I will have to disagree with you on that. I think what might be more appropriate would be saying features that you wanted rather than major features are missing. My guess is you wanted Vnav and a few other non critical items which can be easily computed mentally in a matter of seconds. The Mustang can perform an incredible amount of tasks (including the Garmin) in sync with what the real one offers and what most Mustang pilots will do 95 percent of the time.No other G1000 for FSX on the market can do what the Mustang G1000 does. Any others fly WAAS approaches?, Fly holds, Fly procedure turns? contain updatable Navigraph SIDS and STARS?Those are indeed major features and ones that are not being done in any other FSX G1000 that I know of. Keep in mind this is a Mustang simulation not a Garmin trainer. However, the G1000 is quite deep and very Mustang specific and the Mustang is officially approved and endorsed by Cessna in partnership with Flight1. No simulation can be everything to everyone, but the F1 Mustang is very representative of it's counterpart for an entertainment solution and at a mere 54 bucks as opposed to 2.3 million for the real thing. Despite the flack and fodder that will fly on that statement, I stand by it and make no apologies for the Mustang.Regards,Jim Rhoads

As a customer, I have had a blast learning the F1 Mustang and its G1000....nothing comes close in its class. I am eagerly awating the Eaglesoft Cessna Citation X 2.0 for FSX...

I would like to plug the Citation II from Eaglesoft, its a little older but it still looks pretty good and is great on FPS! In my little imaginary flying world I run air taxi's down under and the Mustang and C550 are my workhorses :(

No simulation can be everything to everyone, but the F1 Mustang is very representative of it's counterpart for an entertainment solution and at a mere 54 bucks as opposed to 2.3 million for the real thing. Despite the flack and fodder that will fly on that statement, I stand by it and make no apologies for the Mustang.Regards,Jim Rhoads

Jim,I've heard it's a frame 'hog', but I really like the look of it. Can I ask how you'd think it'll perform on the following mid-range system, which I've been putting together:Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400, ASUS P5QL/EPU, 4GB Corsair 1066MHz DDR2 RAM, GeForce 9800GTXIf I can get it to run reasonably smoothly with middling settings I'll be buying..ThanksIan

Jim,If I can get it to run reasonably smoothly with middling settings I'll be buying..ThanksIan

Ian,Why not buy it and see if it works for your system? You have 30 days to evaluate it and get a refund if not happy.We have seen the Mustang run on modest systems with very little problems but the truth is that I would recommend a quad core. The Mustang is a "all stops out" product. Everything from the minute details of the exterior / interior to the depth of the G1000 (3 displays) so if you have a weak link, the Mustang will probably find it. But the beauty of the Mustang is that it will be a stellar product for years "and" computers to come. Jim

Users who think the Mustang G1000 is "lacking" simply do not understand the challenges involved in building such complexity at these pricepoints.The following applies to all FS Developers and the Sim Community at large...Never in the history of FS have simmers had so much realism and quality available and yet we all hear that some product/project is "lacking this or that".Of course they all do, it's a sim environment folks. :(

Amen brother....Jim

I will have to disagree with you on that. I think what might be more appropriate would be saying features that you wanted rather than major features are missing. My guess is you wanted Vnav and a few other non critical items which can be easily computed mentally in a matter of seconds. The Mustang can perform an incredible amount of tasks (including the Garmin) in sync with what the real one offers and what most Mustang pilots will do 95 percent of the time.

JimSince you quoted me, I shall reply. You are correct, it's missing features I wanted, and expected, and yes, they are major omissions. VNAV was one, being able to load a 'Direct to' flightplan was another. There were also a few other bugs but they were not 'showstoppers' for me. I normally wouldn't go into a lengthy explanation cause I hate typing, but in this case I will. The #1 reason I got the Stang was for the G1000. I have ES's CJ's, so my hanger has plenty of Cessna Citations, and the Stang is basicly a smaller, slower version. I didn't need another one, but after following along with the pre-sale advertizing, it looked like something I wanted to use. I signed up for the plane, followed the production process in the forum, and got the plane the day it was released. Only then did I find out that the G1000 was not 'full featured'. I understand the programming process, I work with programmers everyday. What I dont understand is why you would 'hype' a product then not give it full fuctionality with the major systems (G1000). I have numerous other planes with fuctioning FMC's that use VNAV and LNAV without issues. I'm sure you have your reason's but that doesn't solve the problem. The other major issue for me was the inability to load a 'Direct' flighplan. The single major benifit to a GPS is that ability and the Stang won't allow it.Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming the plane. You folks did a wonderfull job on it, and in all other aspects, it's top shelf, especially the 'icing' simulation. Visually it's stunning and performace wise it's great. My only issue is with the G1000 and obviously thats not a big problem for most. Just FYI, if these are fixed in the future, I would be willing to pay for the upgrade, I'm not cheap, just 'fussy'.

