Thanks for doing this video. I did a lot of research and decided to go with Eye XO. I do all my teaching indoors (North East US) so I can reach all year round and never need to be concerned about the weather. I was considering the new GC3 - but for the cost difference, the Eye XO seems like a much better solution and seems more open from a software perspective - integrating with more simulator platforms.
@@golfsimulatorSHOP I’m not sure I follow what you were trying to say in your reply. It seemed pretty clear to me that the ball speed was consistently a couple mph faster that the gc quad. It is pretty widely acknowledged that the gc2 or gc quad is quite accurate for ball data, so yes, it seems a bit concerning that the ball speed is consistently faster by a couple mph. I’m not knocking the product. I think it looks like a great lm. If I could get someone to buy my flightscope x2, I would probably buy one. But I’d be interested to hear any theories on why the ball speed was consistently higher, Tiger.
@@djproduct78 if you can play as accurate as 2 mph - then my friend you would be on Tour as you would be the most accurate golfer in the world. This fixing around 1 or 2 percent difference makes me mad - as this is not really do any harm to it.
Thanks for this. I am doing a room addition and went with the Eye XO. I have not been able to find any other comparison videos to the GCQ and the EXO. Other than the launch angle being consistently 1* high (and who is to say which one is right) and the ball speed being a 1-2 Mph higher, this really makes me feel great about the data I will be getting. How does driver compare? I would love to see you do a driver comparison. BTW, how does the EXO reported driver carry compare to your actual carry on the course (assuming great course conditions)? It sounds like though the EXO is giving you more consistent shapes to what you see on the course. That makes me a little suspect about the GCQ with side spin and side angle (assuming it is perfectly aligned). Nevertheless, the EXO, for the money at half the cost, seems to compare really well. Seems Uneekor really got the no mark ball technology right!
We do a Driver Video later this week. Compared to my outdoor distances this feels as real as it can get. When the weather will be better here, and warmer, we do an outdoor side by side comparision with Reality, Trackman, QUAD & XO in one shot so we have a perfect test for it.
not sure if anyone gives a damn but if you guys are bored like me during the covid times you can watch pretty much all the new movies on InstaFlixxer. Have been streaming with my gf these days =)
I have an QUAD for outdoor and a EyeXo for indoor and can not really see any difference on the data at all. As well a lot of my students I work with in our Team, have never complained about the club or the ball data at all. What is important on both systems, to use a good / best new ball to get the best results, as it looks camera systems need a good looking ball to operate properly. What counts for both if the stickers are placed not good, the data of the club is not good - so this is the only issue. We also have done cross tests with the XO/Quad Combi to a Trackman 4 and I can tell you, the Camera data is mostly the same, while the Radar shows sometimes not the same data, so anyone can make his own mindset out of it, whats better or not.
200 RPM is acutally not noteable and makes a so small difference. as well even the best launch monitors not always tracking the ball by 100% as we have done lots of robot testing as well, and there you see that all LM have variations ip to 3% +/- on their tracking!
Thanks for doing this video. I did a lot of research and decided to go with Eye XO. I do all my teaching indoors (North East US) so I can reach all year round and never need to be concerned about the weather. I was considering the new GC3 - but for the cost difference, the Eye XO seems like a much better solution and seems more open from a software perspective - integrating with more simulator platforms.
Appreciate the video. Biggest concern would be the difference in ball speed
concern? if you can hit it so pure that you are able to judge on the ball speed for every shot, tiger, is someone nobody would talk about after you.
@@golfsimulatorSHOP I’m not sure I follow what you were trying to say in your reply. It seemed pretty clear to me that the ball speed was consistently a couple mph faster that the gc quad. It is pretty widely acknowledged that the gc2 or gc quad is quite accurate for ball data, so yes, it seems a bit concerning that the ball speed is consistently faster by a couple mph. I’m not knocking the product. I think it looks like a great lm. If I could get someone to buy my flightscope x2, I would probably buy one. But I’d be interested to hear any theories on why the ball speed was consistently higher, Tiger.
@@djproduct78 if you can play as accurate as 2 mph - then my friend you would be on Tour as you would be the most accurate golfer in the world.
This fixing around 1 or 2 percent difference makes me mad - as this is not really do any harm to it.
Thanks for this. I am doing a room addition and went with the Eye XO. I have not been able to find any other comparison videos to the GCQ and the EXO. Other than the launch angle being consistently 1* high (and who is to say which one is right) and the ball speed being a 1-2 Mph higher, this really makes me feel great about the data I will be getting. How does driver compare? I would love to see you do a driver comparison. BTW, how does the EXO reported driver carry compare to your actual carry on the course (assuming great course conditions)? It sounds like though the EXO is giving you more consistent shapes to what you see on the course. That makes me a little suspect about the GCQ with side spin and side angle (assuming it is perfectly aligned). Nevertheless, the EXO, for the money at half the cost, seems to compare really well. Seems Uneekor really got the no mark ball technology right!
We do a Driver Video later this week.
Compared to my outdoor distances this feels as real as it can get.
When the weather will be better here, and warmer, we do an outdoor side by side comparision with Reality, Trackman, QUAD & XO in one shot so we have a perfect test for it.
Could you test Mevo+ against GCQuad?
Great video! is it possible to make a video like this but also have club data? :)
not sure if anyone gives a damn but if you guys are bored like me during the covid times you can watch pretty much all the new movies on InstaFlixxer. Have been streaming with my gf these days =)
@Damon Anders yup, have been using InstaFlixxer for since november myself :D
@Damon Anders Yea, I have been using InstaFlixxer for months myself =)
How does the club data compare to the GC Quad
I have an QUAD for outdoor and a EyeXo for indoor and can not really see any difference on the data at all.
As well a lot of my students I work with in our Team, have never complained about the club or the ball data at all.
What is important on both systems, to use a good / best new ball to get the best results, as it looks camera systems need a good looking ball to operate properly.
What counts for both if the stickers are placed not good, the data of the club is not good - so this is the only issue.
We also have done cross tests with the XO/Quad Combi to a Trackman 4 and I can tell you, the Camera data is mostly the same, while the Radar shows sometimes not the same data, so anyone can make his own mindset out of it, whats better or not.
XO seen to have about 200 more RPMs of spin than Quad. Otherwise seemed to have really comparable data. For the price advantage Uneekor EyeXO.
200 RPM is acutally not noteable and makes a so small difference. as well even the best launch monitors not always tracking the ball by 100% as we have done lots of robot testing as well, and there you see that all LM have variations ip to 3% +/- on their tracking!
when is Uneekor coming out with a portable unit, I have heard later this year or early next year!
so far no details on it from HQ
where did you hear that they are releasing a portable unit?