Trackman 4 v. Flightscope X3 v. Foresight Quad for Home Simulator?

Hi,

I am assisting a friend with a home simulator build. Thoughts on the above models? Specifically, how does the Flightscope X3 compare to the Trackman 4 - is the Trackman still the best? Should have all space requirements for the radar units.

Was leaning toward one of the radar units for E6 compatibility and the fact that you only have to put stickers on the balls versus the club (convenient for visitors) but am willing to listen to opinions.

Thanks!

I just went through this a few months ago. I went Quad, and love it.

I love the club data that you get from it that others cannot provide....there is many that will argue but as an engineer they have figured this out better than others, much better.

Stickers on the balls suck, balls wear out, white screens do not like balls with marks on them. I use balls that I want to play, I can test balls against each other without worring about stickers on them.

I am in the process of putting together information and write-up of my build and installation and hope to post soon. I use it to practice, I have a pro come over and give me lessons, I teach my kids on it and I play golf on it. Scores are dropping and as a club builder, I can fit to exact specs.

I can take my Quad to the range or course if I want to use it outside...no extra charge like Trackman has. I can use the Quad without my laptop as well, the unit has all the data you need on an embedded screen.

**Edit***

One more thing to add, stickers on the clubs:

1 - You dont have to have stickers to use it. You can get all of the ball data, no issues. Ball speed, launch, spin, path, carry, total distance....etc

2 - You can add 1 sticker to get some club data, club speed, smash, path and launch

3 - You can add the 4 dots and understand all club data. This includes where you are hitting on the face, toe up or toe down.

I play golf on the sim and practice without any dots. When I fit or my pro and I are working on something very specific, I will add 1 or 4 dots to a club.

It is very easy to have a buddy come over and hit balls, or play a round of golf...no dots needed, on anything, ball or club.

I owned the X2 for about 5 years and used 90% indoors for clubfittings. All of the research that I've done suggests that the GC2 Quad is definitely better for indoor use and arguably just as good for outdoors. If I were to buy a new higher end LM, I'd definitely get the Quad with HMT. Killer combo, IMO.

How is the Quad simulation software compared to E6? Also do you need the stickers to play a simulation round? If not needed are they beneficial or do they make it more accurate?

Biggest problem for GCQuad and simulator use is that currently it's only supported for Foresights simulator, there is no planned support for many of the other dominant software (like TGC or e6 or JNPG). In that respect GC2 is actually a better choice.

The other downside to the Foresight units (gc2 or gcquad or even Skytrack) is that it doesn't really suite a set-up that you want/need to support both left/right handed players. That's one place where the radar units have the clear advantage.

Radar also needs more room (from the radar placement to screen) then the camera based units so if space is limited that can be a factor in the decision.

As far as X3 vs Trackman - the X3 is pretty new so not a lot of data out there for accuracy comparisons but there are plenty of comparisons between older flighscope units (x2, x2 elite) that show minimal or no real increased accuracy from TM. So for those for which money is a factor, Flightscope tends the clear winner.

E6 software is expensive, so is FSX. Radar indoor does not provide spin axis (flightscope doesn't, I'm not sure about trackman)

Bluetooth was unlocked on the Quad via a firmware update. I haven't heard if it's now useable with JNPG or others.

GC Quad, or GC2 with HMT would be my personal recomendation. If going Radar, I would chose TM over flightscope based on reviews and the couple times I have used them.

Radar indoor does not provide spin axis (flightscope doesn't, I'm not sure about trackman)

Yes Almost all radars provide spin axis. All Trackman, all Flightscope Xi series, X2, X3 (and all older ones) all certainly provide spin axis. The flightscope MEVO is the only unit that doesn't. But then relatively speaking the mevo is a toy compared to the other units so shouldn't even need to be part of any sim use discussion.

All you have to do know which one is best is count how many Trackmans vs. Quads there are on the range at any PGA Tour event.

FYI - almost every pro will use Trackman at least once during the week of a tournament to get dialed in and ZERO will use Quad.

All you have to do know which one is best is count how many Trackmans vs. Quads there are on the range at any PGA Tour event.

 

FYI - almost every pro will use Trackman at least once during the week of a tournament to get dialed in and ZERO will use Quad.

Thats outdoors not indoor like op asked

All you have to do know which one is best is count how many Trackmans vs. Quads there are on the range at any PGA Tour event.

