Hardware capability: Uneekor EYE XO vs. Foresight GCquad

[nathans]

Hi,

The end of the day which unit has the better hardware? I'm not talking about flight algorithms and software, but rather pure hardware capability from a technical standpoint.

I've heard somewhere that the GCQuad captures the club and ball at 10,000 frames per second. I have no idea this is true.

How does Uneekor's cameras compare to GCQuad's cameras in that regard and overall quality?

One last thing, operating lighting conditions for each unit?

I know that the GCQuad works outdoors with natural daylight. Can the EyeXO work well if there is a lot of natural light coming through a large window? Of course lots of natural light would hinder the performance of a projector, however would the ball and club data still be accurate?

Thanks!

[iacas]

I'm fairly certain the GCQuad is going to be the more capable hardware. I don't think it does anything near 10,000 frames per second (some Phantom cameras we've tested with are 12,000), though.

[Tom Howarth]

I am looking at both options for an upgrade in the not too distant future. The GC Quad is big $$. I think about $8k more than the Eye XO. GC Quad or GC3 are portable, which is cool. But unless you are a tour pro, are you really taking that to the range (if you don't have a sim set up at home)? I think the Uneekor photo capture of the club and ball in still frame and video is insanely cool. Tough decision. Unfortunately, it seems to me, as you go up in price, they make it more expensive for 3rd Party software. I have a Skytrak now with E6. I really enjoy using it. And for $450.00 per year, I get E6 Connect expanded. Tons of awesome courses. With GC Quad or GC3, or Uneekor, I'm pretty sure you have to shell out $2,500.00 and buy the E6 software (which sucks).

[preludesam]

When you say hardware it’s definitely GC Quad and yeah I think it’s 10,000 frames combined for the four cameras. If you asking about accuracy of measured data (ball and club) then the Quad is the industry standard. The EYE XO has been proven to be within margin of the Quad on many occasions at 60% of the cost. For the cost you can get a Mevo+ and take it to the range and still come out cheaper. I will say I do like that the Quad offers some putting data but moving the cost to double that of an EYE XO.

https://youtu.be/KVIx5m5FcaM

https://youtu.be/kpBZkVQCHiQ

I know you said software wasn’t an issue but remember the Quad is not “supported” for all the third party simulator software. Maybe it’s not an issue for you but there is a ton of great software out there that you can’t use with a Quad. Not an issue with an EYE XO as it’s a supported LM for almost all third party offerings.

Uneekor should not be affected by natural light. There are some instances where bright chrome wedges or irons reflect and cause misreads but these are very few and far between. If installed correctly at the recommended height you should have no issues.

[nathans]

Regarding the club video capture feature of the EYE XO I found out the reason GCQuad doesn't offer it is because the video would take a few minutes to play due to how many frames are taken by the GCQuad through impact. Apparently, GCQuad takes many many more frames then EYE XO.

This is what my Foresight rep told me so I'm assuming it's true. He also said there are rumors of offering it via some sort of PC software conversion in the future.

[Tom Howarth]

Interesting... I'm glad I'm not ready to buy either at this minute, but certainly within a year. I think the Quad will be out of budget since I don't make a living playing golf.