Trackman vs Foresight vs FlightScope

[jbsg02]

I have a flightscope X2 that I've used a few times. In normal tracking mode where it tracks the full flight of the ball the numbers all seem to be spot on as far as ball data. I've gotten some wacky numbers as far as club data though (AoA and swing plane, club speed seems right), and wedge club data is rarely right for me. Ball data is all great though. In normalized mode I've gotten some odd ball data, where I can visually see the ball drawing and the unit is showing a fade, I perhaps had the unit in the wrong place that time as usually it was pretty good.

 

I've only hit on a trackman at a few lessons and those numbers all seemed to be where I'd expect.

[tourneychamp23]

can we update this thread with the new x3 and gcquad!? I am very curious to how the x3 compares to the tm4. I can't really find any impressions online about the flightscope x3.

[Uhit]

can we update this thread with the new x3 and gcquad!? I am very curious to how the x3 compares to the tm4. I can't really find any impressions online about the flightscope x3.

 

You can have a look at those head to head comparisons:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

[media=]

[/media]

[tourneychamp23]

thank you for posting this. Still can't find anything on the x3 though as well

[noodle3872]

Measuring the strike point on the face makes the GC Quad the better machine all other measurements being equal.

[tourneychamp23]

Why don't you see many on the pga then?

[Poser]

Why don't you see many on the pga then?

 

Alot of the guys are using the quad during practice. It has to be in a certain area though so putting it out on a tee on the pga tour isn't going to work cause not everyone is going to hit in a small square off the tee

[tourneychamp23]

I meant on the range. It's peanuts compared to trackman usage.

[noodle3872]

Why don't you see many on the pga then?

I meant on the range. It's peanuts compared to trackman usage.

 

Probably because PGA Tour level players care less about where they make contact on the face and Trackman has been around for years in its current form while GC Quad is a new machine. Several prominent guys have been seen testing it recently so it’s likely just a matter of time before more guys use it as yheir day in day out LM.

[Poser]

Why don't you see many on the pga then?

I meant on the range. It's peanuts compared to trackman usage.

 

Probably because PGA Tour level players care less about where they make contact on the face and Trackman has been around for years in its current form while GC Quad is a new machine. Several prominent guys have been seen testing it recently so it’s likely just a matter of time before more guys use it as yheir day in day out LM.

 

Watch some of the product testing from taylormade they were using both when Tiger woods was testing drivers

[LEO MODE]

Measuring the strike point on the face makes the GC Quad the better machine all other measurements being equal.

 

And trackman is coming out with the impact location and lie angle which was announced this year PGA show lol. It is directly measuring using the camera. I can’t say too much but it was pretty phenomenal when it measured correctly.

Lastly, Trackman measures Swing Direction which seems to be very important feature for PGA pros. I don’t think GC measures it yet. I keep hearing Trackman is inferior indoor but that wasn’t the case when I intensively tested it side by side. However I tended to like club data more on GC series. But ball data Trackman is the most accurate period both indoor and outdoor.

[noodle3872]

Measuring the strike point on the face makes the GC Quad the better machine all other measurements being equal.

 

And trackman is coming out with the impact location and lie angle which was announced this year PGA show lol. It is directly measuring using the camera. I can’t say too much but it was pretty phenomenal when it measured correctly.

Lastly, Trackman measures Swing Direction which seems to be very important feature for PGA pros. I don’t think GC measures it yet. I keep hearing Trackman is inferior indoor but that wasn’t the case when I intensively tested it side by side. However I tended to like club data more on GC series. But ball data Trackman is the most accurate period both indoor and outdoor.

 

Trackman will still be measuring strike from through the clubhead. It’s a calculated impact. The GC Quad takes a picture of impact as it occurs which is more accurate. Watch the videos linked above and the videos that come up on YouTube and you will see the GC Quad more than holds its own against Trackman. Many expert fitters have moved to GC Quad because the believe the data is more accurate overall.

[LEO MODE]

Measuring the strike point on the face makes the GC Quad the better machine all other measurements being equal.

 

And trackman is coming out with the impact location and lie angle which was announced this year PGA show lol. It is directly measuring using the camera. I can’t say too much but it was pretty phenomenal when it measured correctly.

Lastly, Trackman measures Swing Direction which seems to be very important feature for PGA pros. I don’t think GC measures it yet. I keep hearing Trackman is inferior indoor but that wasn’t the case when I intensively tested it side by side. However I tended to like club data more on GC series. But ball data Trackman is the most accurate period both indoor and outdoor.

 

Trackman will still be measuring strike from through the clubhead. It’s a calculated impact. The GC Quad takes a picture of impact as it occurs which is more accurate. Watch the videos linked above and the videos that come up on YouTube and you will see the GC Quad more than holds its own against Trackman. Many expert fitters have moved to GC Quad because the believe the data is more accurate overall.