 

FYI - almost every pro will use Trackman at least once during the week of a tournament to get dialed in and ZERO will use Quad.

 

Thats outdoors not indoor like op asked

And even outdoors it's not much of a indicator - other then of how much money they have to spare.

I have seen a few pics of tiger with a gc quad.

Seems to be a lot of Trackman hate on these forums in general. Yes it's expensive but just use a little logic...

IF the PGA pros use Trackman over Quad on the ranges of tour events because it's "better outside"

AND the Quad measures the same 6 inches of flight whether it's inside or not

THEN what would make anyone think the Quad is better inside (Or accurate at all)?

I own both Trackman 4 and GC2+HMT.

There are pros and cons for both. If you want to play a simulator, I would stay away from GC Quad for now. Someone up there said Quad enabled Bluetooth, not true. It’s only for the iPad range app, not for other purposes. All other launch monitors support multiple simulator games.

Radar in general needs a minimum distance to accurately read its data. In that respect, camera system would serve better if you have a limited space.

I would say you would need at least 18’-19’ of length distance from the screen to the radar. If less, expect your ball spin to be not accurate.

If you constantly have another player playing in your sim and is an opposite-handed player, you need a radar. Because you have to keep moving the camera around to accommodate both left/right handers on a camera system.

Don’t expect too much on a putting on a radar system. It can only read longer than 8’. GC2 will read less than 8’.

If you want a full blown-out indoor simulator experience, I would say just get GC2 and possibly HMT if you want the club data for training purposes (HMT will not affect your sim play at all). If you want an outdoor experience as well, I would say Trackman 4 or Flightscope X2 Elite or something (as Flightscope X3 currently doesn’t support any sim at all).

I could help you more if you can give me more information about the set up.

Seems to be a lot of Trackman hate on these forums in general. Yes it's expensive but just use a little logic...

 

IF the PGA pros use Trackman over Quad on the ranges of tour events because it's "better outside"

 

AND the Quad measures the same 6 inches of flight whether it's inside or not

 

THEN what would make anyone think the Quad is better inside (Or accurate at all)?

I think PGA tours are not using it because of below reasons:

1) Trackman is just better than camera system in ball data period, because it tracks the ball all the way outdoor.

2) Camera doesn’t have normalize data. Camera system only output normalized data and never both. PGA tours play on many different conditions.

3) Club data could be more accurate on camera, but now Trackman offers impact location and lie angle as well.

I have seen a few pics of tiger with a gc quad.

Yes Tiger Woods used GC Quad in recent Taylormade promotion photos, but behind it there was Trackman 4 as well.

I’m guessing they used Trackman for ball data and GC Quad for club data. Club data is hard to quantify and compare, but I do think camera does have an edge on it.

All this "discussion" about accuracy is really pointless. It shouldn't even be part of the decision making process. Foresight, Trackman, Flightscope - are all way more accurate then anyone here will ever need - particularly for use in sims. Even skytrack is accurate enough for the majority of folks here for sim use. It's predominantly the sim specific IR systems (e.g. optishot) that tend to have noticeable accuracy issues.

All have some strengths and weaknesses for sim use. The real important questions are:

• How much room do you have?
  
• How much money are you willing to spend (both for initial purchase and annual support costs)?
  
• Do you need to support both LH and RH players?
  
• Do you want club data or just ball data (and how much extra are you willing to pay for it)?
  
• How important is the short game in the sim (putting and chipping)?
  
• Do you plan to keep it indoors or do you want to be able to take it to the range with you?
  
• Is there a particular Sim Software you want to use?
  

In the OP's case, the important differences between those specific choices comes down to the ones in bold.

Of those three:

• GCQuad needs less space
  
• Trackman and Flightscope can easily support both LH and RH players.
  
• Trackman is supported in more sim software, with Flightscope coming in 2nd (and GCQuad virtually no support other then the Foresight sim software)
  
• And of course Trackman costs the most, with X3 and GCQuad being similarly priced. Maybe a slight edge to X3.
  

with the honorable mention that although GCQuad is newer (and is better on the range), for indoor sim use, gc2 is still way more popular due to much better software support.

All this "discussion" about accuracy is really pointless. It shouldn't even be part of the decision making process. Foresight, Trackman, Flightscope - are all way more accurate then anyone here will ever need - particularly for use in sims. Even skytrack is accurate enough for the majority of folks here for sim use. It's predominantly the sim specific IR systems (e.g. optishot) that tend to have noticeable accuracy issues.

