I really hope you do this again and test them as best you can on a very calm day (if anything a light cross breeze) with as flat of a range as you can. If I can geek out a bit for you, here is ideally what you would do. 1) Find flat range 2) Spotter going to landing spots and being lasered like you did (validate the accuracy of the laser if you can out past 300 yards). 3) Do this on a 70-80 F day (this is what is considered a pretty standard temp range) 4) Post elevation of location, wind direction, wind speed if at all possible for context 5) Hit 5 shots with a variety of clubs, many shots though with driver. 6) Driver is where these things fail the most in my opinion, so please try to cover a range of speeds including elite tour speed like 170s+ ball speed. Please also vary the horizontal launch angle and spin as much as you can. Hit many more drivers than irons due to the notorious issues these things have getting them way wrong. 7) Add link to a spreadsheet with all of the data. I know its geeky, but the above would be amazing and potentially enlighten many people that trust these things fully when getting fit for a clubs, especially driver.
Curious to see if you accounted for elevation drop in the actual measured distances. It appears from the video the real shots are slightly downhill. TrackMan 4’s Carry numbers are actual “flat carry” values. Potentially could explain the slight difference.
haha glad we could help. I have to tell you though, i LOVE my GCQUAD, especially the software that goes with it. Its making a huge difference to my game now, being able to practise at home and figure out what is going on with my club etc.
Would love to see you guys test them both out on a flat driving range on a very calm evening. Do the same thing with carry distance. Would be very cool to see some data of launch numbers from each machine for each shot and real carry vs carry the machines show. Good stuff! Need to hit some really low spin drivers too, as its very common knowledge that GCQ at least, will show WAY more carry than is real for those. Makes me question club fitters that use them. 500 difference in spin might show 15+ yards improvement in carry on GCQ while in real like, i might only be 5, and it could be 5 less than the higher spinner given other launch conditions are the same.
Good comparison! Did want to make one note that TrackMan will only measure distance to carry flat. If it’s a downhill shot it won’t tell you the carry to contact with the ground.
GCQUAD always give higher clubhead spead an lower smash. It is because TM show speed at impact maximum compreassing the ball and GCQ just before touching the ball. That is important that we all learn that now. Whith a driver it can be up to 8mph difference just because the point of meausure is different.
I don’t think the question is one more accurate than the other. The key is do they deliver consistent date. With launch monitors you must know how and when it’s reading the shot. That is why you see different data. It’s due to when it reads the shots.
Remember drivers have bulge and roll faces and twist face is even more extreme. GC quad can have issues measuring face angle reliably because the stickers can be on different planes because of the curved face of a driver vs an iron that is completely flat. But this was a great test. Nice to see it outside. I'd imagine trackman would be better outside, what gc quad can't measure is how dimple patterns on the ball affect performance through the air.
@@dr6124 yeah gc quad is measuring the dots on the face, which works really well for irons, with drivers like twist face it's hard to put them on the same plane because of the curvature. But trackman I'm pretty sure tracks the ball the entire way unless you set it to normalize then it goes off the simulated ball flight after measuring the first few yards of ball flight. Alot of pros use both on the range. Gc quad for club data and trackman for ball data
Interesting test but what you have to understand is that CGQuad absolutely isn't telling you how far the ball went. It's telling you how far the generic ball used in their flight model (used to be a ProV1 with GC2, not sure with GCQuad) would go if you hit it in absolutely still air. GC2 used to also 'assume' standard atmospheric pressure but GCQuad now alters the flight model depending on air pressure. Trackman is tracking the ball and reporting carry distance. So a test measuring carry distance is only really checking Trackman, especially as there was a breeze there. Any form of comparison on 'accuracy' can't be done because the units are doing utterly different things. The best way to think about it is GCQuad is saying exactly how you hit the ball and calculating carry distance and ball flight, Trackman is saying how far the ball went and how it flew and calculating how you hit it. If you want a unit which accurately tells you where the last ball went then Trackman is for you. If you want a unit which accurately tells you how you delivered the club for coaching etc then GCQuad is for you. But you can't directly compare them - they don't do the same thing.
