Help with a Home Simulator Setup - Decent Budget

[jeffb006]

So building a garage wtih a bonus room and am planning on doing a simulator setup.

 

The budget isnt unlimited, but I'm fully prepared to spend $30-40k or so to get what I want and not cheap out. Here are my thoughts. I have played on:

 

1. Trackman 4 ($25kish)- awesome, taken lessons on it from my buddy who is a Titleist fitter here in MA,  played at places that had trackman and liked it; the putting practice/analytics part is awesome; the putting when you are playing on the simulator was not great

 

2. FullSwing Sport Series ($40kish)- my boss has it and played this week; everything was top notch, game play was great, practice modes were awesome; again the putting was challenging because the sensors dont pick up the ball until its close to the mat. so to make a 3' putt, you actually have to hit like a 12' putt, just weird

 

The only putting one I have liked is there is an X Golf simulator here in Mass; easy to get a ball online and groove a stroke, but the graphics stink. So overall I'm willing to concede on the putting bc thats not the point of the simulator; but want everyone's thoughts. My boss's advice was to NOT cheap out on the technology bc I will regret it. 

 

Thoughts....and any help appreciated

 

Jeff

[jeffb006]

Picture of my boss’s crazy awesome setup 😍

[LAslicer]

I would stay away from the top end radar units if you are just using it inside honestly. I'd look at one of the high end uneekor or gc models with budget not being an issue.

[jeffb006]

Why is that?

[GolfTurkey]

I would go for a GCQuad. Even with the high end radar units there will be more misreads, estimated spin values instead of measured etc. than camera.

 

I don't like Foresight as a company (get the impression that they shake you down for every last cent) but they have the best / most validated indoor units IMO.

[LAslicer]

20 hours ago, jeffb006 said:

Why is that?

 

Radar just is not as good indoors as camera based systems. Radar is great for outside since it tracks the ball for so long, but when you shorten that flight indoors, that is when it can have issues giving accurate data. So you would be paying a lot more for something that really is not more accurate than the lower priced devices. The way I look at is radar units are outdoor launch monitors that can be used inside and camera based units are indoor launch monitors that can be used outside. 

[A.Princey]

Chips and putts are so fidgety on radar too, the club basically obscures the ball for so long. GC Quad is the indoor king, IMO. Can be used outside equally as well. This is a no-brainer to me, but as always, ymmv.

[BlueFab5]

16 hours ago, LAslicer said:

 

Radar just is not as good indoors as camera based systems. Radar is great for outside since it tracks the ball for so long, but when you shorten that flight indoors, that is when it can have issues giving accurate data. So you would be paying a lot more for something that really is not more accurate than the lower priced devices. The way I look at is radar units are outdoor launch monitors that can be used inside and camera based units are indoor launch monitors that can be used outside. 

Agree with this 100%.  Trackman also has to be set back quite a bit from the ball for indoor use. 

[Stuart_G]

5 hours ago, BlueFab5 said:

Agree with this 100%.  Trackman also has to be set back quite a bit from the ball for indoor use. 

 

This is certainly true.  How much room you have is the biggest factor.  

 

The second is whether you need to support both left and right hand play.   Many of the more common camera based units (skytrack, gc2, gcquad) make it inconvenient.   Overhead (gchawk) and the rear mounted radars are much better for that.

 

The accuracy differences are frequently over stated.  Both are going to be plenty accurate for both swing work and sim play.   There was a proper study done and published in 2017 comparing TM3 to GC2 indoors.   If anyone is interested do a search for:

 

"How valid and accurate are measurements of golf impact parameters
obtained using commercially available radar and stereoscopic optical launch
monitors?"  by Leach et al

 

The only real place the radars fall short are changes to spin axis due to gear effect on the longer clubs.  So only a potential issue if you can't hit the center of the club face.   TM was working on an algorithm to fix that but don't know where they are in the process.  I haven't heard of any plans from Flightscope to address it.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Stuart_G

[jeffb006]

Great info. Definitely off the trackman bandwagon. Like the Uneekor solution paired with the TGC19. Seems to be not at the most expensive end of the spectrum coming in around $25-30k but lots of good experience with people

[Linkkingx]

On 2/2/2021 at 6:23 PM, jeffb006 said:

Great info. Definitely off the trackman bandwagon. Like the Uneekor solution paired with the TGC19. Seems to be not at the most expensive end of the spectrum coming in around $25-30k but lots of good experience with people

 

If you go with Uneekor or GC2 or Quad you should check out this new software, GSPro. It's been in beta for a while but it is already way better than TGC19. It's also practically free at the moment, but once it's out of beta they are saying it will be significantly cheaper than anything else out there. I've been using it since April and it's constantly being updated and getting better.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Linkkingx

[stryper]

HD Golf...might be a little above your budget, but there’s a reason a lot of Tour pros have them in their homes.

[MrBeck]

Indoors is gcquad all the way. 