 

It doesn’t matter if it’s calculated or measured since both devices calculate one thing and measure the other. The problem with GC is that the calculation algorithm is not up to par against Trackman and still needs work. On what basis do you think GC Quad is more accurate? Do you know some low spin driver shot gets more than 15yds than real life? That’s like the first comment I’ve ever heard that GC Quad is more accurate than Trackman. Have you tested it side by side? The only reason people will choose camera system is if you don’t have enough space to capture the ball flight which is at least a minimum distance of 21ft total, and it’s vastly cheaper at $10000+ difference. I can also see why fitters would prefer it since it directly captures impact. Since Trackman will come out with impact location I will test it out myself to see if it matches up. I’m not saying camera is not accurate and radar is always accurate. What I don’t understand is your perception of GC Quad more accurate than Trackman without any actual proof.

 

I did an intensive testing with GC2+HMT vs Trackman 4. You can find the result in other forum. Foresight still needs some polishing on its calculation/algorithm. To me it seemed like the camera struggled with azimuth due to the fact that it only takes a snapshot of the ball which other camera system struggles too. All the videos you mention, look at them as most of the ball flights are all draws even when a pro like Shawn Clement purposely faded the ball still.

 

Overall, ball data: Trackman wins both indoor and outdoor. Club data: I do prefer HMT or GC Quad. Just wanted to let you know that GC Quad being more accurate than Trackman is something I never heard in my life. Even a robot testing facility uses Trackman than humans now. If GC Quad was more accurate, all of them should’ve been using GC2+HMT because GC2+HMT is just as accurate as Trackman in most of data and probably very similar to GC Quad since most of the upgrade is for usability and not so much on data. The only thing that could be better on camera in my opinion is club data which I like it better. Ball data? They showed two different stories a lot of times on GC2 vs HMT when GC2 said the ball drew but HMT said a baby draw or even a baby fade.

[HISPL]

There is a research paper where the accuracy of launch monitors was verified using a GOM 3D motion capture system. R.J Leach, S.E Forrester, A.C Mears and J.R Roberts wrote the paper.

 

It focuses on prior models now but there has been a verification done on the accuracy of GC2/HMT and TrackMan IIIe.

 

Long story short, is one extremely accurate motion capture equipment in a lab environment TrackMan offered exceptionally accurate ball data for the money and more than acceptable club data for fitting and instructional purposes.

For GC2/HMT it offered better club data, but worse (less accurate) ball data.

In conclusions it was deemed that in the laboratory setting the testing was conducted in, the data TrackMan provided was potentially not as good as could be expected in an outdoor setting.

 

Overall having seen the data provided in the paper in my opinion I would choose to use TrackMan IIIe over GC2 with HMT as overall the data appears to be of better quality.

 

Now with the advent of TrackMan 4 and GC Quad I would expect both units to have improved since this paper was written.

 

With the patents on the algorithms that TrackMan has to measure club and ball data I expect it to have better quality data than GCQuad however this is my opinion only and until testing to the same standards is done as was done in the research paper it is open to debate.

 

If my money is on the line, I’m choosing TrackMan based on the data I have seen from the paper.

 

Unfortunately whilst the GOM 3D motion capture system was exceptionally accurate the amount of time to set up/calibrate and also interpret the data was not conducive to a consumer environment.

 

I would like to invest in an 8 camera Vicon system for motion capture, but they are not cheap!

[bbp1]

I recently bought Trackman 4 and plan to use it to replace my GC Quad which I purchased about 5 months ago and has been up and running in my simulator for about 4 months. I'll report on my nonscientific observations until i sell the GC Quad, but so far i don't find a significant difference in the measurements indoors for driver down to wedge carry. The main reason i got the trackman on top of the GC Quad, was the widespread use of the trackman, the availability of the combine and performance center, and the overall simplicity and power of the user interface

[Uhit]

I recently bought Trackman 4 and plan to use it to replace my GC Quad which I purchased about 5 months ago and has been up and running in my simulator for about 4 months. I'll report on my nonscientific observations until i sell the GC Quad, but so far i don't find a significant difference in the measurements indoors for driver down to wedge carry. The main reason i got the trackman on top of the GC Quad, was the widespread use of the trackman, the availability of the combine and performance center, and the overall simplicity and power of the user interface

 

Interesting decision...

...because I would prefer additional and more reliable data (impact locations, face angle etc.), over a user interface, and a software, that shows / analyses less data, and / or less reliable data.