JimI normally wouldn't go into a lengthy explanation cause I hate typing, but in this case I will. The #1 reason I got the Stang was for the G1000. I have ES's CJ's, so my hanger has plenty of Cessna Citations, and the Stang is basicly a smaller, slower version. I didn't need another one, but after following along with the pre-sale advertizing, it looked like something I wanted to use. I signed up for the plane, followed the production process in the forum, and got the plane the day it was released. Only then did I find out that the G1000 was not 'full featured'. Nobody ever said it was a full featured G1000 nor is it realistic to expect one with an entire state of the art aircraft package for 50 bucks. Despite what you wanted in a G1000, it is the most complex one offered to date for FSX and includes a highly complex simulation of the entire aircraft, VC and visual model.I understand the programming process, I work with programmers everyday. What I dont understand is why you would 'hype' a product then not give it full fuctionality with the major systems (G1000). I have numerous other planes with fuctioning FMC's that use VNAV and LNAV without issues. I'm sure you have your reason's but that doesn't solve the problem. I am sorry but I dont think you do understand the programming process or you would understand that what you are asking for is not realistic for the price of the package. Developing modern avionics logic on an antiquated and limited simulation and making it believe something that it does not know natively is not just "programming" Only in the entertainment market do (some) folks think they should have full blown simulations of highly complex and expensive simulations of something like the G1000 for meager investments. There are many programs and books out there to learn how to use a G1000 that are many times over the price of the entire Mustang product. All though I respect your opinion, you do not understand the process, or the investment of time and money to produce something like the G1000 simulation and the entire Mustang project. Comparing a G1000 to a text driven FMC with Vnav is not a reasonable comparison at all and for clarification purposes, it is not a problem or a limitation. The other major issue for me was the inability to load a 'Direct' flighplan. The single major benifit to a GPS is that ability and the Stang won't allow it.There is a highly logical reason for what you are suggesting that is too complex to spell out in this thread but you can indeed do a "direct to" any waypoint directly from within the unit. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming the plane. You folks did a wonderfull job on it, and in all other aspects, it's top shelf, especially the 'icing' simulation. Visually it's stunning and performance wise it's great. My only issue is with the G1000 and obviously thats not a big problem for most. Just FYI, if these are fixed in the future, I would be willing to pay for the upgrade, I'm not cheap, just 'fussy'.These are not issues that need "fixed". These are things you wanted and every person has one thing they would like to see, and no one will ever agree. We see it all the time and so does Ron and every other developer I know. Major features are not missing from the Mustang. In fact the Mustang has major features that are not in any other G1000 offered, bar none. I am not trying to belittle you, just stating what is realistic from an expectation point of view and I go back to my original statement, I make no apologies for the Mustang.When I see a blanket statement that suggests we are missing major features, I am going to respond. I hope you understand.Regards,Jim Rhoads

To the guy who asked about performance on a mid range system.My AMD 6000 is fairly comparable to your proposed Q9450 systemAs long as I stay away from big cities, I can fly anywhere in the Mustang VC with 20 fps, even with bad weather. The exterior is dandy, no fps issues whatsoeverI disable the copilot PFD as well, which helps me a little with FPS in the VC.It has become part of my Top 3 fav acft to fly on VATSIM.You should get it. Period.