[Celeras]

On 2/12/2021 at 4:17 PM, Linkkingx said:

 

If you go with Uneekor or GC2 or Quad you should check out this new software, GSPro. It's been in beta for a while but it is already way better than TGC19. It's also practically free at the moment, but once it's out of beta they are saying it will be significantly cheaper than anything else out there. I've been using it since April and it's constantly being updated and getting better.

GSPro is great for what it is but don't be ridiculous. TGC is leaps and bounds better. Course selection, graphics, user experience.. none of it is even close.

 

Absolutely everyone should give GSPro a try simply due to it's price, but it has a long way to go before it gets to the big boys. I hope it gets there some day but not yet.

[Linkkingx]

3 hours ago, Celeras said:

GSPro is great for what it is but don't be ridiculous. TGC is leaps and bounds better. Course selection, graphics, user experience.. none of it is even close.

 

Absolutely everyone should give GSPro a try simply due to it's price, but it has a long way to go before it gets to the big boys. I hope it gets there some day but not yet.

When was the last time you played it? They updated the graphics engine recently and it looks great. Sure TGC has a huge amount of courses, but you have to weed through a lot of crap to find the good ones. There are also issues like the ridiculous first bounce that will never get fixed. Don't get me wrong, I like TGC, but the physics in GSPro, especially around the greens, is way more realistic. I also like the fact that you can pick any holes you want to play, and in practice mode you can drop the ball wherever you want and hit the same shot over and over. The real problem is TGC is standing still and GSPro is being updated constantly. There are plans to add more practice features like a combine and shot history, which I hope comes sooner than later. It definitely needs some polishing with the user experience, but since I've had it I only played TGC a handful of times. TGC has good graphics, but this looks pretty good to me too.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Linkkingx

[rbilramz]

You should be able to do a lot with that budget.  My build came in less than that I'm really happy with it.  You can see most post here.

 

As for the launch monitor itself, I echo many of the comments above regarding the GCQuad.  I spent a lot of time researching and unless you have a lot of left-right handed player switching, it really is the best option.

 

Feel free to reach out with any questions as you work through the design process.

[bap1130]

On 2/15/2021 at 10:24 PM, Linkkingx said:

When was the last time you played it? They updated the graphics engine recently and it looks great. Sure TGC has a huge amount of courses, but you have to weed through a lot of crap to find the good ones. There are also issues like the ridiculous first bounce that will never get fixed. Don't get me wrong, I like TGC, but the physics in GSPro, especially around the greens, is way more realistic. I also like the fact that you can pick any holes you want to play, and in practice mode you can drop the ball wherever you want and hit the same shot over and over. The real problem is TGC is standing still and GSPro is being updated constantly. There are plans to add more practice features like a combine and shot history, which I hope comes sooner than later. It definitely needs some polishing with the user experience, but since I've had it I only played TGC a handful of times. TGC has good graphics, but this looks pretty good to me too.

 

 

Second that opinion, GSPro has come a long way and is pretty awesome! $30 and you get access for 6 months compared to almost $1000 for TGC 2019. Hard to beat that!

[Celeras]

Absolutely, I did not mean to sound disparaging. Price/Performance of GSPro is currently unmatched and I'm a big fan of what they're trying to do. It's great software, I just thought it was a bit premature to say "way better than TGC19". There's far too many areas where TGC is leaps and bounds better for that to be true.

 

And FWIW I agree that the first bounce in TGC19 is easily the worst thing about it. But I am also of the opinion that GSPro is a bit obsessed with spin back automatically being "superior physics" and it leads to comical things where balls spin backwards after already rolling forward for 10+ feet. Like this for example (video is from their own website showing off the physics, not as bad as what I've seen but don't have a better example handy).

Edited February 26, 2021 by Celeras

[Kid B]

On 2/1/2021 at 7:12 PM, A.Princey said:

Chips and putts are so fidgety on radar too, the club basically obscures the ball for so long. GC Quad is the indoor king, IMO. Can be used outside equally as well. This is a no-brainer to me, but as always, ymmv.

Second this, I would just throw out the consideration about how something performs inside of 30-50 yards. It’s never going to get close and I’d personally rather focus on full swing performance 

[Linkkingx]

23 hours ago, Celeras said:

Absolutely, I did not mean to sound disparaging. Price/Performance of GSPro is currently unmatched and I'm a big fan of what they're trying to do. It's great software, I just thought it was a bit premature to say "way better than TGC19". There's far too many areas where TGC is leaps and bounds better for that to be true.

 

And FWIW I agree that the first bounce in TGC19 is easily the worst thing about it. But I am also of the opinion that GSPro is a bit obsessed with spin back automatically being "superior physics" and it leads to comical things where balls spin backwards after already rolling forward for 10+ feet. Like this for example (video is from their own website showing off the physics, not as bad as what I've seen but don't have a better example handy).

 

"Leaps and bounds"? Now who's being ridiculous, haha. Seriously though, graphics are somewhat subjective but I find them to be better on GSPro or at the very least comparable. I agree that the user experience is better on TGC right now but that's not what's important to me personally. I think for practice and playing more realistic to actual golf, GSPro is already ahead of TGC. In any case, no point arguing really, it's just great to have more options that aren't super overpriced like FSX.

