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 Mustangas someone who designed systems on aircraft all I can say is, enjoy your toysThere 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

Sure Nick whatever you say. You are the smartest person here and anyone who has a different opinion to you is just dumb. :(Also, I run FSX without any eyecandy. The simple fact is that the Mustang is very very hard on FPS. The F1 Mustang is no more "real" than the PMDG MD11 or LDS767. If fact I would say the PMDG MD11 has far more complex systems modeling than the F1 Mustang, and yet it still has better FPS than the F1 Mustang.Maybe you should download the 1500 page PMDG MD11 manual and have a read. How big is the F1 Mustang manual, about 80 pages I think. :(

Sure Nick whatever you say. You are the smartest person here and anyone who has a different opinion to you is just dumb. :(

I requested information about the complexities of the sim aircraft stated as 'complex' as compared to their real world counterparts and it would appear I got an answer that clears that subject upIm still waiting for the list to appear... EDIT: ok, I see you edited your post... so the number of pages in the manual makes it complex? Thats not the technical details I asked for.Here is another question for you and perhaps a bit more your speed... how does a size of the manual make the aircraft more complex and realistic in a 3D simulation?

You mean the real price or the sim price?

Hi Geof,How does this version of the G1000 compare with a smaller / slower GA aircraft such as a C182? Is there any transferable training application for using this G1000 in the Mustang (only serious one developed for FSX as far as I know) to using one in something like a C182? (I expect that the PFD is modified for speed / alt info. )Thanks, Bruce.

Hi Geof,How does this version of the G1000 compare with a smaller / slower GA aircraft such as a C182? Is there any transferable training application for using this G1000 in the Mustang (only serious one developed for FSX as far as I know) to using one in something like a C182? (I expect that the PFD is modified for speed / alt info. )Thanks, Bruce.

Well I have to confess I never gave the default fsx one much of a look over-due to low expectations.. Did buy a g1000 add on that wasn't bad..but there were still limits... the Mustang takes it to a new level-and yes-I would think there is a transfer.My time with a real G1000 is only 1/2 hour though so I confess I might be ignorant -however the Mustang seems to give a good compromise between 100% function to what the sim is capable of. All I know is I got in the Mustang-flew it almost like flying a Baron-and everything seemed to work quite well. Most of the major g1000 functions seem to be there....

Here is another question for you and perhaps a bit more your speed...

You seem a very unhappy man :(

IMHO you're a very sad man :)

BTW... the Mustang manual is 90 pages because there was no reason to reprint this which you will need too: http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/G1000:Cessn...PilotsGuide.pdfwhich is 508Thank you for comprehensively, intelligently and clearly answering my questions and making fact the statements you made earlier. The answers I received are what I call sad however they are in the sprit of the people who have little or nothing good to say about the aircraft.

Well I have to confess I never gave the default fsx one much of a look over-due to low expectations.. Did buy a g1000 add on that wasn't bad..but there were still limits... the Mustang takes it to a new level-and yes-I would think there is a transfer.My time with a real G1000 is only 1/2 hour though so I confess I might be ignorant -however the Mustang seems to give a good compromise between 100% function to what the sim is capable of. All I know is I got in the Mustang-flew it almost like flying a Baron-and everything seemed to work quite well. Most of the major g1000 functions seem to be there....

Its about 90-95% there.. give or takeThere are updates and additions coming from what I understand however the bottom line is the perf compared to a real world Garmin trainer.. they really pulled it off

BTW... the Mustang manual is 90 pages because there was no reason to reprint this which you will need too: http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/G1000:Cessn...PilotsGuide.pdfwhich is 508Thank you for comprehensively, intelligently and clearly answering my questions and making fact the statements you made earlierThe answers I received are what I call sad

Sure Nick... Those combined manuals are still only approx 1/3 the size of the PMDG manuals. If you want to see the complexities of the PMDG MD11, just read the manuals.

Sure Nick... Those combined manuals are still only approx 1/3 the size of the PMDG manuals. If you want to see the complexities of the PMDG MD11, just read the manuals.

