[FINAL RESULT] Trackman 4 VS GC2+HMT/GCQuad

[LEO MODE]

Introduction

As a simulator fanatic and a golf data enthusiast, I wanted to see which device can really be the closest to real outcome. I majored in business and applied analytics so having a large dataset is my fetish and that was the reason why I wanted to start this testing. So all I'm trying to show here is black and white on what the result was and what people should believe when it comes to the output with a little bit of my recommendation. Thus this is solely for people who haven't had a chance to own both devices or use them side-by-side so I can illustrate what the differences were and which parameter you should believe/not believe.

 

Devices Used

I currently own a GC2+HMT and a TrackMan 4. I also got my hands on GC Quad. I used 4 GC2’s, 2 GC Quads, 1 Trackman 3e, 1 Trackman 4 for the test. I calibrated 2 of the GC2’s more than 2 times but their result stayed pretty much the same.

 

Set up

I tested them both indoor and outdoor. Indoor I used a Premium ball (Titleist V1X) with a metallic dot placed and was hit 13ft from ball to screen. Outdoor I used a range ball with no wind. I also tested out on both mats and grass.

 

Each Parameter Breakdown

There are 9 ball data points which Trackman and Foresight can compare. An asterisk next to each metric means because their number is so close you can trust those numbers either on Foresight or Trackman products. There are also 8 club data points but because I can’t objectively confirm which one is correct other than the impact location, it will come down to a subjective and personal preference. I consider anything within 3mph or 3deg negligible.

 

*Ball Speed: Their difference is only within 0-2mph at max. This is negligible.

 

*Launch Angle: Their difference is only within 0-1.5deg at max. This is negligible.

 

*Launch Direction: Their difference is only within 0-1.5deg at max. This is negligible.

 

Spin Axis: Outdoor, their difference varies, especially Foresight products being more draw-biased, but also 30~40% of the time they are also fade-biased. In other words, Foresight products are very unreliable when it comes down to Spin Axis. Although they portray similar flight 2D modeling, the ball flight still doesn’t correctly reflect actual landing area. Indoor however, Trackman is also very unreliable especially when it goes up to higher clubs (i.e. driver shot) as high as 20deg. Iron shot is close to GC2/GCQ but still slightly fade-biased than GC2/GCQ.

 

*Total Spin: Outdoor, their difference is on average about 100rpm. This is negligible. Indoor, if you do not put the metallic dot on Trackman balls and even with the dot if the ball speed was too fast (i.e. driver shot) at a given distance the spin will be off as high as 2000rpm. I did notice that GCQ had tighter tolerance vs GC2 on TM4’s spin rate. It was about 50rpm vs 150rpm on GC2.

 

Apex: Outdoor, their difference is within 1-2.5deg at max. This is negligible. However indoor with a driver shot, their difference can go up as high as 3.8deg. This is likely due to Trackman driver shot usually shooting for more higher RPM than real life.

 

Carry Distance: Their difference varies either on a low club vs a high club and not indoor or outdoor. For instance on an iron, they’re within 2yds both indoor and outdoor. However on a driver, their difference is anywhere from 10-13yds on average. Because Foresight tends to show more yardage and their numbers do not match Flight algorithm a lot of times, it is safe to say that TM4 has a better carry number throughout (as Spin Axis doesn't cause a huge difference in carry distance). Also, I didn’t notice that much of a difference on GCQ vs GC2 as it still fluctuated carry distance longer than Trackman 4 outdoor. I honestly did not understand how National Club Golfer stated GCQ and TM4 driver carry was similar. That wasn't my case.

 

Side Distance: Outdoor, due to Spin Axis, Foresight products’ landing area gets as off as 7yds (almost 21ft) farther than actual landing area on a driver. Also the problem with this is that it’s not consistent (either lands on left or right). Indoor, therefore I cannot trust either device as both are very inconsistent other than short clubs.

 

Land Angle: Just like Carry, their difference varies either on a low club vs a high club. More close numbers to each other on an iron and as high as 4 degree difference on a driver.

 

Club Speed: Club speed is measured differently so this comes down to a preference. I prefer TM4 just because everyone can have 1.50 smash factor as long as they hit it right in the middle. It is impossible to reach 1.50 on HMT/GCQ. Also industry standard is Trackman club speed.

 

*Attack Angle: Their difference is within 0-3 deg at max. This is negligible. Although both were inconsistent, their difference was minimal (i.e. iron is lower on TM4 but club is higher on HMT/GCQ).

 

Club Path: Foresight always shows more open to the club path about 1-3deg on average which is negligible. Because Foresight has no way to measure the start point (please correct me if I’m wrong) but Trackman measures from the start of the swing it seemed to me as if HMT/GCQ measurement methodology is different from TM4. However when the club goes higher (i.e. driver), their club path tolerance went down as low as less than 1.5 deg which was then negligible.

