Trackman4 vs Uneekor Eye XO

[G-$]

I'm evaluating both Trackman4 and Uneekor Eye XO. Clearly, TM4 is somewhere near 2x more expensive. But, TM4 can also be used outside, which is nice. I think I understand those arguments. I'm trying to make sure I understand all the pros and cons of each for use indoors. Here is what I have so far. What am I missing or misunderstanding?

TM4 Pros: club data best in class and no need for stickers. Software, game improvement, pro swing models, and courses (226 included with subscription) seem to get rave reviews.
TM4 Cons: Ball data reliability with only 10’ flight from tee to screen? Floor mount is subject to tripping (or kicking haha) damage.

UEX Pros: Ceiling mount so it's out of the way. People seem to really like club face capture videos (is this unique to UEX? or does TM4 do something similar?).
UEX Cons: Need stickers on clubs. Accuracy issues on longer clubs/faster swings? Accuracy on AoA and other club data and perhaps smash factor? Admittedly, I’m not sure I understand the accuracy issues. Limited courses available (5 or 20 depending on subscription)--may want to have third party software for playing courses.

Also, I'm not sure how to compare the camera/video capabilities of each. TM4 is typically iphone based. UEX has the swingoptix camera add-on option.

Thanks for your help!

[bubbtubbs]

Do you only have 10' of flight?

You're also going to be paying a thousand a year (I think) for the TM software.

[Mogul Rider]

If you want the best indoor and outdoor experience, then get a GCQuad. TM club data is not best in class. The Quad has the most accurate club data.

I would recommend the following, in this order:

1) Indoor/Outdoor use: GCQuad
2) Indoor only (overhead required) or have left handers: EyeXO2
3) Indoor only, but don't care about overhead and don't have lefties: GCQuad

All of these have access to 3rd party software. TM you are limited to their software. Granted, TMs software is top notch but you pay for it every year and to me it is not worth that much over Uneekors View software. FSX2020 is good for practice/training (not sim play), just really overpriced.

You will struggle with radar with only 10' of ball flight.

The stickers are not a big deal, unless you are playing tournaments a lot and you need to take them off. But they still are not that big of a deal and are easy to put on. I bet I could sticker all my clubs in 10-15 minutes watching 1/2 of a quarter of a football game.

And one has to be honest as to how much it will be used outside. I have found most people way overestimate how much they will use any LM outdoors.

[preludesam]

Clearly, TM4 is somewhere near 2x more expensive. But, TM4 can also be used outside, which is nice.

If you do plan on using an LM outdoors regularly I would recommend a radar. I had an EyeXO and a Mevo+ for that same reason. During the summer I love being outside since I have long winters. I rarely used the EyeXO during the summer months. I am a firm believer that hitting off grass is a different experience and translates a little better to rounds on the course.

I sold my EyeXO and moved to an X3. It's been a great experience indoors and outdoors. There are some drawbacks with the spin axis using radar that other users have reported but I haven't specifically experienced them. I have 11'-12' of flight and do not get any issues with spin at 165mph ball speed. Radar does suffer from restricted flight distances so your mileage may vary and I wouldn't recommend anything under 9'. The EyeXO was great and a wonderful product but I enjoyed the Mevo+ so much. I found a used X3 for a great deal since I couldn't afford a Trackman. No subscriptions, regular updates, and it integrates with all the sim software companies.

And one has to be honest as to how much it will be used outside. I have found most people way overestimate how much they will use any LM outdoors.

Agree and disagree. Yes strictly indoors you should use a camera. Likewise, I underestimated my outdoor use.

The Quad has the most accurate club data.

Hands down this is correct. It's pretty much the industry standard. We are kind of splitting hairs at this point but I would say the majority of data research is done with a Quad. Engineers trust it and you should too!

If you want the best indoor and outdoor experience, then get a GCQuad.

Depends, if your using old range balls outdoors then yes. If you are a member of a club that uses premium range balls then no. Tee-to-ground radar tracking using your gamer premium ball on the range is more accurate for carry distances. Ball flights differ between golf balls. This has been proven since Ping introduced Ballnamic. A Quad is going to give you the ball flight of a ProV1 regardless of what you are using. There is a huge difference in the flight of an AVX and some of the premium Bridgestones.

