Move to GC3 from Uneekor QED?

[Joshsmit56001]

Pondering the idea of moving to GC3 from my current Uneekor QED. I see benefits to both. QED mounts to ceiling but GC3 is portable and measures more data. Also like the idea of using any golf ball on the GC3. Hardest part of decision right now is if I will ever be able to use the GC3 with TGC 2019. Help me decide please!!

[interpathway]

I went from floor (Skytrak) to ceiling (EYEXO) and the simulator space improvement (no unit and cables on the floor, no alignment fuss) was worth it alone.

Re: golf balls and TGC2019 (and assuming portability isn't the biggest need), have you considered going from QED to EYEXO?

[Joshsmit56001]

I went from floor (Skytrak) to ceiling (EYEXO) and the simulator space improvement (no unit and cables on the floor, no alignment fuss) was worth it alone.

Re: golf balls and TGC2019 (and assuming portability isn't the biggest need), have you considered going from QED to EYEXO?

I had thought about it but with going to GC3 I wouldn’t need to spend as much more to move into that versus EYEXO. Does Uneekor have a trade in program still?

[drsagacity]

I was looking at doing this a year or so ago. Thinking qed to eye xo. Then I decided that I would just add the BLP for about the same money as the upgrade.

at home, qed. On course BLP. I can always take the BLP into the sim too if I want any additional data.

[Bubba22]

These are different launch monitors. I would say it’s a good move if :

a) You want one that you can setup and tear down quickly
b) You want portability to take it to the range or buddies place
c) You want to get away from marked balls
d) You don’t have lefties and righties for sim play

Otherwise move to an Eye XO. Much more club data with EyeXO than GC3. The club data with the GC3 is not much more than the QED. I believe it’s just angle of attack with GC3 that’s the difference. GC3 can still connect with TGC2019 with a third party connector but not sure how much longer that will be possible.

[drsagacity]

These are different launch monitors. I would say it’s a good move if :

a) You want one that you can setup and tear down quickly
b) You want portability to take it to the range or buddies place
c) You want to get away from marked balls
d) You don’t have lefties and righties for sim play

Otherwise move to an Eye XO. Much more club data with EyeXO than GC3. The club data with the GC3 is not much more than the QED. I believe it’s just angle of attack with GC3 that’s the difference. GC3 can still connect with TGC2019 with a third party connector but not sure how much longer that will be possible.

What extra club data do you get with the eye XO compared to Bushnell Launch Pro or QED? Anything meaningful?

When I made the decision not to upgrade the QED it’s because I didn’t see any significant differences other than the unmarked ball and angle of attack. Further, there was a big negative of the upgrade because the hitting area was cut in half and with Eye XO (compared to QED), I would lose the ability to designate a driver area and a putting area. On my setup, that’s a big difference. . .especially for putting. I don’t want to putt off the hitting mat. On the QED, I could designate the putting area in front of the hitting area which placed it on my putting green.

Next, I personally switched to play the TP5x which means I can use the TP5x PIX on the sim and do away with the need for marked balls.

Now the only benefit of upgrading was angle of attack….which I get with the Bushnell launch pro if I need to see that data (like if I am working on the driver).

For me, in the exact same position as the OP, I decided that the cost to add the Bushnell Launch Pro with all things considered would give me more net advantages than simply upgrading an in home simulator where 99% of everything I do would remain exactly the same. Instead, for the cost of upgrading my in home setup, I now have the ability to take the launch monitor to the range or to the course for other practice.

My $.02. If you are in a position to upgrade and you are going to spend $4k on top of what you already have invested, consider adding capabilities that you can’t get at home. The outcome for the same money spent is better. More versatility.

[Bubba22]

It’s more than just angle of attack.

QED

Data Points QED Measures
Ball Data
Ball Speed, Side & Back Spin, Side Angle & Total, Launch Angle, Land Angle/Angle of Descent, Flight Time, Distance to Apex, Carry, Run and Total Distance
Club Data*
Club Speed, Smash Factor, Club Path, Club Face Angle, Club Face to Path
* QED club stickers required



EYEXO

Data Points EYE XO Measures
Ball Data
Ball Speed, Side & Back Spin, Side Angle & Total, Launch Angle, Angle of Descent/Land Angle, Flight Time, Distance to Apex, Carry, Run and Total Distance
Club Data*
Club Speed, Dynamic Loft, Angle of Attack, Smash Factor, Club Path, Club Face Angle, Club Face to Path, Club Lie Angle, Club Loft Angle, Impact Point Vertical, Impact Point Horizontal
* EYE XO club stickers required



plus the accuracy of the club data is better with the EYEXO. If QED works for you then carry on. It’s a good unit but their newer technology in the EYEXO and EYEXO 2 is definitely better.

