[FINAL RESULT] Trackman 4 VS GC2+HMT/GCQuad

[LEO MODE]

Introduction
As a simulator fanatic and a golf data enthusiast, I wanted to see which device can really be the closest to real outcome. I majored in business and applied analytics so having a large dataset is my fetish and that was the reason why I wanted to start this testing. So all I'm trying to show here is black and white on what the result was and what people should believe when it comes to the output with a little bit of my recommendation. Thus this is solely for people who haven't had a chance to own both devices or use them side-by-side so I can illustrate what the differences were and which parameter you should believe/not believe.

Devices Used
I currently own a GC2+HMT and a TrackMan 4. I also got my hands on GC Quad. I used 4 GC2’s, 2 GC Quads, 1 Trackman 3e, 1 Trackman 4 for the test. I calibrated 2 of the GC2’s more than 2 times but their result stayed pretty much the same.

Set up
I tested them both indoor and outdoor. Indoor I used a Premium ball (Titleist V1X) with a metallic dot placed and was hit 13ft from ball to screen. Outdoor I used a range ball with no wind. I also tested out on both mats and grass.

Each Parameter Breakdown
There are 9 ball data points which Trackman and Foresight can compare. An asterisk next to each metric means because their number is so close you can trust those numbers either on Foresight or Trackman products. There are also 8 club data points but because I can’t objectively confirm which one is correct other than the impact location, it will come down to a subjective and personal preference. I consider anything within 3mph or 3deg negligible.

*Ball Speed: Their difference is only within 0-2mph at max. This is negligible.

*Launch Angle: Their difference is only within 0-1.5deg at max. This is negligible.

*Launch Direction: Their difference is only within 0-1.5deg at max. This is negligible.

Spin Axis: Outdoor, their difference varies, especially Foresight products being more draw-biased, but also 30~40% of the time they are also fade-biased. In other words, Foresight products are very unreliable when it comes down to Spin Axis. Although they portray similar flight 2D modeling, the ball flight still doesn’t correctly reflect actual landing area. Indoor however, Trackman is also very unreliable especially when it goes up to higher clubs (i.e. driver shot) as high as 20deg. Iron shot is close to GC2/GCQ but still slightly fade-biased than GC2/GCQ.

*Total Spin: Outdoor, their difference is on average about 100rpm. This is negligible. Indoor, if you do not put the metallic dot on Trackman balls and even with the dot if the ball speed was too fast (i.e. driver shot) at a given distance the spin will be off as high as 2000rpm. I did notice that GCQ had tighter tolerance vs GC2 on TM4’s spin rate. It was about 50rpm vs 150rpm on GC2.

Apex: Outdoor, their difference is within 1-2.5deg at max. This is negligible. However indoor with a driver shot, their difference can go up as high as 3.8deg. This is likely due to Trackman driver shot usually shooting for more higher RPM than real life.

Carry Distance: Their difference varies either on a low club vs a high club and not indoor or outdoor. For instance on an iron, they’re within 2yds both indoor and outdoor. However on a driver, their difference is anywhere from 10-13yds on average. Because Foresight tends to show more yardage and their numbers do not match Flight algorithm a lot of times, it is safe to say that TM4 has a better carry number throughout (as Spin Axis doesn't cause a huge difference in carry distance). Also, I didn’t notice that much of a difference on GCQ vs GC2 as it still fluctuated carry distance longer than Trackman 4 outdoor. I honestly did not understand how National Club Golfer stated GCQ and TM4 driver carry was similar. That wasn't my case.

Side Distance: Outdoor, due to Spin Axis, Foresight products’ landing area gets as off as 7yds (almost 21ft) farther than actual landing area on a driver. Also the problem with this is that it’s not consistent (either lands on left or right). Indoor, therefore I cannot trust either device as both are very inconsistent other than short clubs.

Land Angle: Just like Carry, their difference varies either on a low club vs a high club. More close numbers to each other on an iron and as high as 4 degree difference on a driver.

Club Speed: Club speed is measured differently so this comes down to a preference. I prefer TM4 just because everyone can have 1.50 smash factor as long as they hit it right in the middle. It is impossible to reach 1.50 on HMT/GCQ. Also industry standard is Trackman club speed.

*Attack Angle: Their difference is within 0-3 deg at max. This is negligible. Although both were inconsistent, their difference was minimal (i.e. iron is lower on TM4 but club is higher on HMT/GCQ).

Club Path: Foresight always shows more open to the club path about 1-3deg on average which is negligible. Because Foresight has no way to measure the start point (please correct me if I’m wrong) but Trackman measures from the start of the swing it seemed to me as if HMT/GCQ measurement methodology is different from TM4. However when the club goes higher (i.e. driver), their club path tolerance went down as low as less than 1.5 deg which was then negligible.