Interesting feedback. But the ultimate goal for these sims is to tell me how far and in which direction i hit the ball. So a direct comparison in my opinion is valid :P
@@SkinsGolfTV In which case I don't think you're fully understanding the kit or what it's trying to do. Trackman is telling you how far and in which direction you hit the last ball (it then calculates how you hit it), GCQuad is telling you how you hit the ball (it then calculates where a generic ball would go in perfect atmospheric conditions). Look at it this way, if you did a gap test with a Trackman with a following breeze it'd tell you exactly how far each ball went......... but how would that help you unless you were always going to play with a following breeze? GCQuad would constantly be saying the ball went shorter than it actually did, but what it would be telling you is how far you hit a ball with that club in zero wind. Trackman tries to get round this with the 'normalise' function but for a gap test GCQuad is far better. Want to use one for a long drive contest, then obviously Trackman will be better as it reports exactly how far that last ball went. For coaching and saying exactly how the club was delivered, GCQuad is better - it measures it whereas Trackman calculates it. Different kit designed to do different things. An outdoor test in a breeze is only actually testing Trackman's ability to track the golf ball, it's not really telling you anything about GCQuad.
@@SkinsGolfTV Just re-read my last message and it comes across as a little 'bolshie' - sorry, don't mean to be :) Just trying to explain that you can't take a GCQuad (or GC2 or Skytrak) outside on a day with even a breath of breeze and test how accurate it is, it just doesn't work like that. Each system has strengths and weaknesses and each will be better at different things. At one time I tested far more complex and massively more expensive doppler radars than Trackman for the military so I have a pretty good idea of the limitations of what you can do with a radar of this type. When it comes to golf I've used both radar systems and camera based systems. Both are great but both really should be used for different things. If you're indoors you should definitely use GCQuad, outdoors it really depends on what you're trying to achieve but both systems are pretty good in my view.
Interesting video guys... Would be good to repeat it but narrow out the parameters of wind and elevation if possible. Would also be great to compare the new full swing personal unit if you can get hold of one...
aren't you measuring the real "total" distance vs the carry distance on the launch monitors? Is your caddie standing at the carry landing spot or the finish? Also confirm the elevation on the quad wasn't set to auto. You should pick the closest elevation to your 1341 feet for bali, this is going to change your test dramatically. leave the quad on auto when using the FSX software and adjust the elevation in the software settings of FSX 2020 when playing indoors.
The caddie was marking the carry distance (point of impact to the ground). Elevation not sure. We’ll have to do a more precise test on a better location with flatter ground :P
FYI - The sun is aimed directly into the face of the cameras on the GC Quad. Sure like to know how the data capture would be affected if the sun were behind the cameras which is usually the best lighting situation for taking pictures.
Great video. Interesting that PGA pros are using GC Quad more outdoors for ball data(can't be for club data as they don't have fiducials) as they believe its more accurate.
It is telling them only their input. It’s much more useful as far as swing practice goes to know what you did to the ball than what the conditions (wind) did to the ball.
Tour pros like GC Quad because it faster to set up. The screen is a big bonus. More tour players aren’t looking at carry distances. They want to know ball speed. Ball speed is a key metric for them.
As a pro long driver - trackman can be off upwards of 20mph on my club data - indoors it's un-usable - I was hitting once and put 3 balls through the plywood wall and it said my balls speed was 150mph with 117 club speed - to go through the screen and plywood you need upwards of 190mph balls speed. Hitting on the GC quad the next day I was in the 140's for club speed most shots peaking around 147mph. I know I have the speed from my score in competitions and cracking lots of heads and balls.... I'd take the GC quad 100% of the time. I don't know if you had them on there or not, but when you put the metallic dots on your driver for the GC quad it's far far more accurate on the club data - it didn't look like you had the 4 dots on your TM driver for those last three shots. They make a bit difference. The faster you swing the more un-reliable both of them tend to be. The back spin data on TM is much far off from the GC Quad data.
