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.

Actually until a few days ago I had the "privilege" of not flying rw the last 5 months due to a medical condition.The sim and its wonderful add ons allowed me to "simulate" however, and much to my surprise when I got back into the cockpit a few days ago I found none of my skills had gone down-thanks to the sim.So I take it very seriously when constant complaining's result is that the people that create these fine add ons state that they will no longer do them.We now possibly have the end of a sim with fs-is the end of add ons for it also what everyone really wants? I know at some point I will lose my medical-I'd like to think that at least virtually I have a future here.For the cost of the Mustang or many of the other fine add ins (aircraft, scenery) available for the same price-I know no other bargain as great in life-period. So I do hope everyone "gets it".

Those 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.

Not everyone has 1500 bucks to blow on new PC hardware every year. My system is fully tweaked per your guide. I know what MY limitations are, I know a AMD6000 isn't a i7 940 but I do what I can. I was never expecting it to run the Mustang's G1000 well, but I wasn't expecting the software to be unflyable. I'm one of the proud and few with constant G1000 crashes. Sorta wrecks the party :)

Ryan, just go to research on the AMD6000 and you will see more info on why this chip likely cannot run the product well. There is nothing we can do about this. Have you really scaled back all your sliders fully to see if there is an element that is bottlenecking your system? Even then, it may not work to your satisfaction (again, with the AMD6000 chip). The chip you have is older, and was not a great design to begin with (from my reading). Your comment about "bucks to blow" implies something quite negative. I think your expectations are simply not realistic in this case, and it appears you have made this a "cause" of some kind.Francois, the quick comparison to an MD-11 is not comparing things correctly. You should compare the G1000 system, to the main MFD/PFD of the MD-11. Not the OVERALL cockpits, as they do 2 very different things. One could say an old 727 is more complex to fly than the Mustang, with all the steam gauges, navigation station, etc... but the 727 may get better frames! So you have to look at it differently to draw a comparison.Steve

Fine, read "spend." Doesn't really matter. I'm editing this now. All I want is for the G1000 crashes to be addressed, hopefully in a patch. There's a handful of guys reporting them and that's the main reason why I can't enjoy a complete flight in the stang. I've reported the logs in the correct thread and I just hope they aren't going unnoticed.

I am not going to go back and forth in this thread and I am not going to answer PMs from people who have read things and considered what I said a stab, jab or pot shot at products as that is not what was said.My question was directed at someone who made a statement about complexities in a sim. I asked for specific information from that person about his knowledge of the complexity of sim aircraft and how it relates to the RW counterpart. The person doesn't know, period. If he did he would have answered the question placed to him and his statement about the performance around the Mustang in compare to others may have merit, otherwise it was a statement made by someone who does not understand 3D rendering complexities and aircraft systems. At the same time we went from his statement which indicates he does understand 3D rendering complexities to how the size of a written manual qualifies one product to be more complex than another to the FSX rendering engine.For those who think I was comparing a Citation Mustang to a 747 or MD11 for complexity in A/C systems, you can not be serious.The bottom line is I am really sick and tired of seeing people who do not truly understand what they are saying making statements simply because they do not have the hardware or refuse to turn down scenery settings. Instead they run around making the A/C look like it was poorly designed as the reason for their perf issues the same way the so called '80' page manual was used to try and make the statement the Mustang is not a quality product. No one here ever said the Mustang was easy on a system however the reason it is not easy on a system is the complexity in its multiple displays which must draw and render in real time. As stated a RW Garmin will bring a system to its knees. To have one in a sim that must deal with the MSFS rendering engine and still maintain quality flight was quite an accomplishment.

Fine, read "spend." Doesn't really matter. I'm editing this now. All I want is for the G1000 crashes to be addressed, hopefully in a patch. There's a handful of guys reporting them and that's the main reason why I can't enjoy a complete flight in the stang. I've reported the logs in the correct thread and I just hope they aren't going unnoticed.

And I stated in that same thread that we were indeed looking at them and taking notes so I question why it is you are asking that.You are right it is a very small handful and that makes it even harder trying to find problems that only a handful are seeing and we cannot reproduce.You know fully well we are looking into this Ryan and I would appreciate your patience as we try to find it and / or please accept a refund. The aircraft is not "unflyable" and if it is I do not know why you have kept it for 3 months. Quite frankly I am getting tired of the constant pot shots you have been taking at us.

I am not going to go back and forth in this thread and I am not going to answer PMs from people who have read things and considered what I said a stab, jab or pot shot at products as that is not what was said.My question was directed at someone who made a statement about complexities in a sim. I asked for specific information from that person about his knowledge of the complexity of sim aircraft and how it relates to the RW counterpart. The person doesn't know, period. If he did he would have answered the question placed to him and his statement about the performance around the Mustang in compare to others may have merit, otherwise it was a statement made by someone who does not understand 3D rendering complexities and aircraft systems. At the same time we went from his statement which indicates he does understand 3D rendering complexities to how the size of a written manual qualifies one product to be more complex than another to the FSX rendering engine.For those who think I was comparing a Citation Mustang to a 747 or MD11 for complexity in A/C systems, you can not be serious.The bottom line is I am really sick and tired of seeing people who do not truly understand what they are saying making statements simply because they do not have the hardware or refuse to turn down scenery settings. Instead they run around making the A/C look like it was poorly designed as the reason for their perf issues the same way the so called '80' page manual was used to try and make the statement the Mustang is not a quality product. No one here ever said the Mustang was easy on a system however the reason it is not easy on a system is the complexity in its multiple displays which must draw and render in real time. As stated a RW Garmin will bring a system to its knees. To have one in a sim that must deal with the MSFS rendering engine and still maintain quality flight was quite an accomplishment.

