Thanks for the info. I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t something I had done. I liked it when you could see both.
Agreed. Rouvy seem to have made a mess of it with this one. There’s been lots of complaints on FB. In line with your previous comment about the different capabilities on different platforms (web, app, etc), this one appears to be connected to the development of a companion app which is only in a closed beta at the moment
Their companion app is currently not in closed beta, but in beta (open to public). It is available for Android and iOS. See their article about it.
Thanks @rdo I’ll give it a go
RGT is preferable in regard to virtual gear adjustment (trainer difficulty)versus Rouvy’s reality level.
This was from one of my previous posts. After reviewing these features, I have now come to the conclusion these are basically the same. Is this your understanding?
Hello, I think that
reality level (term used in Rouvy) or
trainer difficulty (term used in RGT or Zwift) are basically two terms for the same function - translating the virtual slope to trainer resistance in simulation mode. I have always set this to 100% and according to my experience (and feeling) with my Elite Direto trainer, it is pretty much the same for RGT, Rouvy and Zwift.
Thanks for your response. There was another thread discussing power on RGT and it referred to the the trainer difficulty as essentially being able to give the effect of a larger cog for climbing. There was also support information describing it decreasing the load being sent to the trainer.
The explanation of reality level on Rouvy describes it as essentially flattening the slope of the hill. At a 50% level, a 10% slope becomes 5%.
It seems your experience says these 3 explanations all have the same impact/meaning.
If you compare the function description between platforms:
you will find it is exactly the same function.
Yes, if you climb some brutal hill and you cannot pedal anymore even with the smallest gear ratio, you can lower the trainer difficulty to lower the resistance (or you can change the cassette ).
Thanks for the links. Reading the 3 explanations helped me. The Zwift explanation actually answered my original question about just spinning on downhills. Apparently lowering the level will add resistance on the downhills.
I am just curious - did Rouvy support resolved your ticket?
Here is what they said.
On iPhone are you checking for the completed activities on the browser or you are checking on the app? On the app, it is not possible to see completed activities.
Here is the initial response from support. Since both the iPad and iPhone are running the app, I sent them the screenshots. I don’t believe I ever got an answer to my response.
I did adjust the reality level to 50% since it was level I was utilizing in RGT. Yesterday, I rode Passo Dello Stelvio on RGT. Today, I rode Alpe D’Huez on Rouvy.
Here are my results.
RGT - Passo 6.75 miles, 2828 ft climbed, 8% avg grade, 187 avg power, 1:06 elapsed time.
Rouvy -Alpe 8.53 miles, 3,619 ft climbed, 8% avg grade, 192 avg power, 0:48 elapsed time.
I’m not sure what to make of the results. It would seem to me there is some difference in what the 2 programs are sending to the trainer. I was able to climb 800 addn’l ft in 18 less minutes at approximately the same power on Rouvy.
Adjusting a trainer difficulty down to 50% will not help when you ride outdoors.
I stayed at 100% so I could increase the strength in my legs. Better to get a grearing change on your trainer bike. It will bare results in the long term.
Thanks for your comment. I understand I am not getting a true impression of the climb.
I have been giving Rouvy a look as a companion app. Up until today, I had been riding it at 100%. I was comparing Rouvy’s reality level setting versus trainer difficulty setting in RGT. I have been using trainer difficulty in RGT as a method of virtual gearing. It certainly doesn’t appear they are sending the same control information to my trainer.
Short of changing gearing, the settings do allow me to enjoy climbs with higher gradients (at least virtually).
Today, all my riding is indoors, but I’m hoping to change that going forward.
Thanks for sharing your experience with Rouvy support.
I have contacted them a long time ago (maybe more than two years ago) and I remember I was successfull and they were helpfull to answer my questions.
As for your comparison:
I think you should at least compare the same routes. E.g. you can export route from Rouvy in GPX format and then use thhat GPX file to create Magic Route in RGT.
From avg grade and avg power it seems that the resistance was about the same. This is controlled by your trainer difficulty setting and slope. This is fine and expected. How this power and trainer difficulty is translated to virtual speed (and hence the time) is completely different story with additional variables.
Any idea which you think most closely approximates outdoor reality?
In Rouvy activities it gives me the option to export as TCX or FIT. Will either of these work?
What you are trying is exporting the activity, not route. To export route from Rouvy as GPX you must open route detail on their web site and there is the option to export:
I have no scientific comparison or explanation, but according to my experience and quick data compare, Rouvy is pretty close to my outdoor experience in terms of power profile dynamics and resulting average speed. I have ridden several routes in my neighborhood in real life and in Rouvy, so I know how I feel in my favourite local climb both outdoors and indoors.
RGT is comparable to Rouvy, but with RGT I have much less experience.
Another less known application, which simulation is close to reality and I have very good experience with is BigRingVR.
Thanks for information on downloading the GPX file as well as the other insights you have shared.
The gps file you download from Rouvy doesn’t have elevation data associated with it.
The txc and fit files are meant for you to use with an export to a service that retracts your training.