Spot on!
This is what I am struggling with, there seems to me to be no technical reason why the software simulation of virtual speed should not be the same for all trainers, especially smart resistance controlled trainers that have every capability the bkool pro has.
They just don't seem to understand, or can't explain! I think they are confusing the issue with non-resistance controlled trainers where they cannot reduce the resistance of the trainer while simulating a descent (but could still simulate descending speeds), but this does not apply to the Wahoo KICKR and many other smart trainers.I repeat, these smart resistance controlled trainers have every capability the bkool pro has!
We need to get through to the technical people directly involved with the simulation algorithms.
It destroys the claim to support other smart trainers and ruins multi-player rides, withdrawing the major reason to pay for premium subscriptions.
In my opinion, if Bkool want to keep owners of other smart trainers paying for subscriptions they MUST fix this issue.
Geoff
I found interesting the answer from Bkool in which they said that the problem is tacx's implementation of ANT+-FE-C protocol. So I have been playing a little more with the vortex. You see, if the trainer is paired as a "power device" instead of the ANT+-FE-C protocol, the virtual speed works all right for the tacx and speeds up in downs like the Bkool trainer does. So one possible thing to do would be to pair the Tacx with a different controlling headunit as an ERG trainer (e.g., a garmin edge 520, or another software like goldencheetah, etc running in parallell), fix the watts to the %FTP wattage that you want to use in a race, and give a go to league stages in this mode and check if it is fun and more even running them. Of course it kills the whole idea of having a software-controlled resistance trainer to use it as an ergo trainer, but it could be OK for the actual multiplayer races. Using an edge 520, for example, it would be even possible to change the desired wattage during the race to push harder or lighter to account for the ups and downs focusing on the watts and the achieved speeds. I'll give it a go.
I also find interesting the fact that the only trainers that accept BSim "virtual speed" are Bkool and Elite, because these are the brands that specifically do not broadcast speed/cadence/power data independently of the FE-C protocol through ANT+, while Tacx and Wahoo do it. So it is actually possible that the different behaviour of the trainers is related to the fact that Tacx and Wahoo trainers do broadcast these data from internal sensors "embedded" in the ANT+-FE-C protocol and independently through ANT+, and the data cannot be override by the simulator. If this is the case, Bkool's answer could be partly true although still I don't know if this is easily fixable and who should fix it.
In any case, both Bkool and Tacx have clear reasons to fix this urgently: Bkool because there are about 10 trainers for each Bkool trainer out there looking for a decent software, and willing to pay their subscription if it works. Yes, even with its many quirks and oddities, if it were levelled between different trainers it is certainly fun to ride and it has unique features that are not to be found elsewhere. Whereas if they don't take care of this they are not going to get our premium renewals because it is just not fun with a tacx trainer. Tacx, on the other hand, is heavily positioned in the hardware side and they lead the sales of low-mid range budget trainers without a competitive multiplayer software. So as much as both would like to keep both sides of the business they cannot do that once the protocols are open.
Personally as a vortex smart rider I don't see a reason to renew my premium membership until this is fixed. Nor to recommend it to other riding mates. It just kills the multiplayer Bsim experience.
