Trackman vs Foresight vs FlightScope

Let your opinions fly! Some general statements to guide your comments or opinions... but share whatever you've found/experienced, and hey if you rep one of these feel free to comment just don't copy and paste the spec sheet please :/

- Many say Foresight is better at measuring chips, pitches, shots under 60yards?

- Some say Trackman4 is the best for full swing and has superior technology?

- Some say Flightscope is a cheaper option for the same effect but has software issues?

- Which one travels best/easiest/without destroying calibration?

- If you've ever used one and switched to the other please share your experience/thoughts?

- Which one is the most accurate with spin/other numbers? Which one isn't?

- Which one has the longest lifespan?

- Which one is worth the investment and leaves feeling happy and which one makes you feel '#*&%$ this again'

Thanks!

(comparable models - so for the Foresight it means you have the added HMT head measurement)

Interested to see where this topic goes.. eventually looking to turn my garage into a simulator for the winter.

posted this in 'instruction' forum - hopefully more answers there

Definitely interested to see opinions on this. Always heard Trackman was the best, but have Foresight at work without the extra head piece.

Indoors either Trackman or GC2 with HMT, outdoors Trackman then Flightscope then GC2 with HMT.

GC2 is pretty useless without the HMT component added, Trackman is the best of the Radar based units for ease of use and repeatable accuracy.

This is my opinion based off of using Trackman pretty extensively, Flightscope on an occasional basis and GC2 with HMT is only from anecdotal findings from colleagues that have used it.

Now, I can say that without a doubt that GC2 is pretty useless without HMT because it has a "fixed" smash factor value for driver and the same idea for irons. This means that you can't tell if performance was based on strike quality or lack thereof of or if it comes down to ill fitting equipment or poor swing execution.

Let your opinions fly! Some general statements to guide your comments or opinions... but share whatever you've found/experienced, and hey if you rep one of these feel free to comment just don't copy and paste the spec sheet please :/

 

- Many say Foresight is better at measuring chips, pitches, shots under 60yards?

- Some say Trackman4 is the best for full swing and has superior technology?

- Some say Flightscope is a cheaper option for the same effect but has software issues?

- Which one travels best/easiest/without destroying calibration?

- If you've ever used one and switched to the other please share your experience/thoughts?

- Which one is the most accurate with spin/other numbers? Which one isn't?

- Which one has the longest lifespan?

- Which one is worth the investment and leaves feeling happy and which one makes you feel '#*&%$ this again'

 

Thanks!

 

(comparable models - so for the Foresight it means you have the added HMT head measurement)

I think it depends on what you're looking for. I've used all 3 (own a Flightscope) and find them all to be as accurate as you need when it comes to the basics. One exception is that Flightscope doesn't pick up chips/pitches inside about 16 yards. GC2 + HMT would be what I would consider the gold standard for indoor use, but Flightscope and Trackman obviously have more indepth data available and are great indoors as well, provided you have the space.

Calibration is really easy with Flightscope, can't speak to the other 2 but I'm pretty sure GC2 is pretty much plug and play.

I'd consider Trackman the gold standard for outdoor use, but Flightscope is right up there. My only reason for saying TM is better is that it seems more popular among Tour pros and high end teachers.

Flightscope wins in the price department, and in that sense has left me feeling VERY happy!

Let your opinions fly! Some general statements to guide your comments or opinions... but share whatever you've found/experienced, and hey if you rep one of these feel free to comment just don't copy and paste the spec sheet please :/

 

- Many say Foresight is better at measuring chips, pitches, shots under 60yards?

- Some say Trackman4 is the best for full swing and has superior technology?

- Some say Flightscope is a cheaper option for the same effect but has software issues?

- Which one travels best/easiest/without destroying calibration?

- If you've ever used one and switched to the other please share your experience/thoughts?

- Which one is the most accurate with spin/other numbers? Which one isn't?

- Which one has the longest lifespan?

- Which one is worth the investment and leaves feeling happy and which one makes you feel '#*&%$ this again'

 

Thanks!

