Which should I get ... GCQuad or X3? **80% outdoor use**

[smrtchar]

Hello everyone. I'm in the market for a high end launch monitor. Immediately, I've eliminated Trackman 4 from contention simply due to their cost. It's $25k for the indoor/outdoor model and an additional $1k/year for the software which is too much for me. I've done enough research to know the features of each products pretty well. But having never actively used either of them in person, wanted to get some feedback from members.

 

The launch monitor will be used around 80% outdoors and 20% indoors. A group of us are really getting serious about our games and equipment and are all extremely data driven so want to gather data during our practice sessions at the range. We also have large gatherings with the wives and would like to be able to sneak off into the game room and play a round of golf.

 

Here are some specific questions I have that I'd appreciate some feedback to:

1. I know the GCQuad wins hands down as an indoor simulator. But how does it compare to radar units outdoors. I'm hearing it's real data (radar) vs calculated data (GCQuad). Does this really make that much of a difference?

2. How does FSX software compare to E6 and other Flightscope apps that are available from a club fitting/data purposes. I'm hearing generally that FSX is not that great and Flighscope wins due to the software options.

3. Does anyone even use launch monitors for chipping and putting? I'm told GCQuad is far and above the better option for these two. I'm even considering Flightscope Xi Tour which I'm told is similar to the X3 but without chipping and putting.

 

If there's anything else that you think I should consider as I choose between the two I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[TGSherriff]

I was really hoping you would have had more replies to this...I am debating a GC Quad purchase this year with both Ball and Club data which puts it at almost 20k USD.  Eventually want to use it in a home simulator as well as for outdoor practice and learning etc.  I imagine it is upgradeable and expandable (ie. buy FSX later) but a lot of cash! Did you ever pull the trigger on anything? 

[Frankensteins Monster]

If you're gonna use it for a simulator, if you have friends that hit the golf ball from the wrong side of the ball, an optical launch monitor is a PITA or you need to double your width and have a rotating platform in the middle.

[itsame]

Better late than never I guess; since it might help other people I'll answer with what I know:

 

Photographic launch monitors tend to be more accurate than radar when used indoor, so that's a plus for GCQuad.  However it does have the disadvantage of not handling right and left handed players at the same time without moving it around.

 

1. The Quad actually measures launch angle, spin, and speed, just like the X3. It does not calculate or estimate them.

 

2. FSX is both for sim play and club fitting/practice etc. So in that regard it is better than E6, which is just for sim play. E6 can be used with the Quad, as long as you also own FSX (so it's quite expensive but still possible). FSX graphics are outdated. I have no experience with Flightscope's app but it's probably pretty similar when it comes to club fitting/data analyzing.

 

3. Indeed the Quad is better for short game. It even has a putting analyzer add-on (you need to pay extra to have it enabled, but it's there).

 

I would 100% go with a GCQuad because it's better indoor, better for short game, and slightly easier to setup and use outside (another plus is that you can see the numbers right in front of you, instead of using an app).

Edited January 10, 2021 by itsame

[Kgglonghorn]

call me a Flightscope homer, but I have had two Xi Tours and now have an X3.  I chose the X3 over the GC Quad because I use mine almost exclusively outside for range work, clubfitting and dialing in real life shots on the course.  For me, it is important to have actual tracked flight data, not calculations.   I have used them all and I like the Flightscope software, ease of use and the fact that I can absolutely rely on the data.  I know the GC is a common device on tour but I just feel better personally with doppler tracked balls.  One last really nice to have on the X3 is the ability to normalize weather conditions and altitude.  Pretty cool feature for the serious golfer who plays in many different climates.

[its_ikon]

Did you pick one? I would go with X3 all day. It’s my next upgrade from the Xi-Tour since it reads chipping and putting. Flightscope does have a yearly charge for service which covers accidental damage along with shipping a unit to use while being repaired. 

[commoditybroker]

I purchased a Quad a few months back and have used it extensively indoors and outdoors as well.  I would highly recommend going Quad for the accuracy, rapid feedback, integrated display for outdoor use so you don't have to drag a laptop or separate device with you, simply adjustment (either move it or use the alignment stick), and size for portability.

 

It took some research before I bit the bullet and purchased the Quad, but I am SO HAPPY I did.  I did the club bundle and the extra data is well worth it.  I had a 30 day trial of the putting mod, but I don't see myself purchasing that add-on.

 

Let me know if I can answer any questions for you.

[Linkkingx]

If you're concerned with accuracy at all indoors, I would go with Quad. The only reason I see to go with the X3 would be if you have left and right hand players, in which case swapping the Quad back and forth can get cumbersome. The Quad may end up costing more when you factor in FSX and club head data add-ons. 3rd party simulation software options are pretty similar on both, but the new GSPro software doesn't work with Flightscope. You might find this video interesting comparing Trackman4 and Quad.

 

 

 

[WayneH]

I have heard now that Trackman 4 has also improved their software for indoor and no need for stickers.

[Kgglonghorn]

still gotta buy their sw though

[smrtchar]

Thanks guys for the reply. For some reason I didn't get notifications on this thread so thought it was dead.

 

I was leaning X3 for the following reasons:

Price - Foresight offered a discount to get Quad w/ club head data for $16500. Flightscope offered X3 at $13,620 (club head, chipping, and putting data).

Actual data - X3 is calculating what the ball is actually doing, I'm curious to learn more about how conditions affect my game and want to see actual ball flight vs simulated ball flight.

Environment Simulator - be nice to set parameters to the place I'm traveling to and see what distance will be like.