Face Angle: Trackman calculates this while Foresight directly measures it. Trackman is mostly about 1-3 deg closed than HMT/GCQ which is negligible. However, there is no way for Trackman to measure this and only derives from other metrics. This measurement is pretty much the same throughout all clubs.

Face to Path: Due to club path difference, their difference can go as high as 3deg. However because Face Angle is directly measured by GC2/GCQ, I saw that their impact location is highly correlated with its Face to Path.

Lie: With a new impact location feature on Trackman, measuring lie also requires a precise input under the settings to measure impact location. However, HMT/GCQ simply measures it by taking a snapshot of the impact which seems more reliable to me.

Loft: This shows a lot of discrepancy between the two. Perhaps the measurement is different between the two just like club speed. The numbers seem to make more sense with Trackman numbers, but I have no way to verify that. HMT/GCQ loft number seems to be much higher as high as 15 deg difference.

Impact Location: While TM4 also tends to show the result pretty well at times, at default setting it goes pretty off than real. I noticed that after calibrating to HMT/GCQ’s result, TM4 came out pretty close to actual impact. However, HMT/GCQ was almost always spot on.

Conclusion

Outdoor, a clear winner in ball data was Trackman. Trackman never missed a shot showing a true ball flight. On a side note, Trackman has a real flight option as well as Normalized option which gives you flexibility to see both. Trackman also has different data parameters which are very helpful in teaching (Swing Direction, Swing Plane, Low Point, etc.). Unfortunately, although GC2 or GCQ showed similar ball data, because of Spin Axis difference they weren’t able to portray actual ball flight but slightly either to left or to right.

Indoor, the winner is GC2/GCQ but partly. Although they didn’t show perfect ball flight like TM4 outdoor, on the other hand TM4 struggled to show the same consistency as GC2/GCQ when it came to indoor, mainly also because of calculated Spin Axis discrepancy. The only concern though is that GC2/GCQ’s carry distance is not consistent and accurate when it comes to a higher club (i.e. driver) which will also result skewed data indoor.

Some of you may want to know the difference between GC2 and GCQ. I would say GCQ definitely did get better. So far, it didn’t miss a shot (IR maybe better than flash? no idea), it didn’t give an error, and it definitely showed tighter tolerance especially on Spin Rate. Justifying $5k more is up to you, and you're locked onto FSX software only for now. GC2 has a lot of different Bluetooth option which is a huge benefit, and ball algorithm gets calculated separately by the software so GC2 carry is not reflected in the game which is nice. GC2/GCQ have the most potential to be the most perfect device both indoor/outdoor if they can fix the Spin Axis and ball flight algorithm which probably can be fixed with a firmware update. The only thing Trackman has to do is to make a supplement device to capture and measure Spin Axis so it can show perfect ball flight indoor too.

Ultimately, it was extremely unfortunate that neither devices showed perfect result both indoor and outdoor combined. However if you are thinking of using it outdoor only, Trackman 4 should be the one. If you ever are thinking of using it indoor only, GC2/GCQ will be the way to go which will simulate close to real ball flight. Also for simulator game purposes, TM4 does not track putts shorter than 6’ all the time which is a huge disadvantage if you also want to putt in a simulator game. For fitters, using HMT/GCQ will help capturing accurate data. The decision in choosing which one is solely up to you and I hope this helps you make the most informed decision possible.


***Parameter Cheat Sheet***

Outdoor
Ball Speed, Launch Angle, Launch Direction & Total Spin: All tie
Spin Axis: TM4
Apex: TM4
Carry: TM4
Side Distance: TM4
Land Angle: TM4

Indoor
Ball Speed, Launch Angle & Launch Direction: All tie
Spin Axis: GC2/GCQ but not 100% accurate
Total Spin: GC2/GCQ (and TM4 only when spin was measured)
Apex: GC2/GCQ but not 100% accurate
Carry: TM4 but not 100% accurate
Side Distance: GC2/GCQ but not 100% accurate
Land Angle: TM4 but not 100% accurate

Club Data
Club Speed: Prefer TM4
Attack Angle: All tie
Club Path: Prefer TM4
Face Angle: Prefer HMT/GCQ
Dynamic Lie: HMT/GCQ
Dynamic Loft: Prefer TM4
Impact Location: HMT/GCQ

Outdoor Use: TM4
Indoor Use: GC2+HMT/GCQ
Fitting Use: GC2+HMT/GCQ
Training Use: All tie
Simulator Use: GC2

[andygg1986]

Thanks for your very thorough and unbiased review! It’s nice to hear someone willing to say that there will be hardware limitations even if you are willing to spend $20k. I am surprised that spin axis is so difficult to measure for both systems indoors, but I guess they have to leave something for the next generation devices to improve on.

