On the home page on SYSTM we are encouraged to check out RGT Real roads. Call me stupid but where are they on the platform? They are not in the menu or in any of the ride tabs either thanks
Hi @ozmadman, there are two types of roads in RGT:
- Real Roads - set of predefined routes created by RGT, available under Just Ride menu in RGT application, see screenshot bellow
- Magic Roads - user/community provided routes (via uploading gpx files to the RGT platform)
Thanks, so, are all the “Just Ride” rides real roads? if so why don’t they tell you that or just call them real roads in the first place and why are they all so short?. I have said this before, I find this platform, especially for a new user, the most confusing and frustrating one to navigate, nothing is explained, they use different names (such as this example) for the same thing so you are looking for something that doesn’t exist. The web app on my PC looks completely different to the one on my phone. Maybe its just me who has never used this kind of format or Zwift but I think a 1st year teenage computer programmer could do a better job at designing this app
Most of the routes e.g Canary Wharf, Dunoon, Flanders, are loops and can be ridden continuously in either direction. The Ventoux and Stelvio climbs are end to end ups (or downs). At 26km Mont Ventoux may appear short but will take anything from 1hr30 to 2hrs+ to climb and around 30 mins to descend.
Thanks, good to get an idea before riding them especially how long they may take
I think, in this instance, the fact that they are all named after real places or real events is supposed to be enough for you to come to that conclusion.
Yeah, it’s a bit odd that they talk about “Real Roads” as if it’s a class of ride, but the reality with RGT is that it’s pretty much all “Real Roads” (except it isn’t if you go looking for some of the magical Magic Roads), where Zwift for example is more virtual roads, even their recreations of real locations.
but the “real roads” aren’t really “real” in RGT. It’s not like FulGaz or some other actual road video you’re seeing on screen. I find it very much like Zwift in this sense.
Depends on your definition, I suppose.
No, you don’t get the real surrounds and photographic imagery, but the gradients and profiling are far more accurate, plus the physics for the most part works, so it’s not like Zwift at all
I agree RGT is much better with the physics in terms of drafting and slowing you down on turns during the descents and such but I’m not sure it’s fair to say its more accurate than Zwift when looking at something like Ventoux or the Alpe. For me, the surrounds and photographic imagery are REALLY important. It’s why I LOVE the SUF vids and the other SYSTM content. I just don’t find the visuals in RGT very engaging even when compared to Zwift. I think the dev team has some real work to do here.
I’m 100% in on the SUF for life front, it is always going to be 98% of my indoor cycling.
If I’m indoors, it’s typically because I have specific training I want to do or because outdoors is just too rubbish (for the bike more than me, usually), so I want to be working on something which benefits me through focused training, plus I find the videos SO much more engaging than any form of virtual riding.
I also agree that the RGT visual experience isn’t great, it doesn’t feel polished. It’s funny, though, because it’s all in the interface I think, graphically it’s possibly “better” by some metrics, but the impression it gives is still worse.
As a cycling experience, though, they are night and day for me. That drafting, slowing down for corners etc is absolutely critical. RGT speeds and behaviour seem reasonably sensible, I’m fully bored of seeing people posting rides to Strava from Zwift where they’ve averages 130w output and near 50kph speeds…
What I do like about RGT, however, is Magic Roads.
I’ve built myself a collection of real world rides either from my past, present or places I want to go in future, mostly climbs and it’s really good for that. It could absolutely look prettier, no question, but if you want to go cycling up Grosse Scheidegg in the Bern canton of Switzerland, well, you can do… (don’t, I used to do this in reality many years ago, did it in RGT the other weekend and it’s amusing to be reminded of rides where the 9% sections of a climb feel like the recovery sections)
It would be awesome to be able to get the surrounds and scenery looking more real, but actually the workload required to achieve that relative to the return…?
I’d love it to happen, I think it will be very low on the priority list.
That said, RGT desperately needs something more by way of generated surrounds for their Magic Roads at least, because if you care about the surroundings, they’re dull. I tend to only ride sections where you’re more focused on not dying than the screen
It’s also interesting that Magic Road “Ride now” doesn’t seem to be as nicely populated with flora and fauna as a scheduled ride on the same road.
Still, lets just hope this is all stuff that can be addressed with a hopefully growing user base.
I think we are in the same choir Sir
I LOVE the idea of Magic Roads and it is sooo full of potential, if a wee bit complicated atm for the less tech savvy user As it is right now though, I feel like it’s not a whole lot different than just re-riding a GPX file with your head unit controlling your trainer and a “road” in front of you to look at even if it doesn’t remotely look like the road.
