Honestly Ron, why did you question my opinion when you don't even own the add-on in question? F1 didn't do the G1000 to "spec" as that'd be impossible at this price point. However, there are things such as VNAV and some other features that wouldn't be totally unreasonable to ask for that are missing. I would quickly pony up the cash for an expansion pack, as would many other Mustang customers who've expressed a similar opinion.

Two reasons. One, the comparison to PMDG made no sense since they don't build one. Two, all of the G1000 equipped aircraft we've examined or are now building are aircraft manufacturer feature specific over the top of the "Base" G1000 feature set so it's an important distinction.Phrases like "differs little from default FSX G1000" are misleading if users are unaware of the distinctions I've pointed out. :(Edt: With all due respect and while I can't speak for F1, if you wanted those features from us you would pay much more than F1 is charging. :(

Please re-read what I wrote. "That is, almost the same Groups and Pages are modeled even though the actual Cessna Mustang G1000 offers much more."If I am wrong in what I wrote above, please explain how. I at least supported my statement with an example.

Reading what you say and how it is said translates to me that the F1 version of the Garmin is almost as functional as the default C172 version of the Garmin. That's how it reads.I have the default C127 (of course!) and the F1 Mustang, but can't speak of the depth of features. I've only flown the Mustang a couple of times and not since a new system build. Even if I do fly it, it's totally VFR, as I'm close to being the world's worst sim pilot.So again, it's not necessarily what you're trying to say, but how it sounds.

Two reasons. One, the comparison to PMDG made no sense since they don't build one. Two, all of the G1000 equipped aircraft we've examined or are now building are aircraft manufacturer feature specific over the top of the "Base" G1000 feature set so it's an important distinction.Phrases like "differs little from default FSX G1000" are misleading if users are unaware of the distinctions I've pointed out. :(Edt: With all due respect and while I can't speak for F1, if you wanted those features from us you would pay much more than F1 is charging. :(

The comparison to PMDG was in regards to how in-depth they go into a simulation in general. When someone says an add-on is at a "PMDG-level" of simulation they understand the degree of fidelity they'd be getting. A lot of people say that the VRS SuperBug is the PMDG of fighter add-ons, or that your CX is the PMDG of business jet add-ons. That's a perfectly fair comparison that is often used in this community. I'm not sure I understand your second point. The F1 Mustang contains a simulation of the G1000 used in the Mustang. I'm not sitting here saying I'd be willing to pay for features that aren't in the real airplane. You can sit down with the Mustang's G1000 manual and see what's missing. Maybe you could elaborate on your point a little more. And I would pay for those features if you made an aircraft with them. I already own your CX so I know you're capable of making exellent add-ons. As soon as you make a high fidelity G1000 simulation let me know, I'll be first in line. And with all due respect from me, I highly suggest you buy the F1 Mustang. For one, it is an excellent add-on. It would also give more weight to your argument.

The comparison to PMDG was in regards to how in-depth they go into a simulation in general. When someone says an add-on is at a "PMDG-level" of simulation they understand the degree of fidelity they'd be getting. A lot of people say that the VRS SuperBug is the PMDG of fighter add-ons, or that your CX is the PMDG of business jet add-ons. That's a perfectly fair comparison that is often used in this community. I'm not sure I understand your second point. The F1 Mustang contains a simulation of the G1000 used in the Mustang. I'm not sitting here saying I'd be willing to pay for features that aren't in the real airplane. You can sit down with the Mustang's G1000 manual and see what's missing. Maybe you could elaborate on your point a little more. And I would pay for those features if you made an aircraft with them. I already own your CX so I know you're capable of making exellent add-ons. As soon as you make a high fidelity G1000 simulation let me know, I'll be first in line. And with all due respect from me, I highly suggest you buy the F1 Mustang. For one, it is an excellent add-on. It would also give more weight to your argument.

I'm swamped so I'll get to the Mustang at some point. You have no idea how many aircraft I see and test and the Mustang seems to at the backburner at the moment.I understand the comparison, it just seemed odd regarding a G1000.I'm sure if users want a more "in depth G1000" they can visit the F1 Professional Hanger and "pay the freight".We have no plans to build an "Professional Depth G1000" at sim user entertainment price levels although our DA42 Twin Star G1000 is pretty good for that versions spec.Users who want a more Pro Grade G1000 simulation should visit either F1 Pro, or in our case visit Mindstar Aviation for a seamless drop in to our FS9 or FSX DA42. :(

The comparison to PMDG was in regards to how in-depth they go into a simulation in general. When someone says an add-on is at a "PMDG-level" of simulation they understand the degree of fidelity they'd be getting. A lot of people say that the VRS SuperBug is the PMDG of fighter add-ons, or that your CX is the PMDG of business jet add-ons. That's a perfectly fair comparison that is often used in this community. I'm not sure I understand your second point. The F1 Mustang contains a simulation of the G1000 used in the Mustang. I'm not sitting here saying I'd be willing to pay for features that aren't in the real airplane. You can sit down with the Mustang's G1000 manual and see what's missing. Maybe you could elaborate on your point a little more. And I would pay for those features if you made an aircraft with them. I already own your CX so I know you're capable of making exellent add-ons. As soon as you make a high fidelity G1000 simulation let me know, I'll be first in line. And with all due respect from me, I highly suggest you buy the F1 Mustang. For one, it is an excellent add-on. It would also give more weight to your argument.