Accuracy issues on longer clubs/faster swings? Accuracy on AoA and other club data and perhaps smash factor? Admittedly, I’m not sure I understand the accuracy issues.

I think people see the Trackman or X3 data and assume it's wrong because it's slightly different for a camera system or vice versus camera is wrong compared to radar. We especially see this with Smash Factor only because of the way it's measured. Foresight and EyeXO measure at first touch and radars usually measure at full compression of the ball. Naturally, a camera-based system is going to measure a higher swing speed because no energy has been transferred into the ball yet. Faster Club Speeds with the same ball speeds translate to a lower Smash Factor. Now, is one right and one wrong? No, they just measure at different points in time.

The only issue I ever had with my EyeXO is when I was lazy and set the unit just under 9' when 9' is the minimum recommended height for mounting. It was an issue with infrared reflecting off a shiny wedge. I cut the ceiling and mounted it to 9'5" and no more issues. If you have low ceilings I wouldn't recommend an overhead unit.

The stickers are not a big deal, unless you are playing tournaments a lot and you need to take them off. But they still are not that big of a deal and are easy to put on.

Totally right about the stickers. They are literally set and forget. They are super durable. I played regular rounds indoors and outdoors and changed them maybe once every six months. Just to clarify he's not saying they are illegal in Sim tournaments but they are illegal in a real tournament.

Limited courses available (5 or 20 depending on subscription)--may want to have third party software for playing courses.

All of these have access to 3rd party software. TM you are limited to their software. Granted, TMs software is top notch but you pay for it every year and to me it is not worth that much over Uneekors View software. FSX2020 is good for practice/training (not sim play), just really overpriced.

Other than Trackman you're going to purchase third-party software. It's required at this point.

Also, I'm not sure how to compare the camera/video capabilities of each. TM4 is typically iphone based. UEX has the swingoptix camera add-on option.

I think all the LM offerings for cameras suck but for different reasons. They are either restrictive or bad quality or both. Swing Optix is ok for quality (with enough lighting) but let's say you do not like their interface within the software. You won't be able to use them for anything other recording software and they are quite expensive. I am honestly not sure about TM4 but an iPhone camera is pretty decent outside since the sun is providing an absolutely massive amount of light. It's not going to be good indoors.

Most instructors use Swing Catalyst for recording because of the software interface, functionality, and integration with LMs making it easier to teach. I don't like the idea of paying monthly for Swing Catalyst so I use Kinovea. It's limited compared to Swing Catalyst but it works and the cameras are much cheaper.

Picking recording software and your setup is almost as difficult as picking an LM. There are pros and cons to all of them.

[orangeman]

"A Quad is going to give you the ball flight of a ProV1 regardless of what you are using."

I don't think this is correct. There was another thread (which I started - golfsimulatorforum.com/forum/foresight-sports/379804-ball-testing-with-the-gc2) about ball testing on a GC2 w/HMT, which is similar to the quad in that it has four cameras. The general consensus is that both those devices are excellent for ball testing and show the different characteristics of different balls. The guys at My Golf Spy use a Quad for all their ball testing (mygolfspy.com/best-golf-balls-2021/).

[preludesam]

Yeah, they show the difference in spin and ball speed. The problem is the height and curvature of a Prov1 at a specific spin rate and spin axis will not be the same as a Callaway Chromesoft LS. You can have a ball that spins less but has higher flight. Again, Ping has already proven this with Ballnamic and they have a couple of webinars on it. This is why tour pros do not get fit for a ball indoors. They all take it to the range and see the actual flight with a radar. My Golf Spy is great and I love their testing (especially the true cost metric) but without seeing it physically move down a range it's kind of limited to "this one spins more" or "this one is faster".

[orangeman]

That makes sense. Thanks.

[Bubba22]

If you do plan on using an LM outdoors regularly I would recommend a radar. I had an EyeXO and a Mevo+ for that same reason. During the summer I love being outside since I have long winters. I rarely used the EyeXO during the summer months. I am a firm believer that hitting off grass is a different experience and translates a little better to rounds on the course.

I sold my EyeXO and moved to an X3. It's been a great experience indoors and outdoors. There are some drawbacks with the spin axis using radar that other users have reported but I haven't specifically experienced them. I have 11'-12' of flight and do not get any issues with spin at 165mph ball speed. Radar does suffer from restricted flight distances so your mileage may vary and I wouldn't recommend anything under 9'. The EyeXO was great and a wonderful product but I enjoyed the Mevo+ so much. I found a used X3 for a great deal since I couldn't afford a Trackman. No subscriptions, regular updates, and it integrates with all the sim software companies.