 

Did not pull the trigger though because there's a chance we might be moving later this year and with the closest range being a bit further away, the ratio of indoor vs outdoor practice might change dramatically. Even if it's 50-50, I'd probably go with Quad since the indoor data on doppler tech and the need to put stickers on the balls are both disadvantages from my viewpoint.

 

Maybe I'll win the lottery and just buy both 😅.

 

A buddy of mine and I have been tinkering with the idea of buying both and seeing if there's a market for local golfers that would want to rent them to offset the cost a bit. I'm going to create a separate thread in the same category if you guys want to chime in.

 

[Rodmike10]

If I may, I would add a big advantage of the Quad is the ability to drop it, anywhere, on the course. If I get out when course is not busy, I can practice with club and ball analysis, in seconds. 

 

Food for thought....

 

FWIW.

[Kgglonghorn]

I do that all the time with my Flightscope.  Once you use the flightscope 2 or 3 times, you know easily how to set it up in seconds.

[Rodmike10]

I stand corrected then.

 

Does the X3 require stickers for all datasets? 

[Krt22]

3 hours ago, Rodmike10 said:

I stand corrected then.

 

Does the X3 require stickers for all datasets? 

For indoors, yes. Outdoors no need, just plop it down and go. The quad does have one advantage where you don't need a 3rd party device to get the basic data though.

 

Ive owned a flightscope for a few years, but transitioning to the quad since I use it 99% of the time indoors.

[Krt22]

Interesting graphic about QC Quad for outdoor use.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/COeQuqENFC0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Kgglonghorn]

if you look closer, you can see a trackman behind each of them. 😂😂😂

[Rodmike10]

On 5/5/2021 at 9:36 AM, Kgglonghorn said:

if you look closer, you can see a trackman behind each of them. 😂😂😂

 

Why is that?

 

[Kgglonghorn]

because they are getting paid to have one out and they rely on the other...not sure which is which for each individual, but its all about the public view.

[Rodmike10]

You can’t even see the TrackMan’s most of the time.

[Kgglonghorn]

the media and the spectators can.

[Krt22]

On 5/11/2021 at 8:59 AM, Kgglonghorn said:

because they are getting paid to have one out and they rely on the other...not sure which is which for each individual, but its all about the public view.

They are not getting paid to plop down the quad and there is clearly not a TM behind each one. If you are a TM owner that is great, but no need to be a fanboi.

[Kgglonghorn]

don't own a trackman and am not a "fanboy".   Guarantee some of those guys are paid (or at least getting comp'ed) to use TM and some are to use GC.  (think Bryson and Bubba with FS).  You would be foolish to think that those companies aren't giving free equipment some PGA tour players.  Just like guys who have a Callaway headcover over thier TM driver...bc they are on staff with Callaway and need to present an image.  Yes, it happens.

 

 

 

[knickerbocker]

From what I have read, Pros use different metrics from quad vs trackman.  

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Kgglonghorn said:

don't own a trackman and am not a "fanboy".   Guarantee some of those guys are paid (or at least getting comp'ed) to use TM and some are to use GC.  (think Bryson and Bubba with FS).  You would be foolish to think that those companies aren't giving free equipment some PGA tour players.  Just like guys who have a Callaway headcover over thier TM driver...bc they are on staff with Callaway and need to present an image.  Yes, it happens.

 

 

 

Some and all is two totally different things, as is paid sponsorship from a small LM company vs a huge equipment company. I have asked a touring pro to potentially help procure a quad for me and the discount was not that substantial and it came along with the requirement to use and display it at every event. Are there some discounts? Sure. Are they getting PAID by foresight simply to plop it down and ignore it? No, I don't think that is remotely the case. Let's leave the wild unsubstantiated speculation for another thread

[Kgglonghorn]

hmmm.  so by that logic, Bryson is donating his time to Flightscope??

[Krt22]

13 hours ago, Kgglonghorn said:

hmmm.  so by that logic, Bryson is donating his time to Flightscope??

Bryson is ONE guy, a top 5 player in the world and flightscope is a completely different company, with a different technology, fighting a big incumbent with huge market share. Their market position is very different, they clearly sponsor Bryson, but that does not mean they are paying every single player to use their device. How many more times are you going to move the goal posts? Your original assertion was all of the players in the photo were essentially being paid simply to plop it down on the range and ignore it. Have you seen any advertisements with a PGA tour pro for foresight?  

[Kgglonghorn]

My ORIGINAL assertion was strictly an anecdotal observation that several people had a GC Quad next to them and a trackman behind them because I thought it was funny.  I clearly struck a nerve with you about GC Quads.  I am too tired to have this fight. TM, GC and FS are all great products and are all probably within 1-2% of each other with the data they deliver.

And for the record, I am a FLIGHTSCOPE guy.  😂😂😂

[Krt22]

21 hours ago, Kgglonghorn said:

My ORIGINAL assertion was strictly an anecdotal observation that several people had a GC Quad next to them and a trackman behind them because I thought it was funny.  I clearly struck a nerve with you about GC Quads.  I am too tired to have this fight. TM, GC and FS are all great products and are all probably within 1-2% of each other with the data they deliver.

And for the record, I am a FLIGHTSCOPE guy.  😂😂😂

You said there was a TM behind EACH of them, which is clearly not the case if you just looked at the photo, then you doubled down and said it's because they are getting paid simply plop it down and ignore it, which is largely unfounded. You did not strike a nerve at all, I just have no issue calling out unsubstantiated BS. And for the record, I am a FLIGHSCOPE guy as well. 

I posted that photo because it is very relative to this thread, since most folks for a very long time have maintained that radar is superior outdoors, but that is not as obvious with how many quads you are now seeing amongst professionals in an outdoor setting.

[mookio]

+1 for quad