[Celeras]

20 hours ago, Linkkingx said:

"Leaps and bounds"? Now who's being ridiculous, haha. Seriously though, graphics are somewhat subjective but I find them to be better on GSPro or at the very least comparable. I agree that the user experience is better on TGC right now but that's not what's important to me personally. I think for practice and playing more realistic to actual golf, GSPro is already ahead of TGC. In any case, no point arguing really, it's just great to have more options that aren't super overpriced like FSX.

 

Who is arguing? Just answering questions and trying to give readers a clear picture of what is being discussed.

 

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to say there are areas where TGC is leaps and bounds better lol. The course selection comparison is what, 200,000+ versus double digits? You don't think that is leaps and bounds better? Or that you can make your own courses any time you'd like and play your local spots to the accuracy of LiDAR? Or that you don't have to download every course individually every time you want something new (which takes up a ton of hard drive space)?

 

And I personally don't think graphics are subjective, but if you want to go that route I'll just post a comparison image to yours above and let each person judge on their own.

 

[Linkkingx]

16 hours ago, Celeras said:

 

Who is arguing? Just answering questions and trying to give readers a clear picture of what is being discussed.

 

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to say there are areas where TGC is leaps and bounds better lol. The course selection comparison is what, 200,000+ versus double digits? You don't think that is leaps and bounds better? Or that you can make your own courses any time you'd like and play your local spots to the accuracy of LiDAR? Or that you don't have to download every course individually every time you want something new (which takes up a ton of hard drive space)?

 

And I personally don't think graphics are subjective, but if you want to go that route I'll just post a comparison image to yours above and let each person judge on their own.

 

Just to clarify, all the GSPro courses are user created and based off lidar as well. There were over 100 before the upgrade to a newer version of unity but they all have to be converted. I believe they're back to around 50 now with a few new ones coming each week. There are also designers for hire that will recreate local courses for people, or if you're really adventurous you could attempt it yourself, but it's definitely more involved than creating courses on TGC.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Linkkingx

[mgoblue83]

Late to the party but the Trackman indoor hate is WAY overblown. Does it get occasional misreads? Sure. So does every other system including GCQ. Most of the hate comes from some Youtube "pros" and channels who are sponsored by Foresight and continually talk about how great it is. If it was really that good then you would see more GCQs than Trackmans at PGA Tour ranges. Instead, any given week the ratio of Trackmans to Quads on the ranges is like 20 to 1 in favor of Trackman and the only players using Quads are sponsored by them... Trackman doesn't sponsor any players so they are choosing to use it because it is the best. 

 

Now about indoor:

 

Trackman needs to see enough ball flight and the room needs to be free of interference (like all radar systems) but if you are building a room for it the Trackman is your best option.

 

If you can get 30 ft of depth (8-10 ft from the Trackman to the ball and 15-20ft from the ball to the screen and you use metallic dots on the ball then you aren't going to have any accuracy issues.

 

Combine that with far far far superior graphics and software, the ability to accommodate right and left handed play without moving the unit and it's status as the undisputed #1 launch monitor outdoors and it's the choice I would make every time. 

 

If you want something cheaper go with one of the overhead systems like Uneekor.

 

 

 

[Celeras]

13 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

Now about indoor:

 

Trackman needs to see enough ball flight and the room needs to be free of interference (like all radar systems) but if you are building a room for it the Trackman is your best option.

 

If you can get 30 ft of depth (8-10 ft from the Trackman to the ball and 15-20ft from the ball to the screen and you use metallic dots on the ball then you aren't going to have any accuracy issues.

 

I don't know what your angle is here, but you're recommending a Trackman for indoors and simultaneously explaining exactly why it's garbage for these purposes. Hitting a ball 20 feet away from a screen for a home simulator? The logistics of that are ridiculous. Honestly you'd be better off just accepting the accuracy shortcomings if you already have a Trackman... but lets play your game and set it up so there aren't any. First of all, you'd basically need to be completely enclosed by at least a net. Any wedges will go up and over the top of a screen unless its 20+ feet tall, and side panel protection will be non-existent at that distance (and forget about shanks). You're now intentionally banging balls into the walls and ceiling of your enclosure that probably needs to be at LEAST 10-15 feet deep to catch everything.... great.

 

Next.. your projector also needs to be 20ish feet away unless you plan on putting it in a case and ricocheting balls off of it.. or on the ground which totally sucks. For a ceiling mount you need to place it higher than the screen for the image to be projected at the proper size, except the ceiling of your enclosure is so long it blocks the top of the image. So you need to angle it down and use keystone correction damaging the picture quality that is already less than ideal with you standing so far away from it. Also no way to prevent a shadow from this distance each time you collect balls, maybe even when you swing. Something that is not an issue with a short throw projector.. which is why everyone uses one.

 

But hey, at least its only 2-10 times more expensive than all the other alternatives! Keep Trackman outside.

[Stuart_G]

10 hours ago, Celeras said:

But hey, at least its only 2-10 times more expensive than all the other alternatives! Keep Trackman outside.

 

That's why you should get a flightscope instead 😆