Nick please stop here.I am not sure this duet with Mattew has an interest of any kind for the OP and doesn't bring anything to the discussion.Thanks.Matthew, people are really fed up with your constant bashing of Flight1's products.I was obliged to lock a post yesterday because of your behavior.If you don't like a product, F1 allows you to get your money back so use this offer next time .

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.

I believe there's a misunderstanding of the definition of 'complex' in this discussion. The gaugework for the MD11 is far simpler to render to screen than that of the Mustang.The G1000 system in the Mustang presents far more information on it's CRTs than what the MD11's gauges have to present.Analog gauges are far easier on frame rates than vector graphics type gauges.

Nick please stop here.I am not sure this duet with Mattew has an interest of any kind for the OP and doesn't bring anything to the discussion.Thanks.

No problem David and you are correct it may be of no interest to the OP however the OP should know that some of the statements that get posted in threads like this, no matter what product is being discussed be it F1, PMDG, Eaglesoft, LVD etc, come from people who have ulterior motives.

I've been reading this series of posts with an increasing level of frustration.Here we have a new, top of the line FSX addon that sets new standards in the level of implementing a fullglass cockpit and there are people that are badmouthing it because it does not have VNAV orbecause it is heavy on framerates.IMHO Flight1 has a track record of presenting extremely realistic aircraft simulations, from the Piper Meridian in FS2002to the PC12 in FS2004 to the Mustang in FSX. In each case, the aircraft had an unmatched level of visualdetail in the cockpit and a well thought out implementation of all the systems and controls that allow an armchairpilot to sample a real flying experience in a state of the art aircraft. Just a reminder that well modeled Garmin GNS systems sell for $40 or so all by themselves, and I for onehave never regretted buying them to replace the dumbed down version that comes with FS. The Mustangincludes a G1000 that is better than anything on the market.So, it seems to me that we have a couple of options:1. Accept the fact that the framerate counter goes down when flying this aircraft. As a matter of fact,turn the darn thing off and focus on learning how to fly this aircraft and using it's well modeledavionics to full advantage.2. Turn down the scenery a bit if the performance still bothers you. This is not a VFR plane.3. Return it for a refund and consider buying it again after you next upgrade your system.Either way, stop ######ing about how Flight1 should have done this or done that.This is a fine aircraft simulation as is, and Flight1 have not stopped looking for ways to make it even better and more complete.I, for one, say: This is one of the best aircraft in my hangar, I love taking it out for a flight, and consider it money well spent.ps.. For VFR with great framerates, I fly the Carenado 152 or the Realair Scout or Marchetti.. :(

I believe there's a misunderstanding of the definition of 'complex' in this discussion. The gaugework for the MD11 is far simpler to render to screen than that of the Mustang.The G1000 system in the Mustang presents far more information on it's CRTs than what the MD11's gauges have to present.Analog gauges are far easier on frame rates than vector graphics type gauges.

Ed explains it perfectly... actually, he was able to say what I tried to say, only a little better.Ryan, if your crashes are tied to system stress, that could be why we cannot reproduce it. If it was something most saw, we could reproduce it much easier. We have a wide range of testers also that cannot reproduce it either.Steve

"The sim versions of those aircraft are not even in the same league for complexity as the Mustang" :( Here you should have been a little more precise. I also got this wrong from you."For those who think I was comparing a Citation Mustang to a 747 or MD11 for complexity in A/C systems, you can not be serious." :(:( I guess I understand what you mean now./ Leffe :(

Nick, I was hoping for a response from you re my querey re a driver level frame rate limiter. Any thoughts?Noel

Nick, I was hoping for a response from you re my querey re a driver level frame rate limiter. Any thoughts?Noel

Noel I am not sure where you asked this question as I have not seen it posted anywhere. If you direct me to the post I can answer it there after reading the entire context of the question.

And I stated in that same thread that we were indeed looking at them and taking notes so I question why it is you are asking that.You are right it is a very small handful and that makes it even harder trying to find problems that only a handful are seeing and we cannot reproduce.You know fully well we are looking into this Ryan and I would appreciate your patience as we try to find it and / or please accept a refund. The aircraft is not "unflyable" and if it is I do not know why you have kept it for 3 months. Quite frankly I am getting tired of the constant pot shots you have been taking at us.

Then you must understand how frustrating it can be for users with the CTD's. I have taken no pot shots at you, I'm sorry you feel that way. Thank you for looking into them.