Agree and disagree. Yes strictly indoors you should use a camera. Likewise, I underestimated my outdoor use.



Hands down this is correct. It's pretty much the industry standard. We are kind of splitting hairs at this point but I would say the majority of data research is done with a Quad. Engineers trust it and you should too!



Depends, if your using old range balls outdoors then yes. If you are a member of a club that uses premium range balls then no. Tee-to-ground radar tracking using your gamer premium ball on the range is more accurate for carry distances. Ball flights differ between golf balls. This has been proven since Ping introduced Ballnamic. A Quad is going to give you the ball flight of a ProV1 regardless of what you are using. There is a huge difference in the flight of an AVX and some of the premium Bridgestones.



I think people see the Trackman or X3 data and assume it's wrong because it's slightly different for a camera system or vice versus camera is wrong compared to radar. We especially see this with Smash Factor only because of the way it's measured. Foresight and EyeXO measure at first touch and radars usually measure at full compression of the ball. Naturally, a camera-based system is going to measure a higher swing speed because no energy has been transferred into the ball yet. Faster Club Speeds with the same ball speeds translate to a lower Smash Factor. Now, is one right and one wrong? No, they just measure at different points in time.

The only issue I ever had with my EyeXO is when I was lazy and set the unit just under 9' when 9' is the minimum recommended height for mounting. It was an issue with infrared reflecting off a shiny wedge. I cut the ceiling and mounted it to 9'5" and no more issues. If you have low ceilings I wouldn't recommend an overhead unit.



Totally right about the stickers. They are literally set and forget. They are super durable. I played regular rounds indoors and outdoors and changed them maybe once every six months. Just to clarify he's not saying they are illegal in Sim tournaments but they are illegal in a real tournament.




Other than Trackman you're going to purchase third-party software. It's required at this point.



I think all the LM offerings for cameras suck but for different reasons. They are either restrictive or bad quality or both. Swing Optix is ok for quality (with enough lighting) but let's say you do not like their interface within the software. You won't be able to use them for anything other recording software and they are quite expensive. I am honestly not sure about TM4 but an iPhone camera is pretty decent outside since the sun is providing an absolutely massive amount of light. It's not going to be good indoors.

Most instructors use Swing Catalyst for recording because of the software interface, functionality, and integration with LMs making it easier to teach. I don't like the idea of paying monthly for Swing Catalyst so I use Kinovea. It's limited compared to Swing Catalyst but it works and the cameras are much cheaper.

Picking recording software and your setup is almost as difficult as picking an LM. There are pros and cons to all of them.

preludesam I sincerely thank you for your knowledge and inputs.

[Stetson]

I would say without hesitation that I would go Eye XO over TM4. The TM simulation software is beautiful, but the up front cost, recurring cost, space requirements, potential for contact with the unit, etc are all going against TM for me.

[G-$]

I sold my EyeXO and moved to an X3. It's been a great experience indoors and outdoors. There are some drawbacks with the spin axis using radar that other users have reported but I haven't specifically experienced them. I have 11'-12' of flight and do not get any issues with spin at 165mph ball speed. Radar does suffer from restricted flight distances so your mileage may vary and I wouldn't recommend anything under 9'. The EyeXO was great and a wonderful product but I enjoyed the Mevo+ so much. I found a used X3 for a great deal since I couldn't afford a Trackman. No subscriptions, regular updates, and it integrates with all the sim software companies.

Picking recording software and your setup is almost as difficult as picking an LM. There are pros and cons to all of them.

preludesam, thanks for your very thoughtful response. If I may, aside from the well known brand name and price, what do you think are the major pros and cons of TM4 vs Flightscope x3? You saved a lot of money with x3, but what are the biggest things that x3 doesn't have that TM4 does? Was there anything that x3 does better? I haven't been able to find a very good comparison of the pros and cons of the two. I think one of the drawbacks of x3 used to be lack of face contact location but that's a free option on x3 now.

