • LEO MODE
                LEO MODE commented
                Editing a comment
                Gotcha, that's perfect! What about comparing with GC Quad? I assume you just put that tape between those 4 dots in the middle?

                Also since the groove is blocked I assume your spin will significantly drop? I saw a video going down from 9000 to 1800rpm on a pitching wedge by blocking the groove on the club.
                Last edited by LEO MODE; 03-13-2018, 01:00 AM.

            • #14
              Just to make it clear. groove does not give you spin, it's the surface of the club, gooves are there for water grass and dirt

              Comment


              • LEO MODE
                LEO MODE commented
                Editing a comment
                http://www.vokey.com/spin/spin-performance.aspx#

                Interesting to hear your perspective. What about the article above? I never said grooves give you spin but it can reduce spin by blocking grooves. It also gives you ‘more’ spin than a club without a groove.
                Last edited by LEO MODE; 03-14-2018, 04:24 PM.

            • #15
              I also thought that putting tape on the club affected spin and that you do it to measure impact location only and ignore spin rates when testing with tape in the club face.

              Comment


              • bbjr
                bbjr commented
                Editing a comment
                Agreed. I know my spin drops significantly when I am using impact tape, depending on the club, I can lose 1K-5K RPM.
            Working...
            X