I will have to disagree with you on that. I think what might be more appropriate would be saying features that you wanted rather than major features are missing. My guess is you wanted Vnav and a few other non critical items which can be easily computed mentally in a matter of seconds. The Mustang can perform an incredible amount of tasks (including the Garmin) in sync with what the real one offers and what most Mustang pilots will do 95 percent of the time.No other G1000 for FSX on the market can do what the Mustang G1000 does. Any others fly WAAS approaches?, Fly holds, Fly procedure turns? contain updatable Navigraph SIDS and STARS?Those are indeed major features and ones that are not being done in any other FSX G1000 that I know of. Keep in mind this is a Mustang simulation not a Garmin trainer. However, the G1000 is quite deep and very Mustang specific and the Mustang is officially approved and endorsed by Cessna in partnership with Flight1. No simulation can be everything to everyone, but the F1 Mustang is very representative of it's counterpart for an entertainment solution and at a mere 54 bucks as opposed to 2.3 million for the real thing. Despite the flack and fodder that will fly on that statement, I stand by it and make no apologies for the Mustang.Regards,Jim Rhoads

-----------------------------------------------------------------Hi Jim,Uh...er..some features are missing? You don't say? Why? Because I am way too busy programming pre-flight, the FMS, with... SIDS, WAYPOINTS, STAR's, and FAF's! That's why, LOLOLOL. Jim, a great plane and now my first choice from the 'stable'. Last night outbound from KDTW on a westbound flight, at FL340, my Mustang was taking a pounding from 96 knot headwinds, and turbulence like I have never seen in the sim before! Only found some gentler air at FL260 over Chicago...all the rest was 7-Flags! You must have had a good engineer typing out the code (nuts and bolts) 'cause I'm still here,.....lol! Again, a great plane. There are some bugs, though such as dials that only show positive hot spots on the virtual AP dials and only turn to the '-' left when trying to advance to the '+' right. Little things like that that I'm sure will be corrected in the next SP vC release. If you bring up the AP console, then all works as it should. Only when using the AP console in the VC, does it show this bug. The same bug is also seen on the volume knob of the AUDIO console as either '-' or '+' hot spots shows the dial only turning one way to the left. You might want to communicate this to your team, unless this bug in the VC has already been noted. I love the interior...as sometimes I let the Co-Pilot take over by going back to the cabin to the back right seat and enjoy the ambiance...and view out the window, or merely drop down the shade and REALLY pull a 'Northwest', LOL! This is what I pay the Co-Pilot for! :) Er...I think I paid him this week...and anyway, he can just dial up the music I preloaded... (large smile).Mitch

The F1 Mustang is a first rate, top drawer add-on. Period. It's unrealistic and lacking in perspective to expect every nuance to be simulated and as Jim has said, you just cannot please everyone in this business. Jay, you really aren't reflecting the 14,000 things that are GOOD about the F1 Mustang because you're blinkered about the 2 (or was it 3) things that you wanted that aren't simulated.The one bit of feedback that I and others have given Jim on the Mustang is that it would live so much happier with a wider range of people's computers, if some integrated 'tuning' ability was provided. Eg....- Ability to remove the virutal cabin would return a LOT of FPS I'd guess.- Ability to disable the FO's displays (via a GUI, not unauth'd tweaks to cfg files).- Ability to use a lower resolution / detail map display.Jim is proud of this bird (rightly) and does not want to allow users to 'remove' any of the work he achieved. That's great if you're using the F1 Mustang with a state of the art i7 and 16Gb of RAM, but for the rest of us, it would be nice for the user's choices to be respected and to have the integrated ability to choose to diable some of the features that aren't of interest.As a pilot, for me, this will always br virtual cabins. I hate them ! The F1 Mustang's is beautifully rendered... BUT.... at a FPS hit that I don't want to pay. I would rather have the option to remove the virtual cabin from the model, and replace it with a 'curtain' type image. I bet this would return a lot of FPS !Other than this piece of feedback, the Mustang is in my top 3 add-ons, and to qualify that, I buy EVERYTHING that is released in this hobby (unless it is clearly a crock of .....).Regards,Davido.