[Snaphook]

Great test.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. This confirms my beliefs aswell.
For outdoor: TM all the way
Indoor/Sim: Foresight.
I wish that foresight would take the time to try and adjust the spin axis.

[wbond]

Thanks, very informative.. I am one who believes my Gc2 unit is fade biased. I thought it was odd since almost all I've read say it's draw biased and that carry is longer on driver. I've found neither of these to be correct for me.

[DirtyGarry24]

This is interesting wbond. If I remember correctly you normally hit a lot of draws with skytrak, didn't you? So are you unable to hit draws with gc2?

[wbond]

DirtyGarry24 Correct, I only hit draws and for whatever reason on my gc2 I don’t see nearly the draws at all with driver and way less than what I’m used to seeing on irons. It’s not really matching what I see outdoors.

[DirtyGarry24]

That’s crazy. It’s possible to hit a driver with the gc2 flipped around using the lefty window. Just something to try. Irons get a little cramped.

I took a couple videos about a week ago hitting driver outside and was impressed with the accuracy. HA looked a little off but should have been within a degree. Definitely try that if ya get a chance, as you already know.

[Dax]

Great information. Thank you for sharing.

[Steggy0726]

Thanks for sharing man. Great info.

[p3eps]

Nice test. Some great info in there - thanks.

[A.West]

Interesting test. I was just able to download a scientific paper comparing TM and GC2/HMT vs some sort of physics lab setup. Google Leachetal2017trackmanforesightpublished.pdf which I was able to download. It suggests like you that neither machine is perfect, particularly indoors, and that some measurements are reliable, while some of the output is less reliable. For both, mean launch direction was good but not great. Trackman wasn't great at measuring low spin rates like driver (indoors). Both TM and HMT got club direction mostly correct, though each also had some outlier misses. HMT face angle was the least reliable measurement in the set, with more dispersion than desired and a tendency toward bias. The found that face angle was measured by HMT within 2 degrees of actual only 46% of the time, dynamic loft 59% of the time. Club direction was +/-2 degrees 86% of the time (higher than TM's 82%), and HMT attack angle 83% (vs TM 65%). Launch angle and launch direction were within 2 degrees 98% and 95% of the time respectively for GC2. Spin rate within 150rpm of reality 91% on GC2. The paper found "Both launch monitors measured ball parameters better than clubhead parameters". "a high-level of confidence can be had in the ball parameters measured by both Trackman and Foresigh; however, caution needs to be exercised in the use of clubhead parameters. Coaches, golfers and club-fitters should find the data to be of sufficient quality for most of their needs."

[StuartG]

Agree it's a very intersting read, but for full disclosure that tested TM IIIe. No idea if TM 4 would be any different though and if so, how.
It also didn't include evaluation of the spin axis results.

[LEO MODE]

I can understand why some parameters are not included because the objective default was GOM camera. Camera cannot be 100% accurate on Carry distance for instance, so I can see why that was omitted, but why not Spin Axis is still questionable. Maybe Spin Axis requires longer distance to be measured properly (i.e. Trackman outdoor tracks it until 30yds then is able to track spin axis accurately).

[Fairways IGC]

Great paper. Thanks for sharing. They did a good job keeping it simple and applying proper techniques. I think a much better comparison if people read it and can understand.

[clubchampx9]

Thank you so much for posting this analysis as I have a TM4 that I use 95% indoors for my personal swing analysis and to play golf courses, mostly TGC courses. I am trying to make a decision to continue using my TM4 or purchasing a Q4 to have the most accurate golf course simulation experience. I have FSX2018 that I also use to play courses with my GC2. If my #1 goal is to have the most realistic golf course playing experience, what do yo recommend?

[LEO MODE]

If you use 95% indoor, I would suggest GCQ if you're ok playing just FSX and are only interested in game improvement. If not, then GC2+HMT with various simulator software options. As I stated above, GCQ and GC2 unfortunately will not replicate 100% outdoor like result but they're damn close and will be more consistent than Trackman especially on a driver shot.

[cspin]

Seems to me that the proper comparison would be "insert brand" launch monitor data vs. actual real life data. Problem with that is how does one get actual real life data that is known to be correct? We can visualize actual ball flight outdoors, which provides reliable data to a point (i.e. direction, launch angle, draw/fade spin). I don't know of a machine/lab that can get face angle, attack angle, swing path, etc. down to actual real life conditions. Sounds like both machines have trouble accurately measuring what's happening at impact.