I'm sorry are we still comparing manuals? Here is another 110 pages I did not list as referenced for the user of the sim version in the F1 manual http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/G1000:Cessn...erenceGuide.pdf and I think there may be a few others in the F1 Mustang manual too requred because the F1 sim version is designed based on the RW aircraft so those manuals are part of the download... 90 pages was quite a stretch of the truth there kiddo and a slick/lame way to try and make a point It was not a very 'complex' skew of the factsspeaking of complexI am waiting to hear about your high tech knowledge of complexities in RW aircraft as compared to their 3D sim counterparts

I am waiting to hear about your high tech knowledge of complexities in RW aircraft as compared to their 3D sim counterparts

How about you prove to me why the F1 Mustang is more complex than the PMDG MD11. Until you do I still maintain that the PMDG MD11 is more complex than the Flight1 Mustang. And with much better FPS too. I've never seen any complaints about the MD11, unlike the F1 Mustang which many people return for refund due to missing features (compared to the real Mustang) and bad FPS and stutters.Just check the Petronis (sic) Index you'll find the Flight 1 Mustang is ranked very poorly on the FPS scale.

How about you prove to me why the F1 Mustang is more complex than the PMDG MD11. Until you do I still maintain that the PMDG MD11 is more complex than the Flight1 Mustang. And with much better FPS too. I've never seen any complaints about the MD11, unlike the F1 Mustang which many people return for refund due to missing features (compared to the real Mustang) and bad FPS and stutters.Just check the Petronis (sic) Index you'll find the Flight 1 Mustang is ranked very poorly on the FPS scale.

Oh no Matthew.. I am not playing this game by your rules... you made the statement.. before I mash any more of the full blow horse manure you need to post about technical design of aircraft and their controls and back up your statement by explaining exactly what the complexities are in those sim aircraft as compared to their real world counterpartsYou edited your posts above before the time ran out to take out your claim/compare the F1 manual for the mustang was only 90 pages (originally you said 80)... Just as you changed all your posts above after the fact and after reading my responses, including the one I responded to first. Before that you had nothing good to say about the aircraft.. You are playing a game with the wrong person Matthew. I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

Oh no Matthew.. I am not playing this game by your rules... you made the statement.. before I mash any more of the full blow horse manure you might post about technical design of aircraft and their controls you need to finish your statement by explaining exactly what the complexities are in those sim aircraft as compared to their real world counterparts

Until you backup your statement it's simply a case of your opinion against mine. IMO the PMDG11 is more complex than the F1 Mustang and you can read all about it in the 1500 page PMDG manual.In your opinion the F1 Mustang is more complex.Our opinions differ.One thing that can't be disputed is the PMDG is less FPS intensive than the F1 Mustang. Why? IMHO it's because PMDG did a more optimized job on the VC/systems implementation and not because the MD11 is less complicated than the F1 Mustang.Having said that, the F1 Mustang is a great product (best of breed VLJ/Bizjet sim) and Badaboom should try it and if its not to his liking then return it for a refund.

You edited your posts above before the time ran out to take out your claim/compare the F1 manual for the mustang was only 90 pages (originally you said 80)... Just as you changed all your posts above after the fact and after reading my responses, including the one I responded to first. Before that you had nothing good to say about the aircraft.. You are playing a game with the wrong person Matthew. I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

What are you talking about? I do not edit my posts to change the nature of what I say to somehow trick you or play games. However it appears that you are trying to play games by casting aspersions about me.Do you really need to threaten me and say "I suggest you quit while you are ahead". What are you going to do if I continue to disagree with you? Are you going to come around and "bash" me :( You seem to be a bit of a bully Nick. :(

You mean the real price or the sim price?

Yes, it's a bargain compared to the real world price of the airplane. Really Geofa, we get it. We've heard it a thousand times. Sim users complain about the value of sim add-ons and you and others who have the privilege to fly for real start with the comparisons. But what about comparisons relative to other products in the market? It is a perfectly valid exercise. $55 can buy a more complete systems simulation than what the Mustang seems to offer.

Yes, it's a bargain compared to the real world price of the airplane. Really Geofa, we get it. We've heard it a thousand times. Sim users complain about the value of sim add-ons and you and others who have the privilege to fly for real start with the comparisons. But what about comparisons relative to other products in the market? It is a perfectly valid exercise. $55 can buy a more complete systems simulation than what the Mustang seems to offer.

