When I bought a laptop dedicated to Zwift, the store clerk recommended an entry-level model equipped with a relatively inexpensive GPU. Nothing more was required and sufficient for necessary upgrades unless Zwift suddenly evolved in a revolutionary way. That made me think about the importance of realistic graphics.
I started out on a stationary bike that displayed series of dots on a screen; the higher the stack, the more resistance. I spent thousands of kilometers on that machine. Then Kinomap, on a compatible stationary bike. Finally, I ended up with Zwift. Zwift uses a more game-like virtual display compared to other virtual cycling programs. And yet, the experience feels realistic. Oddly enough, other applications that use photorealistic video in which avatars are projected feel somewhat artificial or even clumsy. The contrast between the environment and the avatar spoils the feeling. To what extent should the design be more realistic? I wouldn’t mind a significant upgrade, even if that would require more powerful hardware. But the avatar and environment must remain seamlessly compatible. What is your opinion?
I prefer the look of the higher graphics profiles in Zwift, which are not available when using a Windows PC that has integrated graphics (which includes most PC laptops that aren’t designed for gaming). Having a real GPU in a PC also unlocks higher screen resolution possibilities, which look better to me especially on a larger display.
I don’t like the look of the avatars in any cycling simulators other than Zwift either. They don’t move properly and that’s distracting. It gives most of those apps a very low quality look to me, even if the rest of what’s on the screen is more realistic.
That really depends if you are into graphics or not. I wouldnt spent any money to get “better” graphics, cos it doesnt maker u/me any faster. I dont care, if I dont get the high resolution.
Same, I couldn’t care less about the graphics, they could be Minecraft characters for all it would bother me. Quite happy to workouts in a block format instead of a route, as some other apps do.
Yeah, the other apps’ avatars look out of place in their environments (animations look too robotic, or they do not look at all integrated into the environment they are riding in, or their animation seem completely detached from their movement speed etc.), in some cases they look outright silly. I know the basic functionality of those apps should be more important than the graphics, but it grates on me personally, and is definitely one thing that Zwift does pretty well in comparison.
People don’t want realistic graphics we’ve seen them say over time, but heaven help Zwift if their realistic bike shadows go missing!
Eventually I hope for graphics like in the TDF game with much better light quality, or even like MSFS. That’s possible now without taxing computers / tablets too heavily. But it’s a big amount of work and things like stopping exploits / cheating are more important.
High-quality graphics mean more than just pretty pictures. Correctly displaying a changing image at a given speed allows you to estimate the energy required to close the gap or keep pushing until the road flattens out and you can recover. The human brain makes lightning-fast estimations based on images. Zwift still has room for improvement in this area. But improvement goes hand in hand with hardware and its limitations. I’m not into games at all (I’m stuck on Space Invaders ;), but when I see the computer games my children, and now my grandchildren, play, it’s truly astonishing.
Am not that bothered by realistic scenery etc which is probably why I actually like the climb portals and the colour coded gradients where some people seem to think zwift went backwards for this environment
I haven’t done those climb portals yet. Not for me, too monotonous. I understand the idea; the resistance data from those climbs will be pretty close to reality. It takes little data and processing power to integrate and run it. Currently, there are only two better-visualized climbs in Zwift that actually exist. And they’ve been careful not to make them look too much like the real environment. As soon as you start doing that, you get criticism that it’s not quite… A bit of a shame.
For me the graphics don’t necessarily have to be realistic, they have to be interesting to look at. The graphics in Watopia, Makuri and Scotland mostly are, the graphics in eg. London, New York and Innsbruck are dreadful boring……
I am not a fan of the climb portal either, only doing them now for the XP as I have completed most routes
Before they think about improving the graphics, they should be working in bringing back video screenshots on less powerful hardware.
I’m afraid the arrow of the future points up and not down. As the song goes, “Video Killed the Radio Star.”
With efficiency gains in the code, there may be pleasant surprises, though. Asking for an iPad Pro from 2018.
Alexander,
Most Android tablets have a built in video screen capture function. It’s in the “Quick Settings” menu that you “pull” down from the top of the screen. It’s called “Screen Recorder”, symbol is a camcorder with brackets in the four corners around it. I used it to record an entire tiny race to show my family, resolution was fine and the video was like 10 mins long.
Speaking of Android tablets, I just wish they would enable higher graphic quality settings on them, or make an Android TV app that can show pc lvl graphics. That would be a nice start
Cheers
In the digital world, things evolve quickly. And the industry isn’t eager to spend a lot of time and money on older technology to keep it running. Just look at Microsoft Windows. I started Zwift on an Android tablet until it stopped working. Then on a Samsung Galaxy smartphone. It worked fine until I noticed the graphics quality on a friend’s laptop. He’d bought it secondhand for a fraction of the price of my smartphone. That made me decide to buy a cheap entry-level laptop. Same with the Zwift ride; I had a two-year-old Wahoo Kickr that was more expensive than the Zwift ride and its smart trainer. But it couldn’t be upgraded. That decision also came after a test ride. Zwift can easily be done on a budget. But once you experience better quality… In any case, Zwift costs me a fraction of what I used to spend on cycling in real life.