 

Face Angle: Trackman calculates this while Foresight directly measures it. Trackman is mostly about 1-3 deg closed than HMT/GCQ which is negligible. However, there is no way for Trackman to measure this and only derives from other metrics. This measurement is pretty much the same throughout all clubs.

 

Face to Path: Due to club path difference, their difference can go as high as 3deg. However because Face Angle is directly measured by GC2/GCQ, I saw that their impact location is highly correlated with its Face to Path.

 

Lie: With a new impact location feature on Trackman, measuring lie also requires a precise input under the settings to measure impact location. However, HMT/GCQ simply measures it by taking a snapshot of the impact which seems more reliable to me.

 

Loft: This shows a lot of discrepancy between the two. Perhaps the measurement is different between the two just like club speed. The numbers seem to make more sense with Trackman numbers, but I have no way to verify that. HMT/GCQ loft number seems to be much higher as high as 15 deg difference.

 

Impact Location: While TM4 also tends to show the result pretty well at times, at default setting it goes pretty off than real. I noticed that after calibrating to HMT/GCQ’s result, TM4 came out pretty close to actual impact. However, HMT/GCQ was almost always spot on.

 

Conclusion

 

Outdoor, a clear winner in ball data was Trackman. Trackman never missed a shot showing a true ball flight. On a side note, Trackman has a real flight option as well as Normalized option which gives you flexibility to see both. Trackman also has different data parameters which are very helpful in teaching (Swing Direction, Swing Plane, Low Point, etc.). Unfortunately, although GC2 or GCQ showed similar ball data, because of Spin Axis difference they weren’t able to portray actual ball flight but slightly either to left or to right.

 

Indoor, the winner is GC2/GCQ but partly. Although they didn’t show perfect ball flight like TM4 outdoor, on the other hand TM4 struggled to show the same consistency as GC2/GCQ when it came to indoor, mainly also because of calculated Spin Axis discrepancy. The only concern though is that GC2/GCQ’s carry distance is not consistent and accurate when it comes to a higher club (i.e. driver) which will also result skewed data indoor.

 

Some of you may want to know the difference between GC2 and GCQ. I would say GCQ definitely did get better. So far, it didn’t miss a shot (IR maybe better than flash? no idea), it didn’t give an error, and it definitely showed tighter tolerance especially on Spin Rate. Justifying $5k more is up to you, and you're locked onto FSX software only for now. GC2 has a lot of different Bluetooth option which is a huge benefit, and ball algorithm gets calculated separately by the software so GC2 carry is not reflected in the game which is nice. GC2/GCQ have the most potential to be the most perfect device both indoor/outdoor if they can fix the Spin Axis and ball flight algorithm which probably can be fixed with a firmware update. The only thing Trackman has to do is to make a supplement device to capture and measure Spin Axis so it can show perfect ball flight indoor too.

 

Ultimately, it was extremely unfortunate that neither devices showed perfect result both indoor and outdoor combined. However if you are thinking of using it outdoor only, Trackman 4 should be the one. If you ever are thinking of using it indoor only, GC2/GCQ will be the way to go which will simulate close to real ball flight. Also for simulator game purposes, TM4 does not track putts shorter than 6’ all the time which is a huge disadvantage if you also want to putt in a simulator game. For fitters, using HMT/GCQ will help capturing accurate data. The decision in choosing which one is solely up to you and I hope this helps you make the most informed decision possible.

 

 

 

***Parameter Cheat Sheet***

 

Outdoor

Ball Speed, Launch Angle, Launch Direction & Total Spin: All tie

Spin Axis: TM4

Apex: TM4

Carry: TM4

Side Distance: TM4

Land Angle: TM4

 

Indoor

Ball Speed, Launch Angle & Launch Direction: All tie

Spin Axis: GC2/GCQ but not 100% accurate

Total Spin: GC2/GCQ (and TM4 only when spin was measured)

Apex: GC2/GCQ but not 100% accurate

Carry: TM4 but not 100% accurate

Side Distance: GC2/GCQ but not 100% accurate

Land Angle: TM4 but not 100% accurate

 

Club Data

Club Speed: Prefer TM4

Attack Angle: All tie

Club Path: Prefer TM4

Face Angle: Prefer HMT/GCQ

Dynamic Lie: HMT/GCQ

Dynamic Loft: Prefer TM4

Impact Location: HMT/GCQ

 

Outdoor Use: TM4

Indoor Use: GC2+HMT/GCQ

Fitting Use: GC2+HMT/GCQ

Training Use: All tie

Simulator Use: GC2

[trhode]

Did you only test on full shots?

