Flght-1 Cessna Mustang

[Steve Halpern 176]

Ryan,The AMD 6000 processor is likely not quite up to the specs for this product. You need something more current and powerful. Some machines may work with this, but it has to be optimized in maybe other areas. But still, we would not recommend this product for the chip you have.In general, if you have a Laptop, the Mustang will only really be good for only the newest gaming laptops.So I think that any issues you have can only be minimally addressed, because your computer specs are just not there.Steve

[Guest Brad33712]

Ryan,The AMD 6000 processor is likely not quite up to the specs for this product. You need something more current and powerful. Some machines may work with this, but it has to be optimized in maybe other areas. But still, we would not recommend this product for the chip you have.In general, if you have a Laptop, the Mustang will only really be good for only the newest gaming laptops.So I think that any issues you have can only be minimally addressed, because your computer specs are just not there.Steve

Any opinion how my system would handle the Mustang?BradIntel E8600 Core 2 Duo 3.33 Ghz2 Gb DDR3 system ramAsus X48 chipset motherboardWD Velociraptor 300 Gb SATAEVGA 9800 GTX+ 1Gb video ramFSX+UTX+GEX+FEX+ASX

[jrhoads 6]

Any opinion how my system would handle the Mustang?BradIntel E8600 Core 2 Duo 3.33 Ghz2 Gb DDR3 system ramAsus X48 chipset motherboardWD Velociraptor 300 Gb SATAEVGA 9800 GTX+ 1Gb video ramFSX+UTX+GEX+FEX+ASX

Hi Brad,I cannot say 100 % sure but you have 30 days to evaluate the product. You really cannot lose.Jim

[ryanbatc 12,773]

I understand, but no matter what system you run you will take a performance loss with the G1000 gauges. It's not an error in programming, it's just the complexity of the gauges. If I were running a clocked i7 940 @ 4.0 Ghz, I'd still take a 10-15 fps loss in the VC. The 10-15 doesnt matter once you get up in the 30's and 40's. That's the reason why you need to run a fast CPU for this plane. The guy with the 3.33Ghz should do fine as long as he stays away from major cities. And yeah, 30day guarantee, can't go wrong with that, might as well try it!

[Spaceman3 1]

Tried it, returned it. Too many bugs and issues that the developers would not or tried really hard not to acknowledge. Customer support was poor and hostile. Frames were just ok on my fairly new machine. The VC was beautiful though, but you can probably tell that from the screen shots.

I understand, but no matter what system you run you will take a performance loss with the G1000 gauges. It's not an error in programming, it's just the complexity of the gauges. If I were running a clocked i7 940 @ 4.0 Ghz, I'd still take a 10-15 fps loss in the VC. The 10-15 doesnt matter once you get up in the 30's and 40's. That's the reason why you need to run a fast CPU for this plane. The guy with the 3.33Ghz should do fine as long as he stays away from major cities. And yeah, 30day guarantee, can't go wrong with that, might as well try it!

I don't quite buy that. I have other complex heavily glass cockpits that don't kill my machine. I guess it depends on what you're comparing it to. The Petraeus Index is good for judging performance.

[McCrash 3]

Hello,I'm thinking of purchasing a short hop biz jet for FSX and was looking at the Mustang from Flight-1.At $54.00 it's not exactly cheap so I'm hoping any pilots here who own it could give me your pros and cons.I was also looking at The Wilco Legacy product which is cheaper but judging from the cockpit pics doesn't look as high quality as The Mustang.I would be interested and gratefull to hear your thoughts on both products.Thank You/Patrick/

I think the Mustang is worth the price. There is also EagleSoft's Premier 1.

[ahuimanu 50]

Yeah, the Mustang is a top contender for the long-run - something you'll want in your hangar to be sure.Since we are sharing specs... with this rig I struggle with frames in VC in more densely populated areas:Intel Core 2 X6800 @ 2.93 Ghz per core8 GB of PC6400 RAMASUS P5W DH Deluxe MoboATI 4780 1GB VramVista Ultimate 64I have middling settings in FSX.cfg with some of the more common FSX SP2-oriented tweaks and settings in the config.I'd also say that running 2 1680x1050 monitors off the single ATI 4870 might be a bit of a factor, but more processor is the name of the game. This system is 3 years old save for the vid card.I think I can put a system together in a year which will smooth FSX out and get it into the territory where FS2004 is now in terms of fluid performance with high-spec addons like the Mustang. Still, CPU is the magic salve for the Mustang or anything else; get a cryogenically-cooled monster CPU OC'd to 6.0 GHz and all of FSX would be "like buttah."

