High End Sim Comparison

[TexEx89]

I’ve enjoyed reading on this board as I have been planning my own home golf sim. I thought I’d share my research with the group. This comparison only of high-end, installed systems, not DIY solutions. I have researched, demo’d, and received proposals on all of them. Of note, I am building a new home so I have no space constraints and thus don't include such below. These are my observations from that process. Hopefully it is helpful. Please, if my conclusions are incorrect, please let me know. I'd very much appreciate new information. The systems are listed in reverse order of my preference (i.e., worst to best).

Foresight – Everyone agrees it is accurate, but the software is antiquated at best. Playing on a course feels like a 1980s arcade game. These were the worst graphics of the bunch. Golf clubs need stickers. No multi-sport (other than golfing games); you’d have to buy TruGolf multi-sport separately. I don’t have first-hand knowledge of this, but other sales guys say the GCHawk is not as good as the GCQuad in terms of picking up shots and data accuracy. The Foresight sales guy says a new platform is coming fall ’22. Seems pretty junky for the cost.

About Golf – They say they are the oldest in the space and that their system is being installed in the new PGA headquarters being built north of Dallas. I question the accuracy. With no warm up, in my demo I hit 3 perfect shots straight down the middle including a 150 yard PW and a drive with 250 yards carry. I’m a 17 handicap and struggle to hit a PW 130. To quote Princess Bride, “its inconceivable.” The graphics are weak. It’s a step above Foresight, but not a big one. Stickers on clubs and special marked balls. They may be the oldest company in the space, but they got lapped by the upstarts and are playing catchup.

HD Golf – The graphics look extremely real because they are digitized pictures of the actual course. The game play is simple versus a “gamified” experience, but it is enjoyable. Fantastic multi-sport; maybe better than TruGolf. Limited course library (40). Stickers on balls. They claim to take 80,000 pics at each course and thus you are limited to views to/from those pics versus the others that have fully 3D digitized courses. Their reputation is for the realistic pics / graphics. I think they were far ahead of the competition on this front 5+ years ago but that the others have closed the gap considerably. It’s privately owned by one person. I’m skeptical of their ability to invest and build out their platform.

Full Swing – The interface is extremely user friendly, by far the best. Very good multi-sport. The golf is good, but the graphics quality is mediocre. Very limited course selection (20) with promised rapid development of more. Others have said the software is glitchy and I had a few shots that were not picked up. The have a tremendous amount of marketing. Tiger owns 20% of the company. I suspect they have a lot of funding for continued growth. They appear to have been growing too fast, as there are numerous online complaints about poor customer service after installation. Others have also questioned data accuracy, which their seemingly terrible new portable launch monitor would corroborate. I think it will be a great system in the near future, but it isn't there yet.

Trackman – They have the best graphics, IMO. The courses, practice areas and the like are all very realistic. The software seems to run great. They also have the most data on actual shots to drive their algorithms for the data. I don’t believe the comments that because they are radar-based and it isn’t as accurate indoors as outside. That may have been the case years ago, but as they’ve tweaked their software and with the new HCT balls from Titliest, I think that problem is solved. But, the interface and menus are more technical and not as intuitive as some of the others. And they don’t offer multi-sport. You’d have to buy TruGolf multi-sport separately.

Overall, Trackman, Full Swing and HD Golf are the leaders and Foresight and About Golf are the laggards. Going forward, I expect Trackman and Full Swing to pull away given the resources they have. If you are buying a system for you kids, family fun, multi-sport and an entertainment experience, you may want to go Full Swing. If you are buying this for golf improvement and course playing, I’d go with TM plus the TruGolf multi-sport.

[Sixmudd]

Most simulation golf is like a video game anyway no matter what platform. I bought a foresight quad for game improvement and to work on my numbers and work on my swing (both at home and outdoors on the range) and I wanted the most accurate indoor system. The simulation part of it came second for me. At the end of the day simulation golf is not real golf. It’s fun though

[jasonreg]

What Sixmudd said. 100% exactly the same considerations with one minor add. TM, despite it's improvements have limitations indoors and the biggest one is the shear space the system requires. There are others.

