OT- Golf Simulator/Launch Monitor for Club

[David Amarnek]

My club in St. Louis is looking at establishing an indoor facility and we are in the process of looking at the necessary equipment.  I'm familiar with Trackman used at another club where I belong and think it's great.  Does anyone use Foresight's GC Quad?  What about the mat and monitor set-up?  Any comments by those with experience in this area would be most appreciated.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My club in St. Louis is looking at establishing an indoor facility and we are in the process of looking at the necessary equipment.  I'm familiar with Trackman used at another club where I belong and think it's great.  Does anyone use Foresight's GC Quad?  What about the mat and monitor set-up?  Any comments by those with experience in this area would be most appreciated.

The downside of a GCQuad or any of the photo-based LMs is that they have to be spun around (and thus aligned) for righties and lefties. The advantage is that they require less space.

[Amol Yajnik]

Foresight now has a system called GCHawk that can be mounted on the roof and eliminates the left/right issue that Erik talks about.


https://www.foresightsports.com/gchawk

Trackman is excellent outside, but inside, there needs to be enough room for the Trackman to accurately measure spin otherwise it will try to estimate spin on every shot.  Easy way to tell that Trackman is estimating spin is that the spin number is italicized.

[David Amarnek]

Thanks!

[SB]

There are a million simulator companies out there, each with strengths and weaknesses.  The first question is what is it going to be used for?  Is it going to be a winter amenity so people can have fun and swing the club in January?  Is it going to be for lessons?  Is it going to be used mostly for fitting?  Something to turn 5 handicaps into scratch golfers?  Each of those is a completely different system.  Then once you do that, narrow down by budget.  You will still have multiple options to choose from.

[David Amarnek]

SBusch,
Thanks for your reply.
Our primary purpose for the entity, at the start, will be for winter use in our clubhouse (practice, lessons, club fitting, social gatherings, etc.).
We have plans on eventually re-doing the pro shop and creating an indoor/outdoor facility with direct access to our practice range.
The budget for the initial project should cover any simulator/mat/screen or monitor option.


David

[Mike_Young]

We have a few of the Mevo Plus (about $2000 each) and use them for teaching as well as entertainment.  For a couple hundred bucks you can get like 100 courses which will project on the inside simulator.  Mevo is made by Flightscope and will do 90 percent of what Trackman and the other expensive systems will do.  Works for most issues.  But you a good projector for a couple thousand and an impact screen and you are set...  work both left and right....JMO

[Jason Topp]

Foresight and Trackman are the top line products.

Based on online videos, the top club-fitters generally use Foresight and it seems to have some advantages indoors over trackman. 


The club numbers produced are a bit different between Foresight and Trackman.  As I understand it the difference has to do with the part of the clubhead they measure.  Swing speed will show up a bit faster on foresight but the ball numbers are supposedly very similar. 


Here is a video comparing Skytrack v. Foresight.  Short summary - SkyTrack appears less accurate with irons and driver.  OK on wedges.


https://youtu.be/17ICvO80dFQ

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

In my opinion here is the order of quality for a clubs investment
1.Trackman
2.Trackman
3.Trackman


There is a reason those guys on tour ALL pay for their own Trackmans, simple as that.
The most accurate data, best graphics on the Trackman range, best graphics on their Course playing games.
The best variety of 'extras' that is out there.

[JESII]

I'm not so sure about that Michael...I see a lot of the ForeSight machines out there now. I've also been told by a couple people that spend considerable time in this world that ForeSight's technology is a fair bit better in delivering club and launch details.


My understanding is that Trackman's strength is it's radar technology. It actually sees the ball through flight and delivers key metrics from that back to you. Foresight's strength is it's camera technology at, and around, impact that can display every imaginable number.


I assume the Trackman computer somehow takes what the ball does and converts that back to launch conditions and Foresight takes the launch conditions and calculates what the ball would do...

[David Amarnek]

Thanks for all the responses!