 

All have some strengths and weaknesses for sim use. The real important questions are:

• How much room do you have?
  
• How much money are you willing to spend (both for initial purchase and annual support costs)?
  
• Do you need to support both LH and RH players?
  
• Do you want club data or just ball data (and how much extra are you willing to pay for it)?
  
• How important is the short game in the sim (putting and chipping)?
  
• Do you plan to keep it indoors or do you want to be able to take it to the range with you?
  
• Is there a particular Sim Software you want to use?
  

In the OP's case, the important differences between those specific choices comes down to the ones in bold.

 

Of those three:

• GCQuad needs less space
  
• Trackman and Flightscope can easily support both LH and RH players.
  
• Trackman is supported in more sim software, with Flightscope coming in 2nd (and GCQuad virtually no support other then the Foresight sim software)
  
• And of course Trackman costs the most, with X3 and GCQuad being similarly priced. Maybe a slight edge to X3.
  

with the honorable mention that although GCQuad is newer (and is better on the range), for indoor sim use, gc2 is still way more popular due to much better software support.

Very well said and I agree that it comes down to how you want to use it. I still think if you care about accurate data and want to use the monitor for practice the best option is Trackman.

Very well said and I agree that it comes down to how you want to use it. I still think if you care about accurate data and want to use the monitor for practice the best option is Trackman.

Thanks.

If it makes you more comfortable and confident, that's all that matters. But I'll respectfully disagree. Until I actually see some hard data to prove it, if Flightscope is accurate enough to satisfy Bryson (and all the other Pro's that use it), than it's more than accurate enough for me :-)

Very well said and I agree that it comes down to how you want to use it. I still think if you care about accurate data and want to use the monitor for practice the best option is Trackman.

 

Thanks.

 

If it makes you more comfortable and confident, that's all that matters. But I'll respectfully disagree. Until I actually see some hard data to prove it, if Flightscope is accurate enough to satisfy Bryson (and all the other Pro's that use it), than it's more than accurate enough for me :-)

Lots of teaching professionals and clubfitters are switching from Trackman to the Quad. It is better indoors, no question, and its just as good outdoors. And there are no yearly hardware/software fees. Trackman is a fantastic product for sure, and I have access to a TM4, but it's not any better than the Quad.

I'd say quad for value for money, especially indoors. Good luck! I envy this!

If your friend doesn't have to worry about left/right handed players at the same time, I'd seriously consider this.

https://foresight-sports.myshopify.com/products/cpo-gc2-hmt-simulation-package

He'd have the option of going with TGC if he doesn't like FSX.

If he's serious about the X3, I have an X2 that they are offering $6k towards a X3 with that as a trade. Send a message and maybe we could work something out. That sets it at $9k. One thing I really like about the flightscope stuff is the apps (especially video capabilities) are nice.

I'd say quad for value for money, especially indoors. Good luck! I envy this!

Not for sim use. The only sim software it supports is Foresights FSX (and foresight says that's all it ever will support). You're much better off getting gc2(HMT optional) both in terms of cost and software that is supported.

I have a quad I need to sell if you are interested I only used it a couple times

Unfortunately I had to close down my studio

I´ve compared them all and got a GCQuad and I´m not about to sell it. The con I´d say is the graphics of FSX courses isn't as good as the competition, but the accuracy of the Quads ballflight(radar simply doesn't get ballflight accurate on off center hits indoors) makes it the only worthy option IMHO. Very accurate mpact location and lie angle makes is great too.

(radar simply doesn't get ballflight accurate on off center hits indoors) makes it the only worthy option IMHO.

No one is suggesting you should not be happy with the gcquad - but this is just plain wrong. The accuracy of the radar units has nothing to do with the impact location. And the only time accuracy indoors is an issue is when you don't have the recommended amount of space available.

(radar simply doesn't get ballflight accurate on off center hits indoors) makes it the only worthy option IMHO.

 

No one is suggesting you should not be happy with the gcquad - but this is just plain wrong. The accuracy of the radar units has nothing to do with the impact location. And the only time accuracy indoors is an issue is when you don't have the recommended amount of space available.