 

(comparable models - so for the Foresight it means you have the added HMT head measurement)

 

I think it depends on what you're looking for. I've used all 3 (own a Flightscope) and find them all to be as accurate as you need when it comes to the basics. One exception is that Flightscope doesn't pick up chips/pitches inside about 16 yards. GC2 + HMT would be what I would consider the gold standard for indoor use, but Flightscope and Trackman obviously have more indepth data available and are great indoors as well, provided you have the space.

 

Calibration is really easy with Flightscope, can't speak to the other 2 but I'm pretty sure GC2 is pretty much plug and play.

 

I'd consider Trackman the gold standard for outdoor use, but Flightscope is right up there. My only reason for saying TM is better is that it seems more popular among Tour pros and high end teachers.

 

Flightscope wins in the price department, and in that sense has left me feeling VERY happy!

Thanks for the insights! What is the in-depth data that TM and FS has that GC2 doesn't have? Does TM pick up the short pitches?

Indoors either Trackman or GC2 with HMT, outdoors Trackman then Flightscope then GC2 with HMT.

 

GC2 is pretty useless without the HMT component added, Trackman is the best of the Radar based units for ease of use and repeatable accuracy.

 

This is my opinion based off of using Trackman pretty extensively, Flightscope on an occasional basis and GC2 with HMT is only from anecdotal findings from colleagues that have used it.

 

Now, I can say that without a doubt that GC2 is pretty useless without HMT because it has a "fixed" smash factor value for driver and the same idea for irons. This means that you can't tell if performance was based on strike quality or lack thereof of or if it comes down to ill fitting equipment or poor swing execution.

Let your opinions fly! Some general statements to guide your comments or opinions... but share whatever you've found/experienced, and hey if you rep one of these feel free to comment just don't copy and paste the spec sheet please :/

 

- Many say Foresight is better at measuring chips, pitches, shots under 60yards?

- Some say Trackman4 is the best for full swing and has superior technology?

- Some say Flightscope is a cheaper option for the same effect but has software issues?

- Which one travels best/easiest/without destroying calibration?

- If you've ever used one and switched to the other please share your experience/thoughts?

- Which one is the most accurate with spin/other numbers? Which one isn't?

- Which one has the longest lifespan?

- Which one is worth the investment and leaves feeling happy and which one makes you feel '#*&%$ this again'

 

Thanks!

 

(comparable models - so for the Foresight it means you have the added HMT head measurement)

 

I think it depends on what you're looking for. I've used all 3 (own a Flightscope) and find them all to be as accurate as you need when it comes to the basics. One exception is that Flightscope doesn't pick up chips/pitches inside about 16 yards. GC2 + HMT would be what I would consider the gold standard for indoor use, but Flightscope and Trackman obviously have more indepth data available and are great indoors as well, provided you have the space.

 

Calibration is really easy with Flightscope, can't speak to the other 2 but I'm pretty sure GC2 is pretty much plug and play.

 

I'd consider Trackman the gold standard for outdoor use, but Flightscope is right up there. My only reason for saying TM is better is that it seems more popular among Tour pros and high end teachers.

 

Flightscope wins in the price department, and in that sense has left me feeling VERY happy!

 

Thanks for the insights! What is the in-depth data that TM and FS has that GC2 doesn't have? Does TM pick up the short pitches?

Not an expert on TM or GC2, but I believe one of the additional TM measures include low point....I'm not sure if GC2 measures spin loft either? I think I've read TM can pick up a chip as short as 6 feet.

Let your opinions fly! Some general statements to guide your comments or opinions... but share whatever you've found/experienced, and hey if you rep one of these feel free to comment just don't copy and paste the spec sheet please :/

 

- Many say Foresight is better at measuring chips, pitches, shots under 60yards?

- Some say Trackman4 is the best for full swing and has superior technology?

- Some say Flightscope is a cheaper option for the same effect but has software issues?

- Which one travels best/easiest/without destroying calibration?

- If you've ever used one and switched to the other please share your experience/thoughts?

- Which one is the most accurate with spin/other numbers? Which one isn't?

- Which one has the longest lifespan?

- Which one is worth the investment and leaves feeling happy and which one makes you feel '#*&%$ this again'

 

Thanks!