I think people love gcquad because it always gives higher club speed. makes them feel good. Clearly trackman is way more accurate in this video. It would be fun to see if this is done indoor are the differentials about the same.
It’s not necessarily higher it’s just spot on, the gcQuad is 10x better at reading club data than trackman because it’s got reflective spots on the club face to read the club data perfectly
Fascinating vlog , well done guys 👏... does the quad not take club and ball contact data and theoretically and mathematically calculate the distance? and obviously not able to take in course and weather data .. looking forward to the results of the sky track comparison...😉🏌️♂️⛳️🍻
Yes the GCQUAD takes 200 pictures on each of the four cameras. That’s why it gets such good club data (which the track man guesses). Indoor it’s all about the GCQUAD :)
The inconsistent data means neither one of the units are worth the obscene amount of money they ask for! I'll wait to find a launch monitor that's actually accurate!!
Hi guys wish you had also compared the Garmin g80 at the same time , as am considering buying one and was really surprised to see the discrepancies between these 2 top end machines as all g80 reviews I’ve seen compare it to gcquad and has similar discrepancies so not sure either machine is perfect especially when you compared it to your caddies actual distance . I think the g80 for me will be perfect for practicing 150 yards and in with different wedges and different length swings etc. Thanks for vid, it has really cleared it up in my mind as I think previous reviews have given the more expensive machines the benefit of the doubt due to justifying their expense
Hi Neil, I definitely think for the lower ball speeds, the less expensive machines become better value for money. I haven;t tried the garmin g80 but I'll ask if rob has one, and we can have a look at comparing them :P
Maybe have some sort of twist like lowest scorer for each hole gets to take a club off the other player (but it would maybe take more than two ppl). Just giving ideas, hope you dont mind.
I would have really liked to see you all do the same thing with Trackman on normalized mode and see if that brought the units closer. It’s not fair to Quad to hit outdoors in wind when it never purports to track the ball and report the influence of wind. You can turn that off on Trackman or go into the Foresight software and add wind.
No point to testing it outdoors then. They just need to redo it on a very calm day, and ideally flatter hole. I am interested to see if Trackman actually tracks the entire flight. It doesn't seem like it does or it doesn't do it well because it should have got those numbers closer than it did.
I'd like to see ball trajectory profiles. GC Quad is using an algorithm to create ball flight graphs. Trackman should be tracking the actual flight. Curious how different types of balls compare. I don't see how anyone could do an accurate golf ball fitting indoors on a Quad.
Mevo really is limited in its function and skytrak is sensitive and a pain to set up. Could really highlight the reason to upgrade to better tech. Will keep that video idea in mind. Just need a Mevo now.
While distance is important, would be super interested in doing a big hook and slice test. Does the GC Quad pick up on the slice/hook? You can plug a table into GC quad to see if quad ball flight makes real world ball flight?
I would think if you are to prove an exact distance to compare against accuracy of these 2 systems, you should have been using a survey grade GPS locating equipment, not a hand held range finder.
True. I think we need to redo this test more accurately. Maybe not on a golf course, but on a large runway, or field, something we can measure accurately.
@@SkinsGolfTV A descent laser Range Finder is accurate to within less than a yard if the laser bounces off a reflective object. So all you needed was some reflective tape on a 1 foot by 1 foot piece of cardboard. Attach the cardboard to a stick. Then have someone stand in the fairway and stick the cardboard on a stick in the ground where the ball lands. Then shoot on that with the laser range finder. Good enough for government work. Just shooting at the golf ball in the fairways does not present a large enough reflective surface to get a good reading.
