The Mindstar G1000 is aircraft specific, but it's CONFIGURABLE to represent a number of specific aircraft. Right now, it represents a Cessna 172S, Cessna 182S, Cessna 182T, and a DA-40. There is also preliminary code in place to display a Diamond DA42 and a Cirrus Perspective, all in the same software. The Citation Mustang specific parts will be released in 2010, and will also be part of the same software. In other words, you don't have to buy different versions, it's all in the same version.

How does the MindStar G1000 compare to the one included with the Flight One Cessna Mustang? I assume that the Mustang model has software configurations related to that specific aircraft, whereas maybe the MindStar is not so aircraft specific? Anyway, any further differences would be great to know if anyone has a comparison.Thanks, Bruce.

The Mustang G1000 is specific to the Mustang, but remember, it includes an entire aircraft and supporting systems for 55 bucks... but other derivatives will follow...like the one that will be in our upcoming 182. Our G1000 is Navigraph enabled, can fly WAAS approaches which also can be updated to be current, flys missed approaches, holds, procedure turns and SIDS and STARS and much more.Jim

Glassman,First, let me say that I do own the MSA G1000.Your comment on the Mindstar G1000 always being in beta is intriguing. I recall a post in the MSA forum that stated as soon as the current version was out of beta, MSA would be working on a turbine engine version. So, how should I interpret that comment? No end to beta, no turbine engine version?But then you mention a Mustang version due out in 2010. Are you saying that the MSA G1000, Mustang Version, will completely intergrate into the F1 Mustang? F1 is on board with this? I applaud both developments, the turbine engine version and F1 Mustang integration or even King Air. You just have me very confused.

Now I see Mr. Rhoads comment. Even more confused now.If I buy the F1 Mustang, it has features not in the MSA G1000? If I integrate the MSA G1000 into the F1 Mustang, I will loose the MSA G1000 features not in the F1 Mustang G1000?I hope these type of issues get resolved in 2010.

The Mindstar G1000 is aircraft specific, but it's CONFIGURABLE to represent a number of specific aircraft. Right now, it represents a Cessna 172S, Cessna 182S, Cessna 182T, and a DA-40. There is also preliminary code in place to display a Diamond DA42 and a Cirrus Perspective, all in the same software. The Citation Mustang specific parts will be released in 2010, and will also be part of the same software. In other words, you don't have to buy different versions, it's all in the same version.

Thanks.Bruce.

Glassman, Are you saying that the MSA G1000, Mustang Version, will completely intergrate into the F1 Mustang? F1 is on board with this? I applaud both developments, the turbine engine version and F1 Mustang integration or even King Air. You just have me very confused.

I cannot answer for MSA. But I can say that we are not on board, and our Mustang G1000 is probably one of the most advanced G1000's out there to date.That is a hard statement to make because I am not in anyway trying to slight MSA. Good on them for working on something as tuff as a G1000 is and continuing to work on it!However, unless MSA can provide something much more advanced than what we offer for the Mustang which includes 2 - 10 inch and 1 - 15 inch display, we have no reason to support "any" other offering.I know this sounds a bit mean spirited, but it is not meant to be. We respect Stasi and his hard work and we believe there is room enough for all of us to do things like this. I only posted because our Mustang was brought up.RegardsJim Rhoads

Mindstar Aviation is not affiliated with, or working with the F1 Mustang, so I'm not sure how this conversation turned in that direction. Flight1 has products, and Mindstar has products, but we don't do any integration with each other, and I don't think Jim or I ever led anybody to believe that.We also have said in the past that when we got the latest beta enhancements finalized and available to people, that we would begin some kind of turbine support. I'm not sure how that comment, nor any of my comments here, implied that "no end to beta" means "no turbine engine" version. That was never said anywhere here, nor on any forum, and it's absolutely not the case.

Mindstar Aviation is not affiliated with, or working with the F1 Mustang, so I'm not sure how this conversation turned in that direction. Flight1 has products, and Mindstar has products, but we don't do any integration with each other, and I don't think Jim or I ever led anybody to believe that.We also have said in the past that when we got the latest beta enhancements finalized and available to people, that we would begin some kind of turbine support. I'm not sure how that comments, nor any of my comments here, implied that "no end to beta" means "no turbine engine" version. That was never said anywhere here, nor on any forum, and it's absolutely not the case.

As stated prior... folks, I respect Stasi's work and cannot emphasis how hard a development an advanced G1000 is.I know you folks want everything (cant blame you) but this kind of stuff is like major surgery at discount store prices.Like I said good on ya Stasi and hang in there. Also Stasi... if people want to use your G1000 over ours in the Mustang, at the appropriate time get a hold of me and lets see what we can do to accommodate any need you might have. Best,Jim

Very interesting - can you tell us what your first Mindstar-compatible release for FSX will be?

Really can't say at this point in time.All we are really saying here is that we decided long ago to allow integration of the Mindstar Units into our products.That means if you own them there there is no prohibiton with their use in our products.Please keep in mind that does not mean we do the support. That is Mindstar responsibility. :( Good to see Jim and Stasi understanding each others position as well.The growth of the hobby is enhanced greatly by their efforts. :(

I cannot answer for MSA. But I can say that we are not on board, and our Mustang G1000 is probably one of the most advanced G1000's out there to date.That is a hard statement to make because I am not in anyway trying to slight MSA. Good on them for working on something as tuff as a G1000 is and continuing to work on it!However, unless MSA can provide something much more advanced than what we offer for the Mustang which includes 2 - 10 inch and 1 - 15 inch display, we have no reason to support "any" other offering.I know this sounds a bit mean spirited, but it is not meant to be. We respect Stasi and his hard work and we believe their is room enough for all of us to do things like this. I only posted because our Mustang was brought up.RegardsJim Rhoads

Thanks Jim- I have the Mustang and agree that it's functionality is of a professional standard, I have flown real C172's with the G1000 panel and while some of the configs are different, the Mustang is a great simulation of this complex avionic. I have yet to try the MindStar though, hence my question (above). Bruce.