With Google Maps, and Google Earth and all the data out there hopefully, one day a very clever dev (or 2, or 3 or…) will harvest all of that to make the visuals of the experience match the physics of it.
I am the same. I don’t use Zwift but obviously I have looked at it quite a bit and couldn’t help thinking that that graphics look 20 years out of date IMO. I don’t play computer games, can’t stand them, but my youngest 21 year old son does and some of the graphics are almost real life so I think online bike “game” graphics need a big update to make them engaging. This doesn’t inspire me at all, almost cartoon characters pedalling along so when I saw “real roads” I thought, great, something that may actually look realistic, but no just more of the same as Zwift visually. I am like you Glen, I like the SUF videos and other content that shows real people on real rides… I have done a few Magic road rides and generally just use them as a replacement for longer no vid rides to save me staring at the wall!
Interesting… I absolutely love Magic Roads (and to new users you HAVE to get familiar with GPXMagic, just hit “one-click quick fix” lol…and also wish they’d include a few more even “basic templates” such as “desert” , “mountain”?
I’ve only used the Ride now function with my own ones(always the same scenery) but a recent group RGT ride had what looked like everyday Scottish dark and gloomy skies lol- turns out it’s “Springtime in Europe”(summertime in Scotland!) and can be chosen as an alternative to the default one when you create an event… so in future I need to create my Scottish “Bonar Bridge to Ullapool C2C” as an event, choose this “springtime” backing and I’ll be watching to see what other stuff may be added in… Magic roads though…got a 100km Namibia Skeleton Coast, El Teide ascent 3 ways on Tenerife… no end to choice really, undoubtedly worth the money for this alone… (And with 100% trainer difficulty and your real world choice of gearing you can do the walk of shame in the pain cave not in public ha ha!!)
again, conceptually, Magic Roads is brilliant, especially for training and prep for real world courses. But to me, all this GPXMagic Stuff should be baked in as should some, like you say, “basic templates” at the very least. RGT is kinda funky enough with, at least to me, an awkward user interface. I’m looking forward to improvements but given the state of affairs I’ll have to be even more patient than I usually am
Now, am I understanding you right when you say, IF you create a magic road as an event, you DO get to pick some stuff as background, or is that what you’re hoping will happen next time you do it?
Seems you can choose between standard background and this “springtime in Europe”… There’s deffo moves afoot on them improving it(more of them) according to chat on the FB users page. My only gripes about Wahoo are that there’s the RGT “app” or user page for the sims that gets you to magic roads, but to edit/delete/create a segment(like Strava) you need to access that from another bit “user.rgtcycling.com”…But then SYSTM had me (not really computer literate) with this .FIT extension someone had kindly developed whereby I could take a “no vid” visually tedious workout from SYSTM over to RGT (Ie do a 3hr structured endurance ride overlaid on one of their “real roads”- that’s a point, you can’t do that with a magic road either!)… but not via my laptop or phone actual app, just the web based version (systm.wahoofitness.com)… Wahoo need to thank the lady that did it, give her a lifetime subscription and integrate it to their apps… The 4hr cutoff on Magic roads makes me look at group rides of 100km with 2000m+ ascent and think “no point”… Some of these would be a good slog-fest but completing it is part of the whole thing surely…??
I very much agree on this. RGT’s interface still looks pretty rough. But the Magic Roads and the physics are much better.
I think part of the issue with RGT is that it’s too close to the “Uncanny Valley”. Zwift is close enough to video game territory that we don’t care that it doesn’t look exactly real. So that makes it look more polished despite being less realistic.
RGT however tries to get the graphics to look much more realistic and gets close enough that it looks worse despite being closer. So that takes away from the improved physics and improved realism.
So maybe if RGT backed off just a bit it would improve the responsiveness as well as the look which would altogether improve RGT to make it look much better.
That and making the interface look a lot cleaner. It feels like the UI was made by a programmer rather than by a graphic designer. It does what it is supposed to do, but doesn’t look that great.
The graphics of magic roads is awful and reminds me of a 20 year old video game (Deus Ex 1). Even with high settings you get a boring tarmac road with coarse landscape, repetitive vegetation and poor weather simulation. In theory it is a good idea, but the implementation is not yet satisfactory.
The few times I’ve used RGT, I’ve quite enjoyed it.
Yet, I’d love to see video footage (like Rouvy, FulGaz) available for magic roads. Upload the .fit and video as a pair. Without video, maybe allow selecting a terrain (road, trail), locale (urban, rural, wooded, beach, mountains) and season.