The F1 Mustang is a first rate, top drawer add-on. Period. It's unrealistic and lacking in perspective to expect every nuance to be simulated and as Jim has said, you just cannot please everyone in this business. Jay, you really aren't reflecting the 14,000 things that are GOOD about the F1 Mustang because you're blinkered about the 2 (or was it 3) things that you wanted that aren't simulated.The one bit of feedback that I and others have given Jim on the Mustang is that it would live so much happier with a wider range of people's computers, if some integrated 'tuning' ability was provided. Eg....- Ability to remove the virutal cabin would return a LOT of FPS I'd guess.- Ability to disable the FO's displays (via a GUI, not unauth'd tweaks to cfg files).- Ability to use a lower resolution / detail map display.Jim is proud of this bird (rightly) and does not want to allow users to 'remove' any of the work he achieved. That's great if you're using the F1 Mustang with a state of the art i7 and 16Gb of RAM, but for the rest of us, it would be nice for the user's choices to be respected and to have the integrated ability to choose to diable some of the features that aren't of interest.As a pilot, for me, this will always br virtual cabins. I hate them ! The F1 Mustang's is beautifully rendered... BUT.... at a FPS hit that I don't want to pay. I would rather have the option to remove the virtual cabin from the model, and replace it with a 'curtain' type image. I bet this would return a lot of FPS !Other than this piece of feedback, the Mustang is in my top 3 add-ons, and to qualify that, I buy EVERYTHING that is released in this hobby (unless it is clearly a crock of .....).Regards,Davido.

Hi Davido,Thanks for the suggestions, but what you said isn't exactly correct even though I agree with most of it. (And I know you meant no ill)Yes, of course I am proud of it, but if I did not want people to remove anything, I would not have reworked it to allow the copilot pfd to be removed even though by means of altering the cfg file. That is a simple addition of "//" in front of the pfd line and cheerfully explained in the support forum.- Ability to remove the virutal cabin would return a LOT of FPS I'd guess. Maybe. But as much as I am with you about VC's (I do not like them) almost everyone does and that alteration would only serve a few.- Ability to disable the FO's displays (via a GUI, not unauth'd tweaks to cfg files).Easily done as noted above. I will also add this to the FAQ section in the forum- Ability to use a lower resolution / detail map display.You can use the declutter option in the MFD to achieve this even now. The Mustang can indeed run on a modest computer if properly maintained and configured, but like I said, it is a "stops out" type product and purposely done this way.It pushes the envelope in many ways and will be here for a long time to come. I will look into seeing if I can setup a few things to make life easier in the future for those on the edge themselves with respect to hardware, but I won't dumb it down. Regards,Jim

Bottom line with the Mustang... if you want to be treated like a pilot in a G1000 simulated bizjet, the Mustang is the aircraft to flyThere are those who use P4's Athlons and P3 processor to run this simulation. Some of them use the 2D cockpit instead of the 3D cockpit, others use the 3D cockpit. The system situation is different for each individual. If you want to look at cars and stare at the subway running next to roads on some 'over the top' for real world use city scenery product that can be done if a user realizes the difference between reality and fantasy when it comes to purchasing hardware,,, but most pilots are more interested in the flight deck than how many cars are on the highway and many of them run the Mustang without any problems even with x2 and P3/4 systems. The deal with the Stang is not the aircraft itself but how FSX is made. To simulate that cockpit and the Garmin while running FSX when Garmin trainer without FSX can bring a system to its knees and what the Mustang development team did was nothing short of outstanding.Rubber meets the road: Cessna endorses the simulation they would not have done that without Jim and team meeting certain criteria. That alone pretty much says it allTo be quite honest, the only people who say the Mustang is a frame hog or a problem are those running 3+ year old hardware tech and expect it to run FSX and the Mustang with overcast weather AND eye candy like a typically made aircraft. Even the most complicated aircraft on the market does not hold a candle to the render load of G1000 D3D VCYou dont need a high horsepower computer to get the goods.. you just need one that has a basis in modern (within 2 years) technology and know what to buy and how to set it up. Most of the systems people buy are cheap 3-4 year old motherboard/memory technology (budget motherboards running DDR2 and Intel C2/Q that were 'new tech' 3 years ago) and they just dont know or realize it. Even the now "old" Intel C2/Q offerings are top notch for the Stang if the user understands what motherboard and memory to put those CPU's on and set it up. I can fly that Stang on a P35 1st generation DDR3 1600 7-7-7 and a Qx6700 @ 3.6GHz and a 8800GTX video card on what would be considered VERY HIGH FSX sliders.... http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...D=181848#181848 that system was new and TOP DOLLAR hardware back in March of 2007 which is now 2.5 years old and could be overtaken by any i7 system correctly set up and hardly clocked.