I just wanted to say thanks to all the Developers who jumped into this discussion. I know that you guys sometimes feel like the whole community is attacking you on a daily basis. LOL!! It is understandable. There are some of us who are only seeking information about products so that we can plan our next project or purchase for the hobby. We appreciate your hard work and we never complain that you charge too much.I have been active in this hobby for many years and read several forums almost daily. One thing that makes this group unique is that there are so many different types of users from 10 year old kids on a hand-me-down computer to a few guys with half million dollar 747 simulators in the basement. It is no wonder that you, as developers, are pulling you hairs out one by one and drinking too much!! LOL! I for one am amazed that you can produce a product that can be so adaptable and you do it for $30.00 to $60.00. Now before you all start asking for my credit card number, let me say that I am not asking that you charge me more! LOL! I like a bargain too! On the other hand, I don

I just wanted to say thanks to all the Developers who jumped into this discussion. I know that you guys sometimes feel like the whole community is attacking you on a daily basis. LOL!! It is understandable. There are some of us who are only seeking information about products so that we can plan our next project or purchase for the hobby. We appreciate your hard work and we never complain that you charge too much.I have been active in this hobby for many years and read several forums almost daily. One thing that makes this group unique is that there are so many different types of users from 10 year old kids on a hand-me-down computer to a few guys with half million dollar 747 simulators in the basement. It is no wonder that you, as developers, are pulling you hairs out one by one and drinking too much!! LOL! I for one am amazed that you can produce a product that can be so adaptable and you do it for $30.00 to $60.00. Now before you all start asking for my credit card number, let me say that I am not asking that you charge me more! LOL! I like a bargain too! On the other hand, I don't like to take advantage of your good nature and love of the hobby. Your have bills to pay also.Perhaps this entire hobby would benefit from a system where we could purchase support plans for different levels of "Power Users" (for like of a better term) for your more advanced add-ons. Many of the Eaglesoft and for sure the Flight1 Mustang and upcoming Cessna products would fit into that category just to name a couple. I feel that the complexity and advancing computer technology are reaching the point of being a source of frustration for both developers and users. You guys in the business are in a much better position to decide how that might work. I do think it would make for an interesting discussion for all concerned. A quick example of my plans. I love the Cessna 182 and am excited about using the upcoming Flight 1 aircraft for a fairly simple multi monitor home cockpit. To do that, I will have more questions and even would benefit by asking for maybe a simple code change or feature to facilitate that installation. This would not effect the user on the laptop with a joystick and he should not pay to fix my problem. On the other hand, if it helps me, then it will likely be of help to many other "Power Users" and the cost paid for by the support plan fees. Over simplified

Hi glassman2005 and everyone.This is only intended to help. Not to tell you how to do things.The statement that is Vista and or Win7 or XP compatible, leave a huge gap in the compatibility, what OSs the program works with. Because of the MS Gods / YOYOs inability to get anything right, the 32 bit and the 64 bit OSs are mostly incompatible, unless you write OS independent code. What I suggest is to specify, XP32, XP64, Vista 32, 64, Win7 32, 64 and or All the OSs that you tested the code under. Just a suggestion. TV"Yes, it works in Vista and Windows 7 if you request the beta version -- I'm not sure how else to explain this. I thought I clarified up above earlier in this thread.""The beta version, of course, is also compatible with FSX. But if your operating system is Vista or Windows 7, you have to use the beta version. And to be even clearer, the "compatibility" has nothing to do with the G1000 itself, it has to do with the version of InstallShield. Vista and Windows 7 impose new "rules" for software installation (all under the guise of 'better security') so we had to upgrade the version of InstallShield that we use in order to make the install work on the post-XP operating systems."

Please note that our input is a side note and we do not wish to detract from or go OT from the Mindstar or Flight1 questions.I think what we are all beginning to see is a new attitude of cooperation or at least less restrictive attitudes among commercial developers.We see this as a healthy change for the community at large and reduces the stress level between healthy competitors.While the above is true it is unlikely that we can all manage a cross product/support paradigm simply because each Company builds to their own standard and therefore each knows his own product better than the other.It is nearly a full time job to support even a small number of products in a specific developers range and to add another developers project to the mix might just be the proverbial "straw" at it were.Not saying we are closed to the idea but the challenges in terms of added workload might be a bit too much for most of us to take on. :(

Ron...Perhalps I was not clear in the original post. I was not suggesting a separate cross platform user group. Competing products is of course good for the hobby as well. Let's say i bought one of your aircraft. That power user support would only be for that one aircraft or product. If I use one of yours and say a flight one and want more support for it also then I would have to pay for their service also. Say for example then I want to add mindstar to the mix then I would pay them additional support fees.

This is a great thread!I'm interested, because in the back of my head, I have this idea that what I would like to do is get 2 14" lcds with touchscreen overlay that I would put 2 G1000 displays on, including the bezel mounted controls (that would use the touchscreen feature). I think if I had this I could get away from the whole VC - 2d thing and just use my panels + something for ancillary panels and outside view.scott s..