Also, regarding cameras, I noticed that Flightscope now has a partnership with Swing Catalyst for $200/year.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[preludesam]

If I may, aside from the well known brand name and price, what do you think are the major pros and cons of TM4 vs Flightscope x3?

As you know I do not own a Trackman so I guess anything I add will be hearsay. A couple of things I’ve noticed though…

Form Factor - I’m not sure how much a Trackman weighs but the form factor looks much smaller and portable in person. My X3 is a brick. It’s heavy and large. I see people bringing their Trackman to the range in a thin little sleeve where I require a full large laptop book bag.

Battery Life - Not sure about the battery life on the Trackman but the X3 is excellent. Remember my X3 is used and I usually get around six hours. I can only imagine it’s marginally better with a brand-new unit. At first, I thought it might have a bigger battery due to the size and weight but I think all companies are limited by FAA regulations and being able to transport on a plane. Maybe someone else can chime in on the Trackman battery life?

Swing Speed and Swing Plane Data - X3 allows swing speed capture and swing plane capture without hitting a ball. I use a Stack for speed training and it was second on my list of reasons to purchase an X3 over Trackman with the first being price. Trackman does not currently offer this unless they changed with a recent update?

Software Functionality - As much as I appreciate Flightscope not charging for FS Golf software on PC to X3 users it sucks. You can buy X3 VX software for the PC from Flightscope but it's old and expensive. It does include an insurance policy (1 year) for repairs meaning they come in a package together. The only issue I have is it does not cover battery replacement. VX is free on iPads so I guess it’s just me being whiny. Trackman does an excellent job providing the same great experience across multiple platforms

Environment Optimizer - One of the most ingenious features of the X3. Being able to set two different environmental parameters has been really enjoyable. If I’m planning a trip to a different part of the country I can input the location I’m going to play and it shows the ball flight where I currently am plus an adjusted flight to my selected location. I live at 1500ish feet and let's say I’m going on vacation to Denver or an ocean course. I can get very accurate carry distances right on my home range for the future round. It was designed for tour players to practice at home for an upcoming event and boy does it work well.

You saved a lot of money with x3, but what are the biggest things that x3 doesn't have that TM4 does?

Putting - Trackman putting data is excellent in comparison to my X3. Usability within the app, available metrics i.e face impact-lie angle just to name a few. This is all watching tutorials and webinars of people fitting or teaching putting with Trackman but it just looks way better. Don’t get me wrong, FS Short Game on the X3 for putting “works” and provides more data like path and face to target than FS Golf but it’s just cumbersome. I travel for work often and my X3 comes with me everywhere. In the winter months, I bring a putting mat and set it up in the hotel room. FS Short Game is so slow it takes like 7-10 seconds to spit out the data after a putt. I have learned to live with it but I am really ready for all data metrics like club path and face angle for putting to be included on FS Golf.

Target Alignment - Alignment for the X3 on the range is tough. It is hard to see a flag in the distance and know you are accurately aligned. I end up finding a tree or a really tall object and just aim at that. I'm not sure how good Trackman is at this but it's got to be better than the X3 only because I cannot imagine anything worse.

They are very close in comparison and without working with them side by side for a couple of months I am not sure I am a reliable source.

Was there anything that x3 does better?

ShotTracer Overlay - It's really cool but a novelty feature in my opinion.

I guess I'll just state the obvious they do not charge me for updates and it's cheaper to purchase. I have contacted support a couple of times and it's been better than Uneekors support in my opinion. Most of the complaints here involve distance issues. I guess people maybe do not understand it's literally taking the data and sticking it into a ball flight model. There is not much support can do for these claims unless the unit is not providing data.

Also, regarding cameras, I noticed that Flightscope now has a partnership with Swing Catalyst for $200/year.

Yeah, I think it's a great deal if you were going to use Swing Catalyst anyways. Basically, they are selling integration with the radar on the Swing Catalyst Home Subscription. Normally the "Home" Subscription does not allow you to connect to a launch monitor and only allows you to capture video. It's the same price so a great deal for Flightscope users.

[G-$]

preludesam, thanks! That was very thoughtful and helpful!

[LEO MODE]

If you do plan on using an LM outdoors regularly I would recommend a radar. I had an EyeXO and a Mevo+ for that same reason. During the summer I love being outside since I have long winters. I rarely used the EyeXO during the summer months. I am a firm believer that hitting off grass is a different experience and translates a little better to rounds on the course.