@@TheNYgolfer they had somebody out there standing beside the balls so they could get an accurate reading. I can relate to this video big time. I have a flight scope and it is far from perfect. I have had days where the readings have been so bad that I couldn’t even come close to using the data for dialing in my yardages. These guys showed that most of their shots ended up further than the readings on the monitors. I see this everyday on my machine as well. Launch monitors are not worth what they are charging in my personal opinion. They are fun and it’s cool to see general numbers but that is all. Thinking that these things are perfect is naive. Also, range finders are the best measuring devices out there.
GC Quad is just better for most applications including fitting. Trackman is better if you are going to use it outdoors exclusively. If you are in a dedicated spot indoors I’d recommend the GC Skyhawk.
@@thegolflife7565 Honestly, I don't think I would. There is no difference in performance, it costs more to install, and you can't move it around if you want to go to the range, or use it in another location. I'd stick with the GCQUAD
does GC Quad pick up on accurate ball flight? Does it pick up big hooks or slices? Would be interested in an outdoor test of GC quad (with tablet to see ball flight) and compare that to actual real world ball flight on a non windy day
Check the real weather application on the FSX software - would like to see comparison of spin rate - and did the caddy actually stand at the landing point haha. Issues happen when not center face , quad much better for off center hits, trackm better for ego. Quad hit is at point of impact , whereas trackm is at compression. Your thoughts? that is my understanding, happy to learn more or be corrected. nice work fellas!
I've heard a couple of people mention that difference, between the impact point and the compression point. The caddy was marking the ball for carry distance, but there may of been human error. Im gonna try the real weather update and see what its like, will let you know!
So basically your saying if your a boring Pro..you would buy the Trackman..Because its being used mostly outside..? and not the GC Quad...which seems to have a better feedback until Now..
If yall go to a flat land area ,then try out the trackman/gc quad can yall use a wheel measure device to get exact data for better comparison. Or is this a stupid idea an I need to go throw my shit in the water 💧lol
I really hope you do this again and test them as best you can on a very calm day (if anything a light cross breeze) with as flat of a range as you can. If I can geek out a bit for you, here is ideally what you would do.
1) Find flat range
2) Spotter going to landing spots and being lasered like you did (validate the accuracy of the laser if you can out past 300 yards).
3) Do this on a 70-80 F day (this is what is considered a pretty standard temp range)
4) Post elevation of location, wind direction, wind speed if at all possible for context
5) Hit 5 shots with a variety of clubs, many shots though with driver.
6) Driver is where these things fail the most in my opinion, so please try to cover a range of speeds including elite tour speed like 170s+ ball speed. Please also vary the horizontal launch angle and spin as much as you can. Hit many more drivers than irons due to the notorious issues these things have getting them way wrong.
7) Add link to a spreadsheet with all of the data.
I know its geeky, but the above would be amazing and potentially enlighten many people that trust these things fully when getting fit for a clubs, especially driver.
Ya these guys don't know what they are doing
Curious to see if you accounted for elevation drop in the actual measured distances.
It appears from the video the real shots are slightly downhill.
TrackMan 4’s Carry numbers are actual “flat carry” values. Potentially could explain the slight difference.
You just saved me 20k 😂👍. Interesting video. Thanks
haha glad we could help. I have to tell you though, i LOVE my GCQUAD, especially the software that goes with it. Its making a huge difference to my game now, being able to practise at home and figure out what is going on with my club etc.
When you guys were one Driver and looking at the Gcquad face angle and Trackman face to path, those are 2 different measurements.
We just shot another review of the trackman vs flightscope. Will post soon.
Crazy! You should know both measurements and don’t tell anybody that it was not correct.
Would love to see you guys test them both out on a flat driving range on a very calm evening. Do the same thing with carry distance. Would be very cool to see some data of launch numbers from each machine for each shot and real carry vs carry the machines show. Good stuff! Need to hit some really low spin drivers too, as its very common knowledge that GCQ at least, will show WAY more carry than is real for those. Makes me question club fitters that use them. 500 difference in spin might show 15+ yards improvement in carry on GCQ while in real like, i might only be 5, and it could be 5 less than the higher spinner given other launch conditions are the same.