 

(comparable models - so for the Foresight it means you have the added HMT head measurement)

 

I think it depends on what you're looking for. I've used all 3 (own a Flightscope) and find them all to be as accurate as you need when it comes to the basics. One exception is that Flightscope doesn't pick up chips/pitches inside about 16 yards. GC2 + HMT would be what I would consider the gold standard for indoor use, but Flightscope and Trackman obviously have more indepth data available and are great indoors as well, provided you have the space.

 

Calibration is really easy with Flightscope, can't speak to the other 2 but I'm pretty sure GC2 is pretty much plug and play.

 

I'd consider Trackman the gold standard for outdoor use, but Flightscope is right up there. My only reason for saying TM is better is that it seems more popular among Tour pros and high end teachers.

 

Flightscope wins in the price department, and in that sense has left me feeling VERY happy!

 

Thanks for the insights! What is the in-depth data that TM and FS has that GC2 doesn't have? Does TM pick up the short pitches?

 

Not an expert on TM or GC2, but I believe one of the additional TM measures include low point....I'm not sure if GC2 measures spin loft either? I think I've read TM can pick up a chip as short as 6 feet.

Just read your home driving range post http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1339122-flightscope-garage-driving-range/page__hl__flightscope some great info and setup. Thanks!

Let your opinions fly! Some general statements to guide your comments or opinions... but share whatever you've found/experienced, and hey if you rep one of these feel free to comment just don't copy and paste the spec sheet please :/

 

- Many say Foresight is better at measuring chips, pitches, shots under 60yards?

- Some say Trackman4 is the best for full swing and has superior technology?

- Some say Flightscope is a cheaper option for the same effect but has software issues?

- Which one travels best/easiest/without destroying calibration?

- If you've ever used one and switched to the other please share your experience/thoughts?

- Which one is the most accurate with spin/other numbers? Which one isn't?

- Which one has the longest lifespan?

- Which one is worth the investment and leaves feeling happy and which one makes you feel '#*&%$ this again'

 

Thanks!

 

(comparable models - so for the Foresight it means you have the added HMT head measurement)

 

I think it depends on what you're looking for. I've used all 3 (own a Flightscope) and find them all to be as accurate as you need when it comes to the basics. One exception is that Flightscope doesn't pick up chips/pitches inside about 16 yards. GC2 + HMT would be what I would consider the gold standard for indoor use, but Flightscope and Trackman obviously have more indepth data available and are great indoors as well, provided you have the space.

 

Calibration is really easy with Flightscope, can't speak to the other 2 but I'm pretty sure GC2 is pretty much plug and play.

 

I'd consider Trackman the gold standard for outdoor use, but Flightscope is right up there. My only reason for saying TM is better is that it seems more popular among Tour pros and high end teachers.

 

Flightscope wins in the price department, and in that sense has left me feeling VERY happy!

 

Thanks for the insights! What is the in-depth data that TM and FS has that GC2 doesn't have? Does TM pick up the short pitches?

 

Not an expert on TM or GC2, but I believe one of the additional TM measures include low point....I'm not sure if GC2 measures spin loft either? I think I've read TM can pick up a chip as short as 6 feet.

Yes the TM 4 unit is designed to work on short pitches and chips much better.

Club data is also captured on a much more regular basis as the TM 4 has a dedicated radar to measure club data.

TM doesn't display data it isn't confident is perfect.

As many times as I have tried to see if someone can "fool" Trackman it just doesn't happen ?

I think it depends on what you will be predominantly using it for

Remember that no swing analyzer/measuring device, etc. reads everything they present. All are using some kinds of algorithms to produce some of the information. The real question is how much are they really measuring and how much are they "approximating"?

Indoors either Trackman or GC2 with HMT, outdoors Trackman then Flightscope then GC2 with HMT.

 

GC2 is pretty useless without the HMT component added, Trackman is the best of the Radar based units for ease of use and repeatable accuracy.

 

This is my opinion based off of using Trackman pretty extensively, Flightscope on an occasional basis and GC2 with HMT is only from anecdotal findings from colleagues that have used it.