[Nickthurgood]

Wow!! Super cool test. Thank you for sharing. Very helpful.

[LEO MODE]

Did you only test on full shots?

 

Yes. The lesser the ball speed gets, the more close the result would be for both devices. So no point in comparing half shots.

[thepinkbomber]

Very nice review.

 

My gc2 is left bias. So are many others.

 

Did you notice that the quad was also left biased?

[Dcoop86]

I see you were 13 feet from ball to screen, for the driver shots with TM4 do you think having even more room would help? I’m looking at building out a hitting bay in my gym and will have a TM4 so I’m very interested. I’ll most likely try to set up with the most room possible.

[ProjectX_Mizuno]

Well done! One thing to add for comparison would be the cost.

[LEO MODE]

Very nice review.

 

My gc2 is left bias. So are many others.

 

Did you notice that the quad was also left biased?

 

You're not the only one. There are many reports of draw bias and they're really player dependent.

 

I see you were 13 feet from ball to screen, for the driver shots with TM4 do you think having even more room would help? I'm looking at building out a hitting bay in my gym and will have a TM4 so I'm very interested. I'll most likely try to set up with the most room possible.

 

I did both 13ft and with 15ft. Even Trackman webpage shows distances at 11, 13 and 15. But with my testing it looked like farther the distance the spin reading definitely helps but not by much that it would immensely help (unless you do it for 20ft then maybe yes). For a driver shot pretty much you should just expect for it only to read about 10~20% of the spin. If you plan to use radar indoor, being farther from the screen would always be better.

[HarryBee]

Has anybody found any aftermarket reflective dots that work well with ForeSight Quad and HMT? How about these: 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

[Canada8888]

Leo

 

Not sure if you have this older research on trackman vs GC2 / HMT

 

 

 

ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/319147118_How_valid_and_accurate_are_measurements_of_golf_impact_parameters_obtained_using_commercially_available_radar_and_stereoscopic_optical_launch_monitors

 

 

One interesting finding is "There was also notable systematic bias of 1–2° in the launch direction measurements from Foresight."

 

 

If we move our GC2's 1 degree right would this not help?

 

Or a simple software fix form Foresight?

[LEO MODE]

Leo

 

Not sure if you have this older research on trackman vs GC2 / HMT

 

 

 

ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/319147118_How_valid_and_accurate_are_measurements_of_golf_impact_parameters_obtained_using_commercially_available_radar_and_stereoscopic_optical_launch_monitors

 

 

One interesting finding is "There was also notable systematic bias of 1–2° in the launch direction measurements from Foresight."

 

 

If we move our GC2's 1 degree right would this not help?

 

Or a simple software fix form Foresight?

 

 

Which data are you looking to fix? Launch direction of 1-2 degrees wouldn't affect a lot of numbers. It's pretty negligible (for instance if you just place Trackman or GC2/GCQ randomly from the beginning you can have 5 deg difference in both Trackman vs GC2 or GCQ as Launch Direction is easily manipulative and pretty much an independent variable). Spin Axis is the one that needs more consistency, not Launch Direction.

 

Oh and yes I already read that and I've already conversed with the author there for potential future research collaboration, but they're in the UK and I'm in the US so...

[Canada8888]

Leo

 

Thank you.

 

I wish Foresight would pay you and the authors of the paper to visit their headquarters and present your results.

 

Thank you for all your great work and the quick answer.

 

John (aka Canada8888)

[BB28403]

If only OP had used bold text at some point in the presentation... alas.

 

Do you validate parking? I’m staying at the Ramada

[jtroncoso18]

I’m curious if your thoughts have changed at all? I’m buying a home with a big bonus room and would like a simulator that will pretty much just be indoors ( can’t think of any time I’d need an outdoor launch monitor). Under $20,000 would your choice be the GC2+HMT?

[Konsta]

Trackman measures the club and ball data at the same time (when ball is fully compressed). The gc 2 and gc quad measure the club data when the club hits the ball, and the ball data at the same time as trackman. The reason for the face angle to be more closed is due to trackman measuring the face angle when the ball is fully compressed, as the gc2 and gc quad measure it when the ball hits the club face. That's why the club path is also different. That's also why the club head speed is so much different. The clubhead speed slows down when the club hits the ball. For instance, if the club head speed is 110 mph when the club hits the ball, it will be 105-107 mph when the ball is fully compressed. That's why the smash factor is so also different.

[erock9174]

Has anyone ever tested monitors on a range comparing monitor results to physical measurements of how far the ball actually traveled ?

[golfer55082]

Interesting. I am curious on the source of this information though...

 

 

 

[Gorlu52]

Nice review.

[flogball00]

how did you align the gcq vs the trackman, i found people with the quad have different ways of calculating what alignment is.