Zwift software is awful

The mix of 3d avatars on real video looks a bit silly to me. A lot of people complain about the cheesy graphics on Zwift, but I think Rouvy looks 100 times worse. I suppose you get used to it after a while.


I agree with @Mike_Rowe1. Rouvy looks terrible.


One more agreeing with Mike: If I ride outside I pick routes and times with little to no traffic, so I don’t want to see cars and traffic while riding on my trainer.

Also Elite had the same thing 12 years ago, except for the virtual rider.

Video from 10 years ago. That is the same as my first smart trainer.

I did all of those routes and tried every possible piece software before Zwift.

1 Like

The assumption that most zwift users have these problems on this thread is mindblowing. The people that actually use this forum are a small subset of the user base and even within that small subset there are some that do not experience these issues. I have never had zwift crashes or connection issues. 3 years using the app on average PC and never get these issues that apparently so wide spread that the software is awful.

The user Dan has it right to some degree. If the software doesn’t meet your expectations just don’t pay. No need to stick around and keep making these forums so negative and toxic.


I notice Rouvy, like FulGaz, has my favorite climb, Old La Honda Road. I’ll need to try it! (if that’s possible on a trial basis).

1 Like

Totally agree. I took one quick look at Rouvy, and left.

If you like the video reality of Rouvy, try FulGaz.

We all have our opinions and aesthetics - it’s not helpful to confuse an aesthetic response with other conversations, IMO.

Rouvy has a far better ride simulation. There’s no comparison. For some, that is the most-important aspect of the software they use.

This conversation is about functionality - not taste. Zwift struggles to be stable.

What do you mean by ‘Rouvy has a far better ride simulation’? Rouvy is just a video with (sometimes) an avatar and a few other ‘tidbits’ superimposed (often poorly) onto it. With regard to ‘opinions and aesthetics’ I would say that ‘ride simulation’ might fall into the same category. I mean, for me, part of a ride is that I want to be able to take different turns at intersections (not possible with Rouvy) and I want to see other riders (pretty scant in Rouvy, and no one going the other direction), and I might want to make a loop and continue going (not possible in Rouvy - as far as I am aware). I’ll agree that different people will have different opinions, but to say that Rouvy has better functionality is, in my opinion, not the case.

They’re solving the same equations, perhaps with different coefficients (Zwift is very generous on the assumption of wind resistance). But rolling resistance and gravity are based on road grade, rider weight, coefficient of rolling resistance, and assumed equipment weight: each of these are going to be very similar between games (except perhaps how different surfaces are treated).

I also like FulGaz. If I want a fresh climb, and want to ride solo anyway, it’s a nice alternative to Zwift. I’ve not ridden Rouvy.

I don’t think there is a way to respond that won’t engender some already apparently-inflamed feelings.

I come from a cycling family. My dad raced in the 60’s/70’s. I did some (meaningless) racing in the 80’s, and currently we have a younger generation of the family who are sponsored and one UCI-Conti team member.

Most of us ride 5k+ miles a year.

I tell you that because cycling is different for everyone. But I also get a lot of feedback from people who ride five figure mileage and have a wide range of experience(s) on a bike.

Perhaps for some, cycling is primarily about making route choices, and visual experience. OK with me, and it seems you have found what makes you happy.

Try to understand that for others, cycling is a deeply physical activity. When I’m on a trainer, I seek to replicate my outdoor cycling experiences. I want an experience that feels like what I know.

That involves a variety of things, including micro-adjustments to employ momentum. Freewheeling in ways that take advantage of effort. Etc. Rides where sitting on the bike (trainer) feels more like gravity outside.

That is what I mean by ‘much more realistic.’

I have yet to meet people who are serious cyclists who don’t have issues with Zwift’s simulation.

Anyhow, be glad you found what makes you happy. I would like something as ‘developed’ as Zwift’s marketing and game design, but with the far-better ride-feel of Rouvy.


Well put: “different coefficients.”

Zwift exaggerates many things (drafting, road surface) in ways that feel cartoonish. It’s not the input data (after all, that comes from the sensors and is displayed and recorded) - it’s the output.