[WarpD 824]

Tried it, returned it. Too many bugs and issues that the developers would not or tried really hard not to acknowledge. Customer support was poor and hostile. Frames were just ok on my fairly new machine. The VC was beautiful though, but you can probably tell that from the screen shots.I don't quite buy that. I have other complex heavily glass cockpits that don't kill my machine. I guess it depends on what you're comparing it to. The Petraeus Index is good for judging performance.

I can't think of a single other real world aircraft that has as complex a glass system as the Mustang's G1000. Please, enlighten me on what other aircraft display as much information. :(

[scott967 62]

Have they ever updated the G1000 database or provided a means for user updating of the data? I think their user forum is licensed only, and they have a "potential user" info forum, but it seemed kind of vague last I looked.Has anyone done a comparison of the Mustang G1000 and the default and Mindstar? I am interested in possible doing a home cockpit with 2 touch screen lcds for the G1000. scott s..

[Guest Nick_N]

As someone who was involved with high tech aerospace with MD/Boeing I do remember my way around A/C systemsA real Garmin trainer will bring most systems to their knees without a sim running at the same time. There is no Garmin on the market that even comes close for MSFS.There are people with P4 and AMD processors using this aircraft. The only people I ever see complain about this aircraft are those who are for the most part armchair pilots who have never been on the flight deck of a real jet and would rather watch the scenery and silly cars go by below than fly a plane, or, they do not take heed to how to set up a system or a sim properly for the plane they are flying and spec the right hardware for what they wish to accomplish. There are very few aircraft I make comments about however this one is for real pilots and people who treat their computer hardware the same as a real pilot would their own aircraftThe Mustang was nailed, 90% of the real deal. Even the people at Cessna who built the RW version stated F1 nailed this A/C and that is where the rubber meets the road.If you are a RW pilot or someone who wishes to be treated like one by a sim aircraft and not some

[MatthewS 761]

Plane is awesome except for one thing, fps in the VC. I got a drop of 29 fps going from an outside view to the VC, so I got my money back, I really loved the plane and wanted to keep it, but I only fly in the VC, 2D panel had no fps issues.

I had the same problem, lower FPS and "stutter" in the VC. Other complex add-ons such as the PMDG MD11 and LDS 767 are nice and smooth on my PC. I returned it for a refund, but then I am very picky regarding FPS, most people have no issues with FPS.edit: The avionics/systems modeling is excellent and you should at least try it out (30 day money back guarantee), you have nothing to lose. Flight1 are a very reputable publisher.

[Geofa 108]

As someone who was involved with high tech aerospace with MD/Boeing I do remember my way around A/C systemsA real Garmin trainer will bring most systems to their knees without a sim running at the same time. There is no Garmin on the market that even comes close for MSFS.There are people with P4 and AMD processors using this aircraft. The only people I ever see complain about this aircraft are those who are for the most part armchair pilots who have never been on the flight deck of a real jet and would rather watch the scenery and silly cars go by below than fly a plane, or, they do not take heed to how to set up a system or a sim properly for the plane they are flying and spec the right hardware for what they wish to accomplish. There are very few aircraft I make comments about however this one is for real pilots and people who treat their computer hardware the same as a real pilot would their own aircraftThe Mustang was nailed, 90% of the real deal. Even the people at Cessna who built the RW version stated F1 nailed this A/C and that is where the rubber meets the road.If you are a RW pilot or someone who wishes to be treated like one by a sim aircraft and not some

[chapstick 2,757]

No VNAV, meh. In this price range I would have expected that.

[Geofa 108]

No VNAV, meh. In this price range I would have expected that.

You mean the real price or the sim price?

[Guest Nick_N]

Other complex add-ons such as the PMDG MD11 and LDS 767 are nice and smooth on my PC.

Please list the true complexity of these aircraft if you really understand them and compare those complexities to the sim versionThe sim versions of those aircraft are not even in the same league for complexity as the MustangThere is a big difference between a superficial texture image and clicky sound buttons and a real world Garmin being rendered in real time during flight.The only downfall to the product is the rendering engine of MSFS and not the product itselfThose who know how to use MSFS and select the hardware to run the sim do not have problems and they get the eye candy at the same time.. those running old news for hardware must make concessions with the scenery. Those who can not run the aircraft at all do not know what they doing, at all.. or they are relentless and would rather have a toy to fly and cars to count on the road at the same time.F1 built a real aircraft for real pilots and people who wish to be treated like one. I would think they could care less about whiners who think they should be able run it and all the scenery some toy does at the same time. I respect the fact I am paying 55 bucks for a real plane and not some cheap knock off.