David

[Mike_Young]

The tour players also play forged blades and they are probably the best clubs but they certainly are not for most of us.  Foresight, Trackman and Flightscope are all right there when it comes to what a tour player and a teaching pro may want but if this is for a simulator or a center at a club where the individual members will be handling the machine it needs to be a little simpler.  95% of the golfers don't need the data the top line machines provide.  And if a club is using their simulators for entertainment such as playing various courses indoors etc then you can have just as good of an experience for much less...JMO

[JESII]

I'm sure I agree.


I will say, the top of the line machines work out to be a mere fraction of the cost I'm seeing clubs invest into these set ups. Pretty amazing really. A combination of Covid insanity and Other People's Money...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In my opinion here is the order of quality for a clubs investment
1.Trackman
2.Trackman
3.Trackman

FlightScope is just as good, and was actually more accurate/better in recent past.

There is a reason those guys on tour ALL pay for their own Trackmans, simple as that.

Yes, marketing budgets. And more and more are carrying GCQuads around these days.

[Pat Burke]

The club I just left had 3 FullSwing simulators in our bar/grill room.
We were very dissatisfied with there customer service, but for entertainment/simulation they were fun.


We tested them alongside a GCQuad, and our unscientific findings just messin around for a day confirmed my own experience of inaccurate results on golf shots.


We ended up replacing the three units with GCHawks
They gave us better data collection to teach/fit. Good entertainment for simulation.


And it looks like their new simulation upgrades due out mid year sometime are going to be really good.


The GCHawk allows for the righty/lefty play, but no portability.


It was a great “fit” for the needs of that club

[PCCraig]

We installed a couple of trackman simulators a couple of winters ago at my home club. They have been hugely popular in the winter.


To be honest, they are expensive but they are the best. Many less expensive options just aren't the same.

[JESII]

If space is an issue, the Trackman has to be ~7’ behind the ball and Foresight is even with or ahead depending on the model.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

In my opinion here is the order of quality for a clubs investment
1.Trackman
2.Trackman
3.Trackman

FlightScope is just as good, and was actually more accurate/better in recent past.


Depends what you want to use it for.
Flightscope is not nearly as good for a club if the intent is to use it for teaching purposes.
The in built video tech with Trackman is far superior to any other product out there for teaching purposes.
The big advantage of Flightscope is that it is indeed easier to take on course and check shot numbers, but most of those on tour are then returning to the trackman when on the range or in a more controlled enviroment.
I am sure that the folks in Denmark have taken a look at this and watch this space as they say.

There is a reason those guys on tour ALL pay for their own Trackmans, simple as that.

Yes, marketing budgets. And more and more are carrying GCQuads around these days.

[Pat Burke]

For the record
I have taught quite a bit at a studio in southern Ca that uses Trackman.  They have the space and invest in the experience to make those work tremendously.


At the club I just left, the GCHawks were a better “fit” in our bays.  There was simply not enough room for trackman to be effective.


We spent somewhere around $75g for our three bays replacing the FullSwing units. We were able to repurpose the screens, mats, lights and importantly , the projectors.  That saved us a lot of money.


My focus is on accuracy.  As a former player and teacher, the GCHawks were really impressive with the shots, club data (with stickers on clubs) but also in simulation.
I tested it a lot on Pebble Beach, I’ve been blessed to play  a lot Of rounds there, and I felt there was a lot of accuracy in shots I recognized or knew.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Depends what you want to use it for.
Flightscope is not nearly as good for a club if the intent is to use it for teaching purposes.

FlightScope has long worked better with divots and was more accurate than Trackman for AoA. You seem to be basing your opinion almost entirely on… "built in video tech"?

The big advantage of Flightscope is that it is indeed easier to take on course and check shot numbers, but most of those on tour are then returning to the trackman when on the range or in a more controlled enviroment.

Or their GCQuads.

Trackman and FlightScope are nearly identical. Trackman still costs a heckuva lot more (including yearly). Trackman's software UX is a bit better, I think most agree, but $12k + $2k better?

Trackman got the leg up (despite FlightScope being first in the market) because of the bigger marketing spend. They got the mind share win early on.

Which any place ends up going with is a matter of understanding the landscape, your budget, and the trade-offs of each. Like anything.