 

Now, I can say that without a doubt that GC2 is pretty useless without HMT because it has a "fixed" smash factor value for driver and the same idea for irons. This means that you can't tell if performance was based on strike quality or lack thereof of or if it comes down to ill fitting equipment or poor swing execution.

Thanks - what were the biggest differences you noticed in quality/performance between TM or FS? How does TM stack up on short game shots?

Data consistency is better with Trackman, you don't get those shots where you scratch your head trying to work out why the ball flight didn't "match" the displayed data like we sometimes do with Flightscope.

Trackman's connectivity is seamless and works perfectly, we have local flight scope users complain that the connection (Bluetooth?) drops out regularly which is a frustrating situation.

We rarely use Flightscope now, it sits inside ready to go but Trackman gets a workout!

We do use the Flighscope indoors for inclement weather use and have body track to integrate with it.

To be honest we don't use either with short game too much. I can honestly say I have never used Flight Scope with short game scenarios but I have used Trackman and the 3e works well for ball data, club data isn't always displayed so upgrading to the Trackman 4 would be ideal for this.

So, in short... I trust the data output from Trackman as being accurate and I don't have to question it, whereas with Flightscope I sometimes wonder if the data provided is 100% accurate having had a few instances where the data displayed doesn't match the ball flight.

Accuracy is 1st and foremost with Trackman, that is why I prefer it.

Adam

Remember that no swing analyzer/measuring device, etc. reads everything they present. All are using some kinds of algorithms to produce some of the information. The real question is how much are they really measuring and how much are they "approximating"?

Quite the conspiracy theorist!

I put it this way, companies like Trackman succeed because players, coaches and club fitters are confident in the accuracy of the data and the physics of the golf shot hit matches the data displayed.

Now I don't trust units that do not have consistent data delivery. (GC2 without HMT and to some extent Flightscope)

If the displayed data wasn't accurate it wouldn't be popular as a teaching tool or fitting tool.

So when your unit costs close to $19,000 USD then you need its reputation to be squeaky clean and with the ability to measure accurately that Trackman has built up its reputation for it is obviously viable at that price point.

If these units weren't accurate the businesses that build and market them would have folded up long ago.

You have to look at what is actually measured rather than calculated. Gc2 HMT measures way more than the other 2 and this is why I think it is best

You have to look at what is actually measured rather than calculated. Gc2 HMT measures way more than the other 2 and this is why I think it is best

I agree the Gc2 with HMT is an excellent unit but disagree that it measures more factors that the radar units, pirticularly the new Trackman 4 with 2 dedicated radar arrays.

There is no perfect with these devices they simply work very differently.

HMT measures far more club data than TM and FS. Measures strike, dynamic loft, lie, club face at impact. This may soon be addressed partly by Flightscope who are introducing a high speed camera to measure strike. TM and fs are better for ball data outside but gc2 better indoors as fs and TM don't seem to pick up gear effect indoors and can be a bit inconsistent on spin due to short distance it has to measure it. I would go for Skytrak indoors over TM and FS for these reasons.

HMT measures far more club data than TM and FS. Measures strike, dynamic loft, lie, club face at impact. This may soon be addressed partly by Flightscope who are introducing a high speed camera to measure strike. TM and fs are better for ball data outside but gc2 better indoors as fs and TM don't seem to pick up gear effect indoors and can be a bit inconsistent on spin due to short distance it has to measure it. I would go for Skytrak indoors over TM and FS for these reasons.

I was fitted for a new driver using Trackman last summer. When Ieft two shots out to the right, "I muttered I blocked those suckers." The fitter called me over to his Trackman console and showed me that on those shots my face was closed to the path and the ball flight and spin were to the right. He said, you haven't made one swing where the face was open to the path. You heeled those and TM picked up the gear effect.

Both TM and FS measure a lot of club and ball data including clubhead speed, dynamic loft, lie, club face at impact, horizontal swing plane, vertical swing plane, swing path, and swing low point among others.

Some off those parameters you mention are calculated by TM and not measured eg ftp, dynamic loft (also dynamic lie is not shown as TM parameter). For example a thin shot with the same dynamic loft as a shot hit flush would show markedly different readings on Trackman as it is back calculated from angle of attack and launch. Agree that outside ,strike can be worked out from difference in spin axis to ftp relationship but Not so sure indoors

Why not use a Swing Caddie 200 for this? You can draw enough data from the swing speed and smash factor to figure out some of the other information.