Yes we need to find a runway or some huge open very flat space. There isn’t a driving range like that here in bali. Will start looking!
Good comparison! Did want to make one note that TrackMan will only measure distance to carry flat. If it’s a downhill shot it won’t tell you the carry to contact with the ground.
Don’t forget that the GC Quad is an optical measuring system. When u are outside in the sunlight this could influence the measuring quality
Very interesting vid guys! Looking forward to see how the Sky Trak compares to both those units! :-D
Yeah we got that on our list to do!
GCQUAD always give higher clubhead spead an lower smash. It is because TM show speed at impact maximum compreassing the ball and GCQ just before touching the ball. That is important that we all learn that now. Whith a driver it can be up to 8mph difference just because the point of meausure is different.
Interesting information that! I love the GCQUAD
So is trackman theoretically more accurate then?
I don’t think the question is one more accurate than the other. The key is do they deliver consistent date.
With launch monitors you must know how and when it’s reading the shot. That is why you see different data. It’s due to when it reads the shots.
Remember drivers have bulge and roll faces and twist face is even more extreme. GC quad can have issues measuring face angle reliably because the stickers can be on different planes because of the curved face of a driver vs an iron that is completely flat. But this was a great test. Nice to see it outside. I'd imagine trackman would be better outside, what gc quad can't measure is how dimple patterns on the ball affect performance through the air.
Yeah I might do this test again with some more fixed factors. Like inside a big warehouse or something with zero wind :P
@@dr6124 yeah gc quad is measuring the dots on the face, which works really well for irons, with drivers like twist face it's hard to put them on the same plane because of the curvature. But trackman I'm pretty sure tracks the ball the entire way unless you set it to normalize then it goes off the simulated ball flight after measuring the first few yards of ball flight. Alot of pros use both on the range. Gc quad for club data and trackman for ball data
Interesting test but what you have to understand is that CGQuad absolutely isn't telling you how far the ball went. It's telling you how far the generic ball used in their flight model (used to be a ProV1 with GC2, not sure with GCQuad) would go if you hit it in absolutely still air. GC2 used to also 'assume' standard atmospheric pressure but GCQuad now alters the flight model depending on air pressure. Trackman is tracking the ball and reporting carry distance. So a test measuring carry distance is only really checking Trackman, especially as there was a breeze there.
Any form of comparison on 'accuracy' can't be done because the units are doing utterly different things. The best way to think about it is GCQuad is saying exactly how you hit the ball and calculating carry distance and ball flight, Trackman is saying how far the ball went and how it flew and calculating how you hit it. If you want a unit which accurately tells you where the last ball went then Trackman is for you. If you want a unit which accurately tells you how you delivered the club for coaching etc then GCQuad is for you. But you can't directly compare them - they don't do the same thing.
Interesting feedback. But the ultimate goal for these sims is to tell me how far and in which direction i hit the ball. So a direct comparison in my opinion is valid :P
@@SkinsGolfTV In which case I don't think you're fully understanding the kit or what it's trying to do. Trackman is telling you how far and in which direction you hit the last ball (it then calculates how you hit it), GCQuad is telling you how you hit the ball (it then calculates where a generic ball would go in perfect atmospheric conditions).
Look at it this way, if you did a gap test with a Trackman with a following breeze it'd tell you exactly how far each ball went......... but how would that help you unless you were always going to play with a following breeze? GCQuad would constantly be saying the ball went shorter than it actually did, but what it would be telling you is how far you hit a ball with that club in zero wind. Trackman tries to get round this with the 'normalise' function but for a gap test GCQuad is far better. Want to use one for a long drive contest, then obviously Trackman will be better as it reports exactly how far that last ball went. For coaching and saying exactly how the club was delivered, GCQuad is better - it measures it whereas Trackman calculates it.