Stuart G,

I currently have a FlightScope X2 Elite and a GCQuad every time I do a fitting. I´ve done a few hundred fittings with the two running and now probably close to 10k shots in my database. FlightScope setup is 4m ballflight, 3m from radar to ball, metalic dot on ball and always turned toward screen, no fluorescent lighting etc. I initially noticed frequently the two machines would report very different ballflight. The more the CHS, the more off center, the more gear effect(ie. the futher back the CG in the club) the more they would disagree. GCQuad would have ballflight/spin axis for toe hits on woods further to the left(right handed player) and vice versa. This led me to try them outdoors as well. The X2E shows the same ballflight as the GCQuad when outside, but VERY often not the same when inside. The X2E dosn't see spin axis indoors. It calculates it form the 3D movement of center of geometry of the head and launch angle/direction of the ball.

I wanted to see how the TM4 compared, escpecially since I love the TM software. I had 4m ballflight and 3m from radar to ball(that's beyond TM´s recommended minimum of 3m and 2m), metalic stickers on balls(turned upwards for driver, toward screen with irons - as per TM instructions). I did this test twice in different setups/facilities and also outdoors. I had the GCQuad running simultaniously for them all. TM4 had the latest software(the one that came out before the impact location/lie angle one).

Outdoors the GCQuad and TM4 would always show the same ballflight/shape(there was very little wind), but indoors it's a similar story as with the FlightScope with shape of ballflight(other data points much more in agreement with GCQuad than FlightScope - often the FS will report more distance and less spin indoors). Off center impact the units wouldn't agree at all. The more off center, the bigger the difference. On center shots the ballflight would be very similar.

TrackMan are always improving their indoor ballflight model/algorithms. The newest update has impact location(needs good lighting) and they're now working in including that info into the collision model(so not even TM would agree with your "he accuracy of the radar units has nothing to do with the impact location" statement for indoors). This IMO would be a huge step in indoor accuracy/ballflight/shape.

I took videos and pics of the tests, but I haven't edited them together.

Have you compared the units and have you seen the same ballflight with off center impact on woods? That would be very interesting and please share the details.

There are pros and cons to all the current launch monitors IMO, so please don't take this as a TM bashing post.

Hard to get feedback on the x3. Has anyone used it with direct comparisons?

Has anybody tried these from ebay for quad or hmt? : https://www.ebay.com/itm/Reflective-dots-for-mocap-HMT-Quad-Trackman-ForeSight-15-strip-of-126-dots/352561380332?hash=item52164bbbec:g:BPMAAOSwMKFcMTwy:rk:5:pf:0

Hard to get feedback on the x3. Has anyone used it with direct comparisons?

Late to the thread but here is a TM4 FS3 comparison I found.

https://www.stevedin...usflightscopex3

As far as price goes, it seems that the GCQ with club data and putting starts to approach the price of TM4

GCQ base unit -$14,000 + Club $4000 + Putting $2500 = $20,500

TM4 $18,995 indoor or $24,995 in/out

FS3 $15,595

Hard to get feedback on the x3. Has anyone used it with direct comparisons?

 

Late to the thread but here is a TM4 FS3 comparison I found.

 

https://www.stevedin...usflightscopex3

 

 

As far as price goes, it seems that the GCQ with club data and putting starts to approach the price of TM4

 

GCQ base unit -$14,000 + Club $4000 + Putting $2500 = $20,500

 

TM4 $18,995 indoor or $24,995 in/out

 

FS3 $15,595

Better direct comparison is what I did last year:

http://www.golfwrx.c...s-gc2hmtgcquad/

One additional note from your link is that, I do think Flightscope's attack angle is more accurate than Trackman. Because like in the link's work unfinished I've seen a Phantom camera comparison vs Flightscope and they seemed to align more closely. Same thing with GC Quad as GCQ would always report higher attack angle than Trackman. If Flightscope behaves the same as GCQ then likely is that Flightscope is more resembled that of real attack angle. Club head speed is measured differently on all 3 devices so each to its own.

I do think Flightscope's attack angle is more accurate than Trackman.

It's not an issue of one being more accurate than the other, it's that they are not actually measuring the same thing. Or more accurately, they are using values from different points in time relative to the impact. I get them mixed up on which is which (largely since it doesn't really matter) but one measures it right at the start of impact and the other measures it at the point of maximum compression.

This is much more frequently the case when dealing with LM "accuracy" and differences between different results. They are measuring things in a much more detailed fashion than the old traditional definitions of the specs can handle. Things like AoA, or even club head speed don't really have a single, simple definition that everyone will use in the same way.