[drsagacity]

Which variables do you think are meaningful? Which of the variables would you use to make and measure change?

[Bubba22]

Depends on the individual. Face impact is a big one for most folks. Dynamic loft and club lie angle is nice. The club data with the QED is fine. EYE XO just has more club data if that’s what you want. Much like going from the GC3 to GC Quad which has more club data.

[drsagacity]

Depends on the individual. Face impact is a big one for most folks. Dynamic loft and club lie angle is nice. The club data with the QED is fine. EYE XO just has more club data if that’s what you want. Much like going from the GC3 to GC Quad which has more club data.

Got it. So nothing has really changed. I find those data points to be useless for anything practically speaking. As an example, I know what the ball speed, launch angle and sprin rates should be. So anything but a centered hit doesn’t generate the right numbers (plus I can feel when it’s not a center strike).The same applies for dynamic loft. Again, I know the loft of the club and I can see the attack angle. Dynamic loft is a combination of club loft and angle of attack. So, I can estimate that variable without even thinking about it.

But if the ball speed, spin rate isn’t right, again, I know I didn’t present the correct loft with the right angle of attack. If I have the angle of attack and forward shaft lean correct, then the ball launches with the right characteristics. Truthfully, I could do without club data entirely which is why 99% of the time, I don’t use the stickers. The variables that really matter are ball speed, launch angle and spin rate. I know what the club needs to do to produce those launch characteristics. That being said, the reason I asked is because I am curious how others might use those data points. I thought that I might have been missing something. For novelty, I totally get it. But for game improvement, I don’t see it.

Overall, it seems to me that 90% of the data we are given with launch monitors is not useful in making improvements (that includes the QED). They all give way more information ;with precision that is not meaningful. If I know a club is 4 degrees open, that just translates into I need to close the face more, but when you are measuring in degrees…that’s meaningless for actual practice. How much do I need to close the face to make it 4 degrees more shut? That isn’t meaningful. It’s just extra information.

In reality, if you see the ball fight and see the launch conditions, all of the other data points are self evident. Anyway, I do get the novelty. I think it’s cool to see the extra datapoints. Thank you for telling me which variables you like using. Maybe I am wrong…always trying to learn in this crazy game.

[Bubba22]

You’re not wrong but what works for you is different than the next golfer. We have debated on here for years what is more important… club data or ball data? There is no right answer. Even some pros who are much better than the average golfer, love club data. Some just want ball data. For me it’s the consistency of the data that matters, club or ball, that I try to repeat.

[drsagacity]

You’re not wrong but what works for you is different than the next golfer. We have debated on here for years what is more important… club data or ball data? There is no right answer. Even some pros who are much better than the average golfer, love club data. Some just want ball data. For me it’s the consistency of the data that matters, club or ball, that I try to repeat.

Yeah I totally get that. It depends on what you are working on. I do install the club stickers from time to time to get the club data. That’s especially true if I want to work on speed or if I am not controlling the ball flight correctly then I throw on the stickers to get the real numbers for swing path and club speed. I don’t really look at face to path because that’s evident with the ball flight. If it’s starting to the right and not coming back, I know the face needs to close a little more. If it’s starting left or over hooking, I know the face needs to be less closed.

Not sure how there could be any debate on club vs ball data. Both are important depending on what you are trying to figure out. Club data is the cause and ball data is the result. The ball data does tell you exactly what the club is doing…but you need to have a centered strike. You can use club data with or without a centered strike.

[Bubba22]

I agree with you. The issue is exactly as you say, center strike and gear effect. If you have ball data then sometimes a certain shot may not be due to just your path or face but also your off center strike. Understanding this and felling when it happens is important. I personally thing ball data is critical for simulation and club data is useful for practice. I like both if possible but will pick ball data if I had to pick one. Accuracy of measurement ball or club is the most important.

[drsagacity]

Returning to the OP ask. Moving from QED to GC3/Bushnell Launch Pro, the data is basically the same. Both give you more than enough club data and ball data. If the primary use is for at home in a sim, then I would not change. If you see real value in using it both at home and on the course, then for sure. Instead of buying the GC3, I would check on the options for the BLP as it’s much cheaper up front. Then you have the best of both worlds. You can use the Uneekor at home and have the ability to the Bushnell launch monitor to the course. That is exactly what I do. The upfront cost for the BLP is much less than the GC3. I personally considered the same thing when I was thinking about upgrading my Uneekor to the Eye XO. I am much happier having the ability to use the Uneekor at home and the BLP at the course for basically the same money as just upgrading the Uneekor to one of the new Uneekor models.

From a game improvement perspective, there’s no additional club/ball data that the upgrade to Eye XO2 would give me that makes any difference. But having the ability to take the LM to the course is absolutely worth it in my book. In fact, today, I just got back from the track and we took the BLP to the course to check distances for some new irons.