[mtduffer]

Nice write up.

[Adam Prince]

Quad or Uneekor EYE for indoor top of the line. Skip radar units, don’t work well indoors, nor on chips/putts.

[Dax]

Really are you sure of this?

[COgolfengineer]

Interesting observations and write-up. I'm a bit curious on how you're defining a "High End Sim" and you mention the whole package is fully installed. There are companies out there who can install everything for you and not tied to just 1 brand of LM, so that is an option.

To me a High End Sim consists of 3 things:
1. Accuracy
2. Sim Software Realism and Options
3. Overall look of the simulator like turf, screen, furniture, decor, etc.

Out of the options you picked, I'd say Foresight is the most accurate in terms of ball data and even the club data is very accurate with the stickers. Agreed that FSX2020 isn't the best, but FSX Play should be better and you can even integrate 3rd party sim software to the Foresight LMs which brings better options than the FSX software. However, for club fitting and training, FSX is great and is why a lot of golf teachers use it.

All the other options you picked are locked to their own software which kinda stinks, unless you really like it. Trackman does work with E6 so that's nice. I do agree that the Trackman software is excellent, from their practice/fitting software as well as their VG game software.

A general problem with radar units is they can measure total spin with the metal sticker or new RCT balls, but they can't measure the spin axis of the ball. Trackman uses the camera and radar together to find the impact location of the ball on the club face and in conjunction with the club path, face angle, etc, it can calculate what the sidespin or spin axis should be. For this to be accurate, you need the proper lighting, which isn't a huge deal. This method of getting the side spin can be quite accurate, however, all clubs have slightly different center of gravity locations, mainly drivers with adjustable or slidable weights, and there's no way to get the side spin accurate if you move the CG far off the center of the club face, unless you can measure the spin of the ball directly, so this is where the camera based LMs are better for indoor. However, camera LMs do have occasional misreads so they're not perfect either!

The overall look of the sim is really the WOW factor when you have friends come over and can make any LM look extremely high end. There isn't really any limit to what you can do.

Adding the Trugolf Multisport is a good option for a multisport simulator and if you're using E6 golf software, the Trugolf MS integrates nicely.

Ultimately, there's no perfect system but as long as the distances and shot shapes match closely between indoors and outdoors, that's all we can really ask for.

And again, hiring an independent golf simulator design and install company can help make any simulator space "high-end".

[Bryson of Bogey Golf]

Defining a high-end sim was a question / curiousity I had a little while back too. COgolfengineer, can't disagree with your characteristics at all. I may have landed on a bit more black and white definition in an attempt to more clearly segment the market by budget, mid-tier, and high-end. Reality is that the market is very cluttered and hard to put in clear boxes like I'm attempting to do. That said here goes with the obvious disclaimer that it's the world according to me... based on what I've learned here, online, and talking to reps...

Apart from price point, splitting into the different tiers comes down to 1) distance accuracy, 2) simulated environment integration, and 3) shot shape accuracy.

• Budget: <$1K... will get you consistent accuracy
• Mid-Tier: $1K-$10K... generally $2K-$3K... and will get you consistent accuracy in a simulated environment... but might be more of a vid game experience with draws showing as fades consistently and the occasional (or more) missed shot all together
• High-End: >$10K... generally much more expensive when not the DIY systems... where you get accuracy and simulated environment with the primary distinguishing factor being much more accurate shot shape.

With high end comes the all of the realism distinctions noted and plenty of debate on the various puts and takes of players in this segment. That said, realism being hard to define and more of an "I know it when I see it" distinction, seemed to me that consistent shot shape was a bit more clear dinstinguishing factor. That to deliver this you need the higher end monitoring, higher end computing, higher end software which all also get you the more realistic experience.

Would love critiques on my take here. Still new and learning.