In a book Flight Simulator X for pilots I have come to a chapter about G1000. I have noticed two things. In the FSX G1000 many real worlds features are not inplemented. Also there seem to be a significant impact on performence compared to non GLASS planes. The book points out that there are other options from third party vendors. From eaglesoft you can have Cirrus SR20 SR22 with a Avidyne Entegra glass cockpit. And Flight one offers Commander 112 and the chelton glass cockpit. I would like to ask how these addon glass cockpits compare to the default FSX G1000? More features implemented? More realistic? Better performence?

AFAIK glass cockpits are not well rendered by FSX engine and therefore there is always FPS hit regardless of specific plane type. It is true stock G1000 is not real thing but you can try Flight1's Cessna Mustang. This plane possesses much more real G1000 system but even this one is not identical replica of real G1000. :(

In a book Flight Simulator X for pilots I have come to a chapter about G1000. I have noticed two things. In the FSX G1000 many real worlds features are not inplemented. Also there seem to be a significant impact on performence compared to non GLASS planes. The book points out that there are other options from third party vendors. From eaglesoft you can have Cirrus SR20 SR22 with a Avidyne Entegra glass cockpit. And Flight one offers Commander 112 and the chelton glass cockpit. I would like to ask how these addon glass cockpits compare to the default FSX G1000? More features implemented? More realistic? Better performence?

Many addon glass gauges range from very basic and simplistic feature sets to advanced and near real world feature sets.Best to do your homework and get what comes closest to your desired level of realism. :( Hint. Even the best available will not be 100% duplicates as the sim does not support that level and costs are prohibitive.

Of course for 100% realism you can get a PC G1000 trainer directly from Garmin. It is only $25, but no relation to FSX (I just placed an order for mine).For FSX this one is coming but few more details are available at this point:http://flight1tech.com/Simulation/G1000/g1000.html

There is also the mindstar aviation g1000, probably worth looking at if you want to do a home cockpit. I've been toying with the idea of getting a couple of lcd with touchscreen to run as a g1000.scott s..

In a book Flight Simulator X for pilots I have come to a chapter about G1000. I have noticed two things. In the FSX G1000 many real worlds features are not inplemented. Also there seem to be a significant impact on performence compared to non GLASS planes. The book points out that there are other options from third party vendors. From eaglesoft you can have Cirrus SR20 SR22 with a Avidyne Entegra glass cockpit. And Flight one offers Commander 112 and the chelton glass cockpit. I would like to ask how these addon glass cockpits compare to the default FSX G1000? More features implemented? More realistic? Better performence?

The Flight 1 Cessna Mustang is awesome for the G1000Manny

I don't have the Commander 112 for FSX, but I do have the Cirrus and Mustang. Both products are a step above the default C172 glass cockpit. However both come with a fps hit, due to the gauges and calculations made for features in the gauges.I highly recommend both the Cirrus and the Mustang.

The Mustang does tax your system a bit, but the G1000 is nice for several reasons:* While not everything from the real G1000 is implemented, what you need is there, and the parts that are simulated are correct - you can use the real-world manuals* You can get STARs, SIDs, etc from Navigraph, and Flight1 updates the LPV approaches now and then* The way you use the mouse with the G1000 keys is very intuitiveThe Mustang itself is a nice little plane, too, so a good package overall.I've considered buying the Mindstar G1000, but the version that offers Vista compatibility has been in beta for at least two years now, so it looks like their efforts are focused elsewhere.

I don't have the Commander 112 for FSX, but I do have the Cirrus and Mustang. Both products are a step above the default C172 glass cockpit. However both come with a fps hit, due to the gauges and calculations made for features in the gauges.I highly recommend both the Cirrus and the Mustang.

Do you mean that their fps hit also are step higher compared to the default C172 glass? Regarding the Commander 112 it seems to be only for FS9 (which maybe is an alternative considering performence)BTW I see your system is almost identical to mine. One difference is that I have Win 7 which leads to a requirment for Win 7 compatibilty.

I've considered buying the Mindstar G1000, but the version that offers Vista compatibility has been in beta for at least two years now, so it looks like their efforts are focused elsewhere.

You might want to stop over at their forums and ask for more information. Their 'beta' is far more stable than most commercial releases. :(

The Mindstar G1000 works fine on Windows 7 64 bit. I didn't really notice an FPS hit on my 3GHz E6600 dual core/8800 GTS 640 MB system.

In a book Flight Simulator X for pilots I have come to a chapter about G1000. I have noticed two things. In the FSX G1000 many real worlds features are not inplemented. Also there seem to be a significant impact on performence compared to non GLASS planes. The book points out that there are other options from third party vendors. From eaglesoft you can have Cirrus SR20 SR22 with a Avidyne Entegra glass cockpit. And Flight one offers Commander 112 and the chelton glass cockpit. I would like to ask how these addon glass cockpits compare to the default FSX G1000? More features implemented? More realistic? Better performence?

We can only speak to our experience with Avidynes and FSX G1000.Our Avidynes use custom C+ Code and GDI + Code to access the default GPS System to accomplish what is seen along with a reasonably rich feature set, custom Autopilot Routines, Etc.Our experience with the default FSX G1000 is that it done using XML Code and Vector Drawing Code to access the default GPS System to accomplish what is seen along with a reasonably rich feature set, custom Autopilot Routines, Etc.By mixing different techniques and levels of detail an, XML Based G1000 can and has already been made to be a Lower Priced alternative to the High End Units.One only need to look around the community at the various XML Based G1000s currently available to recognize that the few High End G1000s currently available are in the minority.Our own view is that the simmers will likely favor the High End Units if they feel the need to "graduate" to higher end systems.

Do you mean that their fps hit also are step higher compared to the default C172 glass? Regarding the Commander 112 it seems to be only for FS9 (which maybe is an alternative considering performence)BTW I see your system is almost identical to mine. One difference is that I have Win 7 which leads to a requirment for Win 7 compatibilty.

Not sure what you mean by "step higher" but the Mustang with its G1000 is harder on fps that the default skyhawk with g1000The Cirrus is only a little harder on fps with its Avidyne than default c172 g1000 on my systemThe Mustang is harder on fps than the Cirrus.

Not sure what you mean by "step higher" but the Mustang with its G1000 is harder on fps that the default skyhawk with g1000The Cirrus is only a little harder on fps with its Avidyne than default c172 g1000 on my systemThe Mustang is harder on fps than the Cirrus.

I meant harder as you answered. Question is if these planes are something for me since already the default C172 G1000 gives me stutters in turns and rather low fps in the 10s. Maybe a Commander 112 for FS9 is a better option but I need to check about Win 7 compatibility. Otherwise the Cirrus seems nice.My systemAMD X2 60004 Gb PC6400 RAM8800GT 512M DDR3Win 7

I meant harder as you answered. Question is if these planes are something for me since already the default C172 G1000 gives me stutters in turns and rather low fps in the 10s. Maybe a Commander 112 for FS9 is a better option but I need to check about Win 7 compatibility. Otherwise the Cirrus seems nice.My systemAMD X2 60004 Gb PC6400 RAM8800GT 512M DDR3Win 7

Unfortunately there is no "free lunch" in the FS World. The more complexity and realism built into FS Models and Glass Gauges the more the load on specific systems.Your system specs seem to be fine and in fact are bit more powerful than my development rig so if you are optimized you should be fine.Our products are all Vista compatible so there should be no issue with Win 7 though we haven't tested that OS yet. :(