Different kit designed to do different things. An outdoor test in a breeze is only actually testing Trackman's ability to track the golf ball, it's not really telling you anything about GCQuad.
@@SkinsGolfTV Just re-read my last message and it comes across as a little 'bolshie' - sorry, don't mean to be :) Just trying to explain that you can't take a GCQuad (or GC2 or Skytrak) outside on a day with even a breath of breeze and test how accurate it is, it just doesn't work like that. Each system has strengths and weaknesses and each will be better at different things. At one time I tested far more complex and massively more expensive doppler radars than Trackman for the military so I have a pretty good idea of the limitations of what you can do with a radar of this type. When it comes to golf I've used both radar systems and camera based systems. Both are great but both really should be used for different things. If you're indoors you should definitely use GCQuad, outdoors it really depends on what you're trying to achieve but both systems are pretty good in my view.
So true
Interesting video guys... Would be good to repeat it but narrow out the parameters of wind and elevation if possible. Would also be great to compare the new full swing personal unit if you can get hold of one...
Yeah i think we can improve these a lot, takes quite a bit of planning though
Should have used the slope function of a rangefinder. Would have made it more accurate when trying to measure from point to point downhill.
aren't you measuring the real "total" distance vs the carry distance on the launch monitors? Is your caddie standing at the carry landing spot or the finish? Also confirm the elevation on the quad wasn't set to auto. You should pick the closest elevation to your 1341 feet for bali, this is going to change your test dramatically. leave the quad on auto when using the FSX software and adjust the elevation in the software settings of FSX 2020 when playing indoors.
The caddie was marking the carry distance (point of impact to the ground). Elevation not sure. We’ll have to do a more precise test on a better location with flatter ground :P
FYI - The sun is aimed directly into the face of the cameras on the GC Quad. Sure like to know how the data capture would be affected if the sun were behind the cameras which is usually the best lighting situation for taking pictures.
Interesting, ok we'll consider that for next one
Great video. Interesting that PGA pros are using GC Quad more outdoors for ball data(can't be for club data as they don't have fiducials) as they believe its more accurate.
It is telling them only their input. It’s much more useful as far as swing practice goes to know what you did to the ball than what the conditions (wind) did to the ball.
Tour pros like GC Quad because it faster to set up. The screen is a big bonus. More tour players aren’t looking at carry distances. They want to know ball speed. Ball speed is a key metric for them.
Legends
As a pro long driver - trackman can be off upwards of 20mph on my club data - indoors it's un-usable - I was hitting once and put 3 balls through the plywood wall and it said my balls speed was 150mph with 117 club speed - to go through the screen and plywood you need upwards of 190mph balls speed. Hitting on the GC quad the next day I was in the 140's for club speed most shots peaking around 147mph.
I know I have the speed from my score in competitions and cracking lots of heads and balls....
I'd take the GC quad 100% of the time.
I don't know if you had them on there or not, but when you put the metallic dots on your driver for the GC quad it's far far more accurate on the club data - it didn't look like you had the 4 dots on your TM driver for those last three shots. They make a bit difference.
The faster you swing the more un-reliable both of them tend to be. The back spin data on TM is much far off from the GC Quad data.
I think people love gcquad because it always gives higher club speed. makes them feel good. Clearly trackman is way more accurate in this video. It would be fun to see if this is done indoor are the differentials about the same.
and thanks for the great video
It’s not necessarily higher it’s just spot on, the gcQuad is 10x better at reading club data than trackman because it’s got reflective spots on the club face to read the club data perfectly
Cheer david.. we'll redo one some day!
Fascinating vlog , well done guys 👏... does the quad not take club and ball contact data and theoretically and mathematically calculate the distance? and obviously not able to take in course and weather data .. looking forward to the results of the sky track comparison...😉🏌️♂️⛳️🍻
Yes the GCQUAD takes 200 pictures on each of the four cameras. That’s why it gets such good club data (which the track man guesses). Indoor it’s all about the GCQUAD :)
The GC Quad needs the reflective stickers on the face of the club to properly collect club head data.