Maybe thats because Geofa has a very valid point. The truth is simmers are spoiled and we (vendors) are responsible for doing it. There is no earthly reason anyone should expect a several million dollar aircraft to be replicated for 30 - 50 bucks. Simply none.Contrary to popular belief, none of us have magic wands and the type of developments like the Mustang or similar products take enormous amounts of time and money to develop and returns are questionable for the most part. Now I know there are some that understand the value they are receiving, but there are many others that whine and cry if they do not find their one little thing they want and dismiss an entire title because they did not get their one little thing or get their demands met. It's true. It is amazing to see what some people expect to see for less money than a case of beer and pack of cigarettes and exactly why in the future my efforts will be with real world training and less and less with entertainment products. Flying real aircraft with these equivalent systems or displays is extremely expensive and there is a reason why they cost so much. Large developments projects with small numbers. Very similar deal as we have only we are dealing with an audience (not everybody) that cannot understand the value of said product and are not willing to pay a price point that sustains these type of developments.The Mustang is very complex and anyone that has spent enough time with it will agree. Even besides that there is much more to building a simulation than making it a button pushers paradise. It's is the art of blending all areas of the aircraft together from the flight modeling to the visual pilots perspective and the subtle intricacies that when grafted together make you feel like you are there and not flying a monitor. The Mustang does this and does this incredibly well. We have had several folks and a couple in this thread that wanted the aircraft to fly the way they wanted it to and not accept the fact that we built this to fly as accurately as possible within the constraints of FSX. That means you have to fly the aircraft as intended, not as perceived. If I have Cessna's chief Mustang pilot signing off on the project as well as several real world Mustang pilots saying we did it right than that is the confirmation I am content with, not the fact that somebody else will not fly the aircraft as intended and expect me to change it. Do I get testy about this? You bet I do and if you disagree that is why we have a refund policy that is the best in the industry. The Mustang is very complex yet easy to fly. It is extremely detailed and those 3 Garmin display are rendering a lot of data and visually depicting it. I mean a lot a data so yes, it does require a modern computer that is well tuned. We have never said otherwise. Comparing it to some of the aforementioned developments is like comparing apples to frogs. AS Ed said, there really is an awful lot happening with those G1000's and three of them too boot. But thats real world and we did not dumb it down and pretend. Like in the real world, if you want realism, you have to pay for it and in the future you can expect more of that from me.Jim Rhoads

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.

Hello Nick,Please first excuse my bad english but I would like to say something about complexity.If you speak about Garmin 1000 logics vs MD-11 FMS, there is not so much difference in the navigation accuracy. If you want to compare how this is displayed on screen, it is then a different story. I do admit Garmin 1000 is more eye-candy and seems more complex than MCDU/ND standard liner interface... if it is truly more complex, with included map overlays, weather, radar, TCAS, it still currently less reliable and neeed some fiability improvement before being integrated in liners... The only one that have moving maps integrated yet is the A380.Now, if you speak about how are system modeled, you should know they have been always deeply simulated in add-ons such as Level-D or PMDG... MD11 have currently complete hydraulic, electrical and air systems simulation, it have as well all "stand by" equipment, even a real dual FMS/MCDU management with deep failure simulation as well. Finally, it simulate almost all real automation of the MD-11.It is in my humble opinion, the most complex plane ever made on FS, on the background side... This subject remind me the "Wilco" airbus vs "PSS" one in the past... PSS is only flyable when Wilco one have so many glitches (unable to manage correctly OPEN DES, overshooting selected altitude, i.e) with a bad flight model... but it look great, far better than the PSS one... So do it make it more "complex" ?767 from Level-D or PMDG 747 are both really FPS expansive, even they are a bit less under FSX than FS9... PMDG MD11 is really nicely optimized compared to any recent complex add-on, except Yak-40 from Suprunov Design or Fly the Maddog MD-82.The Mustang is a great product but it is not as complex, on my point of view, as the MD11 because if it has a good Navigation computer, it lack of many other things that make a plane "complex"... like real management of all abnormal procedures (like the PMDG MD11 is able to simulate).Anyway, 55$ for this product is a correct price and I think developpers have to get rewards for their job.... I think the PMDG Planes price is far below the real cost of those products... in term of time spent into it.Regards.