So this allowed us to set both up at the same time and have recordings for each launch monitor with the same shot. So we thought a comparison test between the Foresight GC Quad and Trackman 4 would be really interesting… Is this GC3 something that you’re considering? Let me know in the comment section below.We had a little play with the Foresight GC Quad in Orlando but were very keen to get it back to the Golf Shack at Moor Allerton in Leeds and test it more thoroughly.Īs you will have seen from our previous videos, we do all our current testing using Trackman 4. The only differences are the logo and the upfront costs.
#FORESIGHT GCQUAD PRO#
I want to be clear that the Foresight GC3 and the Bushnell Launch Pro are the same exact device and will provide the same data with equal accuracy. If you want the same capabilities as the GC3 straight away, The Gold package is $799 a year.
#FORESIGHT GCQUAD SOFTWARE#
However, you have the option to buy the Bushnell Launch Pro model for $3,000 and add the features you want via software subscriptions. I understand that the GC3 costs $7,000 and can be out of the price range for some golfers. The Foresight GC3 is more capable than other units in the Personal Launch Monitor market.
#FORESIGHT GCQUAD SIMULATOR#
Plus, in the off-season, you can get grinding on your swing with more data than has been available to you before.įinally, if you’re looking for something to take your mind off work, you can use the GC3 in the simulator setting again via an iPad, computer, or iPhone and play the Fairground games or Zombie Apocolypse. You can link the GC3 up to a computer or iPad and play famous courses around the world without leaving your house. Those who have or will have an indoor hitting space in their house can benefit immensely. You can also take it to your events and still get reliable data regardless of temperature, altitude, or humidity. If you’re a serious golfer, you can get dialed in with ACCURATE numbers. Let’s talk about what the GC3 could improve on! So I’m not sure if I would rely on that data to translate to the course. Sometimes it’s less, sometimes considerably more. While the more inexpensive units do well for a couple of metrics, a 7.64% average difference in carry can amount to more than a club length. Apples and oranges, perhaps, but if you’re wondering what you get for the extra cash, here is a comparison between the Garmin R10, Rapsodo, and the GC3 compared to the GC Quad.Īs you can see, both of these personal launch monitors don’t even sniff the GC3. The question is, how does the GC3 hold up against other Personal Launch Monitors? It’s a bit of a loaded question given the not entirely insignificant price difference. What we’ve seen suggests the Foresight GC3 does accurately capture head data, and given the capture methodology is the same as the GCQuad, the expectation is that head data will be consistent and accurate.Īre we confident? Definitely. Unfortunately, while we can capture ball data while running the units side-by-side (well, across from each other), the same method won’t work for head data. While I did hit a single shot where the units disagreed by about 300 RPM, a healthy number of shots were bang on, often within 50-100 RPM of the GCQuad. Even with the challenges of running both units in parallel, The ball was exceptionally close – consistently closer than we’ve seen with any personal launch monitor we’ve tested to date. Both units leverage the same flight algorithms, and both capture data reliable.
0 kommentar(er)