The only drawback is that it can't calculate your swing path.

I owned a GC2 briefly to give it a whirl as an indoor simulator. I did not get the HMT module with it so the data was pretty minimal. It didn't even give you club-head speed. As a simulator, I was not impressed especially with the shorter shots. A putt that I know should have only gone 10 feet ended up going like 40 feet sometimes. I wasn't expecting perfection, but for me it just wasn't going to be enjoyable as a simulator so I returned it.

Why not use a Swing Caddie 200 for this? You can draw enough data from the swing speed and smash factor to figure out some of the other information.

 

The only drawback is that it can't calculate your swing path.

Why not use a Swing Caddie 200 for this? You can draw enough data from the swing speed and smash factor to figure out some of the other information.

 

The only drawback is that it can't calculate your swing path.

I work extensively with Trackman and I say Trackman is pretty darn accurate when you get complete readings. The latest version of Flightscope is just as accurate as Trackman, in my opinion, especially considering the price difference. I toyed around with Flightscope for a little bit, comparing it side-by-side with my own Trackman, and I was surprised how close the numbers are. So close that they are negligible. However, come to think of it, the discrepancies could be due to the angle of the radars (literally side by side).

Foresight, I honestly did not have much experience with the machine, however my limited experience has been somewhat bad. I went for a fitting in a local 'clubfitting outlet' who used Foresight, and no matter where I hit on the face, the PTR (Smash Factor) is the same all day long: 1.47! On top of that, they were not really fitters. They are just a bunch of staff comparing shafts and heads, encouraging you to buy everything. And I mean EVERYTHING!

Enough of that. I guess, which machine is better, depends on what you wanna use it for.

I work extensively with Trackman and I say Trackman is pretty darn accurate when you get complete readings. The latest version of Flightscope is just as accurate as Trackman, in my opinion, especially considering the price difference. I toyed around with Flightscope for a little bit, comparing it side-by-side with my own Trackman, and I was surprised how close the numbers are. So close that they are negligible. However, come to think of it, the discrepancies could be due to the angle of the radars (literally side by side).

 

Foresight, I honestly did not have much experience with the machine, however my limited experience has been somewhat bad. I went for a fitting in a local 'clubfitting outlet' who used Foresight, and no matter where I hit on the face, the PTR (Smash Factor) is the same all day long: 1.47! On top of that, they were not really fitters. They are just a bunch of staff comparing shafts and heads, encouraging you to buy everything. And I mean EVERYTHING!

 

Enough of that. I guess, which machine is better, depends on what you wanna use it for.

I'm curious: for you guys that own launch monitors what percentage of the time are you using it for

a) clubfitting

b) teaching/swing analysis

c) simulator input

clubfitting - 0%

teaching - 0%

swing analysis - 100%

simulator input - 0%

Flightscope Xi Tour

equal split, my swing performance, club comparison and optimisation, skills practice.

Flightscope Xi

flightscope is way cheaper for a reason. TM just works better. It's more seamless, less random shots that make no sense. FS has worked well like 50 % of the time I've used it. tons of dropped shots, values that don't make sense, etc. I feel like it is much more picky about setup too

there's a reason the tour pros use TM and a lot of high end teachers prefer TM. It's definitely better. If it's worth the money to you is another issue but there's no question in my mind TM is better.

I owned a GC2 briefly to give it a whirl as an indoor simulator. I did not get the HMT module with it so the data was pretty minimal. It didn't even give you club-head speed. As a simulator, I was not impressed especially with the shorter shots. A putt that I know should have only gone 10 feet ended up going like 40 feet sometimes. I wasn't expecting perfection, but for me it just wasn't going to be enjoyable as a simulator so I returned it.

Thats not the gc2 fault probably more in the sim software being used. Also you can adjust green speeds in most simulators. It only tracks the ball so you will only get ballspeed nothing about swingspeed. I'm more concerned on ballspeed over swing anyways