Incremented game settings sliders

Great! Another settings slider where we have tu guesstimate where it’s at! The competition does it better.

I don’t have the Play, so I can’t comment on the need to be able to know if my braking sensitivity is at 43 or 44%.

It’s a general problem with all the sliders in settings. It’s especially annoying when your settings are reset to defaults and you want to put everything back to where you like it (eg, Trainer Difficulty).


All i want is to keep the colour of my tron slider :rofl:


It’s a lack of a number, but is it actually a problem? I was being a little snarky up there, but honest question.

I used to have a stereo years ago, the volume knob was analog, and didn’t have any numbers that it reported. It never occurred to me that it was difficult to get the volume, very quickly, where I wanted it to be. And when I adjust EQs for music, I never even look at the numbers on the scales. I set the sliders to a visual position, and quickly, and it’s fine.

If someone puts the slider in visually ‘the same spot’ as they have had it before, will they even notice a difference if it’s a mm off on screen from where it was before? If the range of that slider is viewed as 0-100, how inaccurate is it going to be to set it visually, without numbers? What will be the error range? 5%? I suspect people will be able to get it pretty reliably in what is functionally ‘the same spot’, and that it won’t be all that difficult.

Would numbers speed that up? Maybe. They would lead to a certain kind of accuracy, but possibly not to an experienced accuracy at all (meaning the user experience, in a blind study, might not differ at all). Slapping numbers on things doesn’t automatically make things work better. Sometimes they’re a solution in search of a problem.

You don’t want/need numbers other do want/need them.

If they were there you could easily not use them, if they aren’t there the people that do want them can’t use them.


I’m not going to fight against numbers on sliders :slight_smile: I’m just trying to suggest that they won’t really be as helpful as some might think. But placebos are useful and the placebo effect is a real effect, so–sure, number it up :smiley:

A racing series I participate in has requested a minimum Trainer Difficulty setting. I’d like to be able to set it in exactly that spot sometimes. I can edit the config manually but not everyone can. And I want to be able to reproduce my settings when I do a clean reinstallation. This is not my #1 priority for development work but it would be valuable to me.


That’s fair enough–if an RD is imposing a number on a numberless system, then a number would be useful, yeah.

I could be wrong but i’m pretty sure events team can set a minimum trainer difficulty might be the better way to go for the organiser.

Certainly worth an ask to the events team will save a lot of post race investigate on who does or doesn’t have it set.

I do like the idea of minimum difficulty but there is so many ways around it i’m not sure it’s really enforceable at community levels

I recently set my Saris H3 to 100% trainer difficulty for the first time in over 18 months, as a result of the shock of how tough real outdoor inclines of ~5%+ are, having gained ~15Kg (to 95) and having lost a chunky amount of leg power over the same period due to long covid.

It was an eye opener how tough the rollers in Titans Grove have become, as well as the ramps on New York forward/reverse KOMs! :astonished:

I think forcing 100% trainer difficulty would be a positive game changer for Zwift races.

Should Zwift races also mandate the physical gearing you have to use for a race?

Don’t forget to limit users to 10spd bikes or higher, or only virtual shifting

@shooj How hard can it be?? Every slider could be like a 10 cm ruler with millimeter increments.
I’ve wanted this feature ever since I discovered the trainer difficulty slider. I’m reluctant to move it, scared I won’t be able to put it back. Like to change for different routes, events. Even just being able to self test results with different percentage of trainer difficulty.

Gang - I split off this discussion into its own thread on the Features board so it’s not buried in a release note thread.

Thanks for the feedback, I’ll pass it along to the UI team.


I don’t really care if the organizer enforces it, but since I heard their views on it, I decided it would be sporting of me to comply

1 Like

There is a reason to have the actual number.

This article & chart from Zwift Insider
provides exact numbers for converting a current chain ring/cassette combo to a “virtual” 34/28 or 34/34.
Having 1:1 can be critical for hill climbing training, or someone may just want it.
This should be easy enough, and there isn’t a downside to doing so.

You misunderstand how TD works, and also gearing doesn’t matter for 99.9% of races because there are no hills of substance in them.

I can assure you that I understand how TD works. But requiring 100% TD won’t make any difference except on gradients, and on gradients physical gearing comes into play. And physical gearing comes into play on the flat too, where TD makes no difference.

So how would 100% TD for all achieve anything?

With TD at about 30%, I can race on Zwift on most courses without needing any gear changes!