The inconsistent data means neither one of the units are worth the obscene amount of money they ask for! I'll wait to find a launch monitor that's actually accurate!!
Within a few yards for distance is a minuscule difference. The flight path is really the biggest factor, and my GCQuad is amazingly accurate with it.
Hi guys wish you had also compared the Garmin g80 at the same time , as am considering buying one and was really surprised to see the discrepancies between these 2 top end machines as all g80 reviews I’ve seen compare it to gcquad and has similar discrepancies so not sure either machine is perfect especially when you compared it to your caddies actual distance . I think the g80 for me will be perfect for practicing 150 yards and in with different wedges and different length swings etc.
Thanks for vid, it has really cleared it up in my mind as I think previous reviews have given the more expensive machines the benefit of the doubt due to justifying their expense
Hi Neil, I definitely think for the lower ball speeds, the less expensive machines become better value for money. I haven;t tried the garmin g80 but I'll ask if rob has one, and we can have a look at comparing them :P
Loving the videos! Would be nice to see some more golf games between the two of you : )
Maybe have some sort of twist like lowest scorer for each hole gets to take a club off the other player (but it would maybe take more than two ppl). Just giving ideas, hope you dont mind.
I'm trying to figure ways to beat Rob haha :P. My next plan is to get him drinking a shot of tequila on every hole
I would have really liked to see you all do the same thing with Trackman on normalized mode and see if that brought the units closer. It’s not fair to Quad to hit outdoors in wind when it never purports to track the ball and report the influence of wind. You can turn that off on Trackman or go into the Foresight software and add wind.
The differences were quite a lot.. so eiother they are no good, or we got a lot of variables wrong (probably the latter!)
No point to testing it outdoors then. They just need to redo it on a very calm day, and ideally flatter hole. I am interested to see if Trackman actually tracks the entire flight. It doesn't seem like it does or it doesn't do it well because it should have got those numbers closer than it did.
I'd like to see ball trajectory profiles. GC Quad is using an algorithm to create ball flight graphs. Trackman should be tracking the actual flight. Curious how different types of balls compare. I don't see how anyone could do an accurate golf ball fitting indoors on a Quad.
See if you can get your hands on the new Garmin R10 and do comparison with Skytrak and mevo plus
Mevo really is limited in its function and skytrak is sensitive and a pain to set up. Could really highlight the reason to upgrade to better tech. Will keep that video idea in mind. Just need a Mevo now.
Rad review ! Will it track my jabs and shakes over the flat stick? That would be a huge reading!
Anything is possible :P 😂
Looking forward to the next video - keep it up 👌🏽
@@jonathanshilling2095 Its live :P ruclips.net/video/Uf5DPIXDj3k/видео.html
what graphics card do you reccomend to run the FSX2020 software... I was told a 2070 but is that over kill
I use a 2070 Super 8GB. Works amazing. especially if you water cool it :P
Did you do and indoor test?
Cant you plug wind data into QC Quad?
When you are playing on one of the courses on FSX you can select live wind data, but not for driving range session in a random location.
don't get why they didn't do the test at the driving range.
There isn't really a good one with decent balls in Bali!
While distance is important, would be super interested in doing a big hook and slice test. Does the GC Quad pick up on the slice/hook? You can plug a table into GC quad to see if quad ball flight makes real world ball flight?
I’ve found it to be super accurate so far. But we could test the extremes :))
GC quad and Trackman measure clubhead speed differently. Quad measure at end of club whereas Trackman measure at middle of face
I would think if you are to prove an exact distance to compare against accuracy of these 2 systems, you should have been using a survey grade GPS locating equipment, not a hand held range finder.
True. I think we need to redo this test more accurately. Maybe not on a golf course, but on a large runway, or field, something we can measure accurately.