Bottom line with the Mustang... (Snip)I can fly that Stang on a P35 1st generation DDR3 1600 7-7-7 and a Qx6700 @ 3.6GHz and a 8800GTX video card on what would be considered VERY HIGH FSX sliders.... http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...D=181848#181848 that system was new and TOP DOLLAR hardware back in March of 2007 which is now 2.5 years old and could be overtaken by any i7 system correctly set up and hardly clocked.Nick, on my 975/285 rig, I can run at 24+ FPS with all Graphics and Weather set to full on, except for BLOOM, and pull 24 plus (usually hovers around my set 30 FPS) with ease in Mustang VC! In fact, it doesn't REALLY...damper out my system at all! To all that have ANY i7-based system overclocked to around 4.0 GHz...GO FOR IT! No sweat. Great plane, for immersion and flight op's.

Hi Davido,Thanks for the suggestions, but what you said isn't exactly correct even though I agree with most of it. (And I know you meant no ill)Yes, of course I am proud of it, but if I did not want people to remove anything, I would not have reworked it to allow the copilot pfd to be removed even though by means of altering the cfg file. That is a simple addition of "//" in front of the pfd line and cheerfully explained in the support forum.- Ability to remove the virutal cabin would return a LOT of FPS I'd guess. Maybe. But as much as I am with you about VC's (I do not like them) almost everyone does and that alteration would only serve a few.- Ability to disable the FO's displays (via a GUI, not unauth'd tweaks to cfg files).Easily done as noted above. I will also add this to the FAQ section in the forum- Ability to use a lower resolution / detail map display.You can use the declutter option in the MFD to achieve this even now. The Mustang can indeed run on a modest computer if properly maintained and configured, but like I said, it is a "stops out" type product and purposely done this way.It pushes the envelope in many ways and will be here for a long time to come. I will look into seeing if I can setup a few things to make life easier in the future for those on the edge themselves with respect to hardware, but I won't dumb it down. Regards,Jim

Hi Jim,Thanks for the reply - there's just one area you've misunderstood me on - I wasn't talking about removing the VC (virtual cockpit), I was specifically talking about the virtual (rear) cabin. (The lovely seats in the back!).The Mustang's VC (cockpit) is one of the nicest ever made and I love flying from it.... it's purely the 'cabin' element of the model that I was proposing is of less critical value to those studying, flying, and adoring the mustang.Whereas I agree that removing the whole VC would be of little interest to most, I believe that the ability to just remove the rear cabin from the model, would appeal to more.Regards,Davido.

As a F1 Mustang fan, good post Nick, other than this sweeping generalism;

To be quite honest, the only people who say the Mustang is a frame hog or a problem are those running 3+ year old hardware tech and expect it to run FSX and the Mustang with overcast weather AND eye candy like a typically made aircraft.

I don't run over-complex weather settings, traffic, etc, with the Mustang but I still don't quite get the smoothness in performance that I'd like with it, and my PC does not fit your generalism. For me, it's about having more options for tunability of the Mustang itself, as well as / along with, the other aspects of FSX htat you mentioned such as traffic and weather. I don't want to waste CPU resource of a pretty rear cabin - I'd rather put the frames into the G1000 displays for example.Davido.

Nick, on my 975/285 rig, I can run at 24+ FPS with all Graphics and Weather set to full on, except for BLOOM, and pull 24 plus (usually hovers around my set 30 FPS) with ease in Mustang VC! In fact, it doesn't REALLY...damper out my system at all! To all that have ANY i7-based system overclocked to around 4.0 GHz...GO FOR IT! No sweat. Great plane, for immersion and flight op's.

It does not require a 4Ghz clock on i7 to obtain top end results with the Mustang. I have assisted people in setting up mild clocks which require no special heatsink on intel Q and i7 systems with excellent results.. and some who dont clock at all. and I guess they could remove the rear cabin from the Mustang but the result will be pretty much the same.. that rear cabin is not hitting systems like people think it is. By the time they get finished removing bits and parts from the plane it could help a little here and there, .. but then you dont have the same aircraft and the relief is not going to give back a large amount of FPS either. Cessna may not have liked seeing the plane offered like that since the arrangement was different than just a simple "use our name and logo" license deal.