I sold my EyeXO and moved to an X3. It's been a great experience indoors and outdoors. There are some drawbacks with the spin axis using radar that other users have reported but I haven't specifically experienced them. I have 11'-12' of flight and do not get any issues with spin at 165mph ball speed. Radar does suffer from restricted flight distances so your mileage may vary and I wouldn't recommend anything under 9'. The EyeXO was great and a wonderful product but I enjoyed the Mevo+ so much. I found a used X3 for a great deal since I couldn't afford a Trackman. No subscriptions, regular updates, and it integrates with all the sim software companies.



Agree and disagree. Yes strictly indoors you should use a camera. Likewise, I underestimated my outdoor use.



Hands down this is correct. It's pretty much the industry standard. We are kind of splitting hairs at this point but I would say the majority of data research is done with a Quad. Engineers trust it and you should too!



Depends, if your using old range balls outdoors then yes. If you are a member of a club that uses premium range balls then no. Tee-to-ground radar tracking using your gamer premium ball on the range is more accurate for carry distances. Ball flights differ between golf balls. This has been proven since Ping introduced Ballnamic. A Quad is going to give you the ball flight of a ProV1 regardless of what you are using. There is a huge difference in the flight of an AVX and some of the premium Bridgestones.



I think people see the Trackman or X3 data and assume it's wrong because it's slightly different for a camera system or vice versus camera is wrong compared to radar. We especially see this with Smash Factor only because of the way it's measured. Foresight and EyeXO measure at first touch and radars usually measure at full compression of the ball. Naturally, a camera-based system is going to measure a higher swing speed because no energy has been transferred into the ball yet. Faster Club Speeds with the same ball speeds translate to a lower Smash Factor. Now, is one right and one wrong? No, they just measure at different points in time.

The only issue I ever had with my EyeXO is when I was lazy and set the unit just under 9' when 9' is the minimum recommended height for mounting. It was an issue with infrared reflecting off a shiny wedge. I cut the ceiling and mounted it to 9'5" and no more issues. If you have low ceilings I wouldn't recommend an overhead unit.



Totally right about the stickers. They are literally set and forget. They are super durable. I played regular rounds indoors and outdoors and changed them maybe once every six months. Just to clarify he's not saying they are illegal in Sim tournaments but they are illegal in a real tournament.




Other than Trackman you're going to purchase third-party software. It's required at this point.



I think all the LM offerings for cameras suck but for different reasons. They are either restrictive or bad quality or both. Swing Optix is ok for quality (with enough lighting) but let's say you do not like their interface within the software. You won't be able to use them for anything other recording software and they are quite expensive. I am honestly not sure about TM4 but an iPhone camera is pretty decent outside since the sun is providing an absolutely massive amount of light. It's not going to be good indoors.

Most instructors use Swing Catalyst for recording because of the software interface, functionality, and integration with LMs making it easier to teach. I don't like the idea of paying monthly for Swing Catalyst so I use Kinovea. It's limited compared to Swing Catalyst but it works and the cameras are much cheaper.

Picking recording software and your setup is almost as difficult as picking an LM. There are pros and cons to all of them.

Great insight and thank you for your input. I've been out of the scene for a few years and haven't heard about Ping's Ballnamics and it sounds super interesting. I did however notice this thing at the range (which was using the most crappiest ball you can think of, yellow Srixon range balls that are being hit on hard surfaces over and over), which was when I was using Quad/TM4, their carry numbers matched quiet closely. So I need to read a bit further on this Ballnamics.

As a Trackman 4 and X3 and Quad owner, I can confirm that X3 numbers do not quiet match closely that of TM4 and Quad unfortunately, especially with carry numbers. Interestingly, I did do a quick comparison between X3 and Quad a few years back, and their carry numbers quiet matched. However, this year when I took all of them out to the range again (to eliminate radar frequency variables, I even did X3 vs Quad, X3 vs TM4, TM4 vs Quad all separately), and the recently firmware might suggest that X3 is, compared to before, overstating carry outdoors. Indoors I do not see much difference. I even compared X3 numbers to Flightscope's own Flight Optimizer and is still long (Quad and TM4 are still shorter than Flight Optimizer, except Quad's low spin carry boost carry numbers).

I wonder on your observation on this. Thanks.