I've got a GC2 and have only used it indoors with FSX. It seems pretty darn accurate and repeatable (unlike my golf swing ). May have a draw bias off longer clubs, but I only base that on shots I have hit. Not sure if it has anything to do with hitting in an enclosed area from a mental perspective. I guess it wouldn't be too hard to take the thing onto the course (not a driving range) and hit a number of drives with good golf balls. Should be able to tell if the shape of the ball flight matches the readings on the GC2. Have to believe that others have done this before with their GC2s.

[LEO MODE]

First off my trsting was conducted heavily and equally on both indoor and outdoor on all units. Outdoor environment, the standard was Trackman. In robot testing, Trackman is now used in lieu of humans. Plus, I did not objectively say which was more correct when it came down to a few ball parameters (ie total spin, apex, landing angle) because I can’t visualize that. My results are simply saying because their numbers are close to each other, and that they’re the top prominent brands I will likely believe them. Of course they can both be off too. This goes more so with the club parameters because there is no way for me to visualize any of them, except impact location. The thesis data also used a different camera system which measures some of the club data but I don’t know if any of them can be right since I never heard of GOM before and I don’t know if they are used as an industry standard. For me the most important factor was ball flight.

I understand your point about GC2 being close which is great. Just know that they do not portray perfect shot shaping and landing are like Trackman outdoor. Out of my thousands and thousands of shots Trackman never once showed an opposite or weird ball flight than real life outdoor. GC2/GCQ however did and still does at this point. Just facts.

Indoor none of the units will show perfect flight model but GC2/GCQ will be the closest you can get at this point in time. Let’s hope for either model to implement a perfect algorithm so we can enjoy the same flight both indoor and outdoor.

[clubchampx9]

For what it's worth, I hit 20 shots with my 7 iron last night and my gc2 was always 4 - 12 yards longer than my TM4, indoors. The shot shape and direction was almost identical for each shot, a draw was a draw, fade a fade and a duck hook..... well you get the idea.

[StuartG]

Total distance or carry distance?

[clubchampx9]

It was total distance

[LEO MODE]

Total is not meant to be taken directly. It is just a simple pure standard based off of roll if the grass was flat and fairway. However carry is what you should look for since all balls would land somewhere regardless of the turf condition. But shorter the club less difference you'll see.

[Dan McWhirter]

A very interesting thread and I thank all who are contributing! All this makes me more happy with my cheapo SkyTrak. LOL

[mbuck45]

How do you think the indoor accuracy would stack up to About Golf? Does anyone have any info on that unit?

[andygg1986]

I have only used About Golf at a PGA Superstore, but I would think that both GCQuad and Trackman 4 would be more accurate. It seemed reasonable but the distances seemed a bit off. Recently, they switched to all GC2's which makes me think they came to the same conclusion. Also, About Golf needs specially marked balls which is annoying if you want to use it with your gamer ball.

Just FYI, if you are thinking about buying the group of 4 on ebay that are at $2k, I would pass on those. I sent them an email asking what it would cost to get a software license to use them. They said you would have to buy the computer from them, and the cost would be between $10k-$22k per computer depending on courses and features!

[Fairways IGC]

I agree with cspin. If you are looking for the most accurate system "The control" or baseline or standard (which ever you call it, depending on the context) would be actual ball flight.

There should also be a big consideration given in the software of the systems that does ball flight calculations (algorithms). Meaning if you could manually input the same ball and club data into the systems they will calculate different ball trajectory!

Since i too am a simulator fanatic and golf data enthusiast I like to look at simulator systems for two things when it comes to this type of discussion. First, how accurate is the data they collect. Velocity is velocity, angle is angle, rpm is rpm, etc. This is data. And the paper that A. West shared did a good job explaining a test that showed the true accuracy and consistency of the data the two systems collect and derive for us. The second, is what does the system software do with that information. For discussions sake, take the club data out. Input the same ball speed, launch angle, direction, spin rate, axis into E6, FSX, Trackman, TGC and you will see different carry, apex, and curvature.

TM outdoors has an advantage outdoors because it simply tracks the actual amd entire ball flight. No calculations there. But TM software does have to collect data and calculate ball flight when used indoors as a simulator. So you can say and see there is a difference in accuracy for TM from indoor to outdoor because of the amount and type of data it must collect in a shorter distance and time to derive the information to estimate a ball flight. I dont see how you can say a GC is better or worse compared to itself indoor vs outdoor because it is collecting the same data in the same time frame and doing the same ball flight calculations. So if the GC calculated ball flight distance and curvature matches the actuals you are seeing outdoors, then you are getting the same process indoors.

both are good systems. Pros and cons and preferences and branding.