Show me another G1000 that flies fully coupled WAAS approaches, (we were doing this in both lateral and vertical for over 1.5 years now) Holds, Procedure Turns, Missed Approaches, SIDS, STARS and has an updatable database. (Navigraph and our WAAS data) Keep in mind this is not a Garmin traning app and it does not rely on the trainer either. This is an entertainment product and there are other G1000 simulations that do less and cost as much as the entire Mustang product which is incredibly feature rich. I really cannot fathom why any person would open the manual of any aircraft and expect it to be 100% replicated for a 50 dollar price point. The FS entertainment sector is the only one I know of that does not understand value vs. price in aviation products. Anything seems reasonable to do for the one that isn't doing it. Ron is right. If you want extended G1000 features, then keep your eye on Flight1tech, and I can assure you it won't even be a 1:1 simulation nor does it need to be. I got to tell you that these kinds of discussion leave me scratching my head.However, please understand that I do recognize that you are saying that you recommend the Mustang, I am simply being specific about the G1000 which isn't anywhere close to default.

Where's this 100% figure coming from? I never said that. I know that's not possible. And I've said numerous times that I'd pay for more features.Edit: As far as going through the manual goes, it's not like I skipped to the section on SafeTaxi diagrams or XM Weather and then came here to moan about those missing. Specifically, I tried doing a few things starting on page 1 of the G1000 Mustang cockpit reference PDF.

Where's this 100% figure coming from? I never said that. I know that's not possible. And I've said numerous times that I'd pay for more features.Edit: As far as going through the manual goes, it's not like I skipped to the section on SafeTaxi diagrams or XM Weather and then came here to moan about those missing. Specifically, I tried doing a few things starting on page 1 of the G1000 Mustang cockpit reference PDF.

You can sit down with the Mustang's G1000 manual and see what's missing..That sounds a little like it to me. It doesn't matter. The Mustang is an extreme value for the money and has the most feature rich G1000 on the FSX market to date bar none.I make no excuses for the decisions I made with the Mustang feature set. The Mustang is one that most won't toss out of their hangar and as computers continue to up in performance, it will only do better and better and will be around and enjoyed for many years to come. SafeTaxi diagrams or XM Weather I laugh every time I hear this one. Most users that request these 2 items ( I realize you didn't) do not have any idea what those features entail in the real world... Safetaxi and XM are subscription based products that cost more than any FSX product does and XM is satellite based, requires a receiver and antenna + subscription. Yeah, I agree, wouldn't that be cool but it sure won't happen for entertainment. Not in my world anyway. I was talking to a friend the other day and we discussed how many aircraft are really rich in some way, but not in others. For instance like the exterior of the aircraft... I see many commercial offerings that have smudgy paint jobs, rivets that look like stove bolts, sharp and un-natural angles etc. The Mustang is a work of art from the outside, to the vc, to the avionics, to the many little hidden features that are almost endless. So my point is that the Mustang might cost 20 bucks more than standard fair, but you get so much more for that 20 bucks and personally, I think it is too cheap.Regards,Jim Rhoads

I own both the Eaglesoft and F1 products being discussed and frankly I am :( at how good they really are. That said guys, I am confused at the attitudes expressed by the venders in this forum towards the customer. I keep seeing remarks about how they are swamped or too busy to worry about the customer. I know that you take a lot of flaik from here. Most of us try to be patient and depend on you to give us the best toys you can at a price we can afford. I am starting to get the feeling that you developers thing we are all stupid here because we don't understand your problems. We are not. We work hard to make the money to buy the products you work hard to make. You might want to consider that if your customers didn't get excited by the new latest gadget then you will soon have no customers. That is not good for any of us.

I like the Mustang alot, it's a nice plane and a very polished simulation.However I have noticed a drop in frame rates from around 30FPS down to 20FPS with this plane - you will need a fast PC to do it justice.

I own both the Eaglesoft and F1 products being discussed and frankly I am :( at how good they really are. That said guys, I am confused at the attitudes expressed by the vendors in this forum towards the customer. I keep seeing remarks about how they are swamped or too busy to worry about the customer. I know that you take a lot of flaik from here. Most of us try to be patient and depend on you to give us the best toys you can at a price we can afford.

