Variograph vs FlyMe: a vario app and an analysis platform

Comparing the vario app on your phone with an analysis platform is like comparing an altimeter with a logbook. Both concern the same flight, at different moments and with different questions.

The FlyMe side: measuring and recording

FlyMe is one of the apps that turn a phone into a flight instrument. What everything in that category shares:

• Live climb and sink, audible and on screen
• Altitude, speed, duration
• Recording the flight to IGC or a similar format

In the air that is both sufficient and necessary. The one thing asked of a flight instrument is to show the present moment without lag.

The Variograph side: reading

When the recording stops you are left with a file of thousands of lines. On its own it says nothing. Variograph reads it:

• Splits the track into thermals and glides, each with duration, gain and average climb
• Adds your wing's sink back with net vario; what remains is the air's own climb
• Derives an altitude-layered wind profile from thermal drift
• Puts the moments you flew through without noticing in front of you, via the safety score and incident list
• Archives flights: takeoff collection, per-wing performance, labels and filters

Measurement versus interpretation

A vario says "+2.4 m/s". That is a measurement.

An analysis says "you gained 620 m in four minutes in this thermal; the air itself was climbing at 3.7 m/s; your first circle averaged half of your last, so you lost time on entry". That is an interpretation — and it can only be made after the flight, looking at the whole track.

In the air you need measurement, not interpretation. After landing every measurement is already in the file; interpretation is what is missing.

Using both

• Fly and record — with FlyMe or whichever instrument you use.
• Export the flight (IGC preferred; GPX accepted).
• Upload it to the dashboard. The raw file is stored unmodified.
• Read the thermals, the wind and the scores; watch the flight back in 3D.

Common questions

My vario app already shows a summary.

A summary is the total of one flight: duration, maximum altitude, distance. An analysis looks *inside* the flight — how many thermals, at what strength, at what glide efficiency — and makes flights comparable to one another.

I have a GPX, not an IGC.

Both upload. IGC's difference is that it carries barometric altitude and a digital signature; GPS altitude is noisier.

My log is low frequency — does that matter?

It can. A 5 s sample rate lowers thermal resolution. The analysis does not hide it: the data quality panel reports sample rate, dropouts and GPS jumps as a badge.

Further reading

Other comparisons: XCTrack, FlySkyHy, LK8000.