@@SkinsGolfTV A descent laser Range Finder is accurate to within less than a yard if the laser bounces off a reflective object. So all you needed was some reflective tape on a 1 foot by 1 foot piece of cardboard. Attach the cardboard to a stick. Then have someone stand in the fairway and stick the cardboard on a stick in the ground where the ball lands. Then shoot on that with the laser range finder. Good enough for government work.
Just shooting at the golf ball in the fairways does not present a large enough reflective surface to get a good reading.
@@TheNYgolfer they had somebody out there standing beside the balls so they could get an accurate reading. I can relate to this video big time. I have a flight scope and it is far from perfect. I have had days where the readings have been so bad that I couldn’t even come close to using the data for dialing in my yardages. These guys showed that most of their shots ended up further than the readings on the monitors. I see this everyday on my machine as well. Launch monitors are not worth what they are charging in my personal opinion. They are fun and it’s cool to see general numbers but that is all. Thinking that these things are perfect is naive. Also, range finders are the best measuring devices out there.
I start missing Bali man, this pesky virus stopping me from going oversea. Hope you guys doing well!
Let us know when you manage to make it back so we can have a game!
8236 Evans Fork
do you guys want feedback leave a contact email...not just Instagram..
OK we will do that!
Can do a test about mevo+ outdoor?
2 sb
GC Quad is just better for most applications including fitting. Trackman is better if you are going to use it outdoors exclusively. If you are in a dedicated spot indoors I’d recommend the GC Skyhawk.
I absolutely love the GCQUAD, using it everyday at the moment. Golf crazy! Haha Merry Xmas mate!
@@SkinsGolfTV In a home simulation system would you get the SkyHawk instead?
@@thegolflife7565 Honestly, I don't think I would. There is no difference in performance, it costs more to install, and you can't move it around if you want to go to the range, or use it in another location. I'd stick with the GCQUAD
does GC Quad pick up on accurate ball flight? Does it pick up big hooks or slices? Would be interested in an outdoor test of GC quad (with tablet to see ball flight) and compare that to actual real world ball flight on a non windy day
Can’t play with a lefty and a righty with the Quad. You will end up moving it.
Check the real weather application on the FSX software - would like to see comparison of spin rate - and did the caddy actually stand at the landing point haha. Issues happen when not center face , quad much better for off center hits, trackm better for ego. Quad hit is at point of impact , whereas trackm is at compression. Your thoughts? that is my understanding, happy to learn more or be corrected. nice work fellas!
I've heard a couple of people mention that difference, between the impact point and the compression point. The caddy was marking the ball for carry distance, but there may of been human error. Im gonna try the real weather update and see what its like, will let you know!
Can you guys have a giveaway for these?
haha free GCQUAD!
@@SkinsGolfTV worth a shot!
@@thegolflife7565 haha I think our channel would explode if we offered a free one of these bad boys,,
@@SkinsGolfTV I know! You’d go from 500 subscribers to 500,000
So basically your saying if your a boring Pro..you would buy the Trackman..Because its being used mostly outside..? and not the GC Quad...which seems to have a better feedback until Now..
I would always go for the GCQUAD. Rob prefers the trackman for teaching. Its really just personal preference
Your not looking at the gear effect when hitting driver - dont just loom at the path and face look at where it hit on the clubface
Walker Margaret Hernandez Helen Garcia Jeffrey
Wilson Michael Hall Dorothy Perez Anna
If yall go to a flat land area ,then try out the trackman/gc quad can yall use a wheel measure device to get exact data for better comparison. Or is this a stupid idea an I need to go throw my shit in the water 💧lol
So inaccurate with tracking distance. Not good for reviewing new drivers distances.
What kind of fucking divot is that. >
Technology has ruined the essence of golf.
Imagine playing a golf course with no distance markers and using clubs that dont have numbers but only lofts. That would be an interesting day.
24401 Abelardo Burg