That last statement says it all really. Because it actually goes both ways. We work hard to give you those cool toys at a price you can afford and at a price that hopefully does more than just keep our doors open. The expectations of every user are different, some are reasonable, some are more than that and some are beyond what is capable for the price point. For years many of us developers have tried to "one up" each other and that was good for the customers, but it has gotten to the point that it crosses what should be expected for the entertainment price point. Many aviators that need tools to assist them in training will pay way beyond what a entertainment product will bear in the market. But we are all approaching that point of how much can you do for said /given price. We don't have magic wands, we have to get up and work just like you do and most days are way overtime with no overtime pay. So yeah, I understand the concern about your hard earned money. So there is no "attitude" it's just shooting straight facts which is never very popular around here. And with that in mind, I am confused at how many people want to take developers to the wood shed around here also. Personally I really don't care. I know what I can offer, I know we provide quality and I know that if a customer doesn't like either one, we give them their money back. So I sleep pretty good at night.I rarely post here these days..... and it is getting rarer...

To Hondabuff,I sincerely hope we have helped with answers to your questions or concerns. If you have any others, please PM me. Replying here with anything but glowing accolades appears to be pointless. If I may make a point, maybe your statement should have been worded, "So let me hear only your likes".

I'll just elaborate on my thoughts on the Mustang as whole because I think that last post came out sounding pretty negative: It's overall an excellent add-on and I'm glad I bought it but I guess my desires are too much for this price point... I would've paid twice as much to fix those last issues.

I reviewed this aircraft for AVSIM and have many hours in G1000 equipped aircraft ranging from C172 to TBM850 so my opinion should be of value if your interested in a real pilots point of view.Pros:Amazing modeling, external and VC - agreedGreat sounds - agreedGood documentation - agreedExcellent support - agreedFlies great, I don't know what a Mustang flies like but it sure is fun to fly in the sim - agreedBest G1000 simulation so far - agreedCons:Need a pretty beefy computer to run it well. Before I got my i5-750 I had it shelved because of performance (I was using an E6600) - agreed, using Nick's optimization guide is very helpful, I run it on a Q8200No load manager - MSFS does a horrible job of simulating varying weight distributions, Flight1 has stated that they no longer do this due to the hours spent providing free customer service for complaints caused by this very poorly implemented programming. A good pilot has already got this figured out during flight preparation on the paper flight planNo weight & balance page in the G1000 - see above but as an additional note you would already have this work done before entering the aircraft and not be fumbling around with button pushes and knob turns. A good pilot should already have this done and there are plenty of pertinent pre flight items to be occupied with at this timeNo G1000 cheklists - interesting feature but after the novelty of having it onscreen passes you end up using printed checklists and keeping the displays for nav/engine/more pertinent data. A good pilot in this class of aircraft usually has created their own checklists they keep in their JeppBook with the current flight plan and chartsDoesn't seem like there's much to the AHRS simulation... as soon as you turn on the batteries it's aligned and ready to go - unneeded programming that we didn't have to pay for, is this really necessary and wouldn't you rather be flying than sitting on the ground watching a simulation of an electronics startup sequence?No VNAV simulation. This is the biggest con to me. - I have never used this feature and no one I know flying G1000's including Citation Mustang pilots are using it. When it was announced for Mooney aircraft and you could have the feature added to the current inventory every sales person advised not to waste your money on it since it would be just a novelty and you were better off spending your money on features you might really use like TCAS, WAAS (both of which the F1 Mustang has). Honestly how hard is it to set the altitude (assigned by ATC when flying IFR) in the altitude bug... easier than resetting your VNAV programming in your flightplan and whatever you plan for it will probably be different. Enroute you probably will want a different altitude if its bumpy at your planned altitude, again easy change on the altitude selector after cleared by ATC. Approach will probably be assigning altitudes and when you're busy with vectoring, altitude changes, radio communication, watching for traffic, etc, you want to be able to do something quick and easy... like reaching out and turning the altitude select knob and not futzing with the VNAV function.

To Hondabuff,I sincerely hope we have helped with answers to your questions or concerns. If you have any others, please PM me. Replying here with anything but glowing accolades appears to be pointless. If I may make a point, maybe your statement should have been worded, "So let me hear only your likes".

Calling it not much more than the default G1000 simulation is pretty insulting so I would have expected a comeback from the developer or anyone else that saw through the shear ignorance of such a statement.

If I may make a point, maybe your statement should have been worded, "So let me hear only your likes".

Or...maybe... please allow me to state an opinion, and Mr. Developer, reserve yours.Zane and nonewmessages had it right: Calling it not much more than the default G1000 simulation is pretty insulting so I would have expected a comeback from the developer or anyone else that saw through the shear ignorance of such a statement.Thanks to those that understand. Jim

I have the Mustang and can appreciate all the work that went into creating it but haven't flown it for months. My favorite plane is the LionHeart Epic Victory as it fits my flying style, doesn't require a supercomputer and looks fantastic.The price can't be beat also.jja