[LEO MODE]

I recently bought Trackman 4 and plan to use it to replace my GC Quad which I purchased about 5 months ago and has been up and running in my simulator for about 4 months. I'll report on my nonscientific observations until i sell the GC Quad, but so far i don't find a significant difference in the measurements indoors for driver down to wedge carry. The main reason i got the trackman on top of the GC Quad, was the widespread use of the trackman, the availability of the combine and performance center, and the overall simplicity and power of the user interface

 

Interesting decision...

...because I would prefer additional and more reliable data (impact locations, face angle etc.), over a user interface, and a software, that shows / analyses less data, and / or less reliable data.

 

Trackman has more reliable and additional data. Trackman is coming out with the impact location and dynamic lie angle within this month which only HMT or GCQuad had, and radar always had more data points than camera can ever provide in the first place (Trackman: low point, swing direction, swing plane, curve vs GC: closure rate, club f-axis) due to its hardware limitation. As you see above in the thesis as well as my thorough testing, it was proven that Trackman had less margin of error than GC at this very moment. Until Foresight improves its calculation and algorithm, Trackman having mass player and ball data history along with top 150+ phd's working there, it'll be hard to beat Trackman company whether it is a new camera product or a radar product at all. At the end of the day, this is all calculation and a company who has the best calculation/algorithm will give out the closest and accurate data.

 

Last thing I want to mention is that, all those tests you see get rid of the outliers or no-reads or misreads. When I had comparable perfect data between both, they were good with some minor differences, but when they do not read? Foresight gave me more errors than Trackman. That is the reason why I keep emphasizing that I do not understand why people think GC Quad is better if it keeps giving me misreads or no-reads.

[LEO MODE]

I recently bought Trackman 4 and plan to use it to replace my GC Quad which I purchased about 5 months ago and has been up and running in my simulator for about 4 months. I'll report on my nonscientific observations until i sell the GC Quad, but so far i don't find a significant difference in the measurements indoors for driver down to wedge carry. The main reason i got the trackman on top of the GC Quad, was the widespread use of the trackman, the availability of the combine and performance center, and the overall simplicity and power of the user interface

 

If you have both units, make sure to test the ball flight as well as spin axis. What I noticed was GC2+HMT or GC Quad constantly giving more negative spin axis (draw bias) than Trackman both indoor and outdoor, on average about 3-5 degrees. A recent testing conducted by a GC2 user found out that by placing the ball near the right edge side of the ball hitting area had less draw biased, which I also gave it a try but because my time was short I can't confirm the findings at the moment. I only tested about 20 balls, and it didn't give me any different result, so if you can please test it out with different club types as well as the hitting area (whether it's all the way to the left or to the right of the hitting area) to confirm.

 

In terms of the carry distance having more is only on a low spinning driver shot. In an iron shot, Trackman carries slightly longer (1-3yds). I use a specific ball flight engineering algorithm model and Trackman was always within tolerance (however when Trackman calculates the ball spin, you should trust GC Quad spin more). Please let me know if you need any assistance in the test environment/setting.

[Uhit]

I recently bought Trackman 4 and plan to use it to replace my GC Quad which I purchased about 5 months ago and has been up and running in my simulator for about 4 months. I'll report on my nonscientific observations until i sell the GC Quad, but so far i don't find a significant difference in the measurements indoors for driver down to wedge carry. The main reason i got the trackman on top of the GC Quad, was the widespread use of the trackman, the availability of the combine and performance center, and the overall simplicity and power of the user interface

 

Interesting decision...

...because I would prefer additional and more reliable data (impact locations, face angle etc.), over a user interface, and a software, that shows / analyses less data, and / or less reliable data.

 

Trackman has more reliable and additional data. Trackman is coming out with the impact location and dynamic lie angle within this month which only HMT or GCQuad had, and radar always had more data points than camera can ever provide in the first place (Trackman: low point, swing direction, swing plane, curve vs GC: closure rate, club f-axis) due to its hardware limitation. As you see above in the thesis as well as my thorough testing, it was proven that Trackman had less margin of error than GC at this very moment. Until Foresight improves its calculation and algorithm, Trackman having mass player and ball data history along with top 150+ phd's working there, it'll be hard to beat Trackman company whether it is a new camera product or a radar product at all. At the end of the day, this is all calculation and a company who has the best calculation/algorithm will give out the closest and accurate data.

 

Last thing I want to mention is that, all those tests you see get rid of the outliers or no-reads or misreads. When I had comparable perfect data between both, they were good with some minor differences, but when they do not read? Foresight gave me more errors than Trackman. That is the reason why I keep emphasizing that I do not understand why people think GC Quad is better if it keeps giving me misreads or no-reads.

 

Trackman can not see the club face and the real impact location - but GC Quad can.

 

These are in my opinion additional reliable data - in favor for GC Quad.