Re-write what I wrote however you like. I stand by what I wrote in regards to Groups and Pages. Fairly simple to prove me wrong. And to ZaneG, Avsim Staff, I am far from ignorant. Did I miss quote you?

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".

Walt, you assume too much.The gap in understanding between users and developers is long standing as we all know.Perhaps this will help. Users have unrealistic expectations as to feature sets and pricepoints. That is to say that expecting a full suite of features at entertainment price levels is not going to happen by any dev that we know including whoever happens to be your personal favorite.Devs produce outstanding products with outstanding feature sets at prices that we know you all can afford.When we see outstanding products and feature sets dismissed as "little more than default" or hear a total package hammered for three pages because it doesn't have someones personal preference included it gets a bit old.No amount of grousing, whining, hammering, dissing, or criticism can change the fact that devs build the feature sets they can afford to build and keep the price point low.Asking for a richer or more in depth simulation simply causes us all to point you to a more professional level with prices that many of you are not able to afford.To diss the Mustang G1000 shows the lack of understanding in the community as to what is possible for devs to deliver at entertainment price levels. :(

Re-write what I wrote however you like. I stand by what I wrote in regards to Groups and Pages. Fairly simple to prove me wrong. And to ZaneG, Avsim Staff, I am far from ignorant. Did I miss quote you?

Walt, your statement "The F1 Mustang G1000 is very close to the default FSX G1000 in functionality. That is, almost the same Groups and Pages are modeled even though the actual Cessna Mustang G1000 offers much more." is basically telling the uninformed readers that it is not much more than the default G1000 simulation . Now I did not call you ignorant, the statement though indicates a true lack of appreciation for the programming that went into the F1 Mustang's G1000 simulation and is an ignorant statement at best if you have actually studied the differences.And it is fairly simple to prove wrong. Take a Garmin G1000 training syllabus and start running through it with any of the default G1000 FSX aircraft and then do it with the F1 Mustang version. While the default G1000 does have the appearance of looking like a G1000 and switching through pages that also give an appearance you aren't very far into the training when you find that very few of the actual functions work, the order and hierarchy are not always accurately represented and for a real pilot using this equipment the default simulation is in my opinion dangerous. It can teach bad habits if you are trying to actually learn the avionics for real world use. And yes, to truly use the avionics properly in any real aircraft you do have to memorize how many turns of the big knob and then little knob to get to the page where you need to be so you can do it without staring at the MFD. Things tend to happen in real aircraft a good three times faster than they seem to transpire in the sim and there's no pause switch and crashing is something you rarely survive. The F1 Cessna Mustang on the other hand will task train and procedural train a pilot that does buy it for entertainment to utilize the avionics in a proper manner therefore what he does on the sim will have a parallel for what does happen in the real aircraft. But this is all for fun and entertainment anyway so lets get back to simming and enjoying a job well done on this fun little jet.

@Hondabuff: It is worth the price, in my opinion. There are things missing from the G1000 compared to the real thing, but what has been included is pretty accurate (compared to the Garmin documentation, I'm not a real-world pilot). It is a fun little plane, and remember the 30-day money back guarantee in case you don't like it.@Ron: Do I understand you correctly? You have posted no less than five times already supporting a product that you don't own and have no personal experience with?@Walt: Expect some noise when writing about the Mustang on Avsim. It happens every time.

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)

The Mustang performs superbly on my PC.....Asus P5K-SE motherboardIntel Core 2 Quad Q9550 CPU @ 2.83Ghz (stock frequency)4GB PC2-8500 RAM512MB GeForce 9800GTWindows Vista 64 Home PremiumIt's worth noting that I use high resolution photographic scenery and terrain mesh, but I have flown the Mustang in an area with very dense custom autogen and 3D models, and the framerate was fine.

@Hondabuff: It is worth the price, in my opinion. There are things missing from the G1000 compared to the real thing, but what has been included is pretty accurate (compared to the Garmin documentation, I'm not a real-world pilot). It is a fun little plane, and remember the 30-day money back guarantee in case you don't like it.@Ron: Do I understand you correctly? You have posted no less than five times already supporting a product that you don't own and have no personal experience with?@Walt: Expect some noise when writing about the Mustang on Avsim. It happens every time.

Here's number six...I have quite a number of real world G1000 documents before me. I've studied the differences in spec. between real world manufacturers A, B, and C.I've just released a G1000 Diamond DA42 Twin Star and can tell you the spec differs from a Mustang, a 182, a Columbia 400, a Cirrus Perspective, a Baron, a Mooney, or other G1000 available.I've posted this information more than once to help folks understand the differences. At Sun N Fun and Osh Kosh I've observed the differences first hand in the real thing and in Flight Ones booth. I've been in real world simulators and observed the differences. We have an affiliation with a previously mentioned Avionics dev who also builds an exremely realistic G1000 which is configurable for differences. I mention all this to show that we know a bit about the default G1000 and we know a bit about the real world G1000 in its variations.I know many of the F1 Team personally and can attest to their integrity and depth of simulation on the entertainment side and on the professional side. I know that they have a partnership with Cessna and that Cessna is not interested in providing "little more than defult G1000". Suggest you re read Jims post about the Mustang G1000 capabilities if you really want to know why the "little more than default G1000" remark is such an insult to all devs not just F1.The real issue here is that it has become quite common for simmers to post opinions which are misinformed, misleading, untrue, and quite harmful to devs and potential users...

I purchased the mustang and made some flights from KAST to KOTH and seemed very easy to fly, almost to easy. I ended up pulling out 4Gb of ram and cranking up my OC to 3.6Ghz and running my ram at 1600MHZ. The approach speeds dont seem right coming in over the fence. Says I'm doing 90 knots but sure doesnt feel like it. I flew my Carenado Archer II down the same glide path and was giddy on how silky smooth and fast it seemed on the same path. The Overclock bump is a huge improvement. The mustang seems so slow for whatever reason. Im getting good frame rate but the perception of speed for me is way off. I remember my Flight one Archer had a similar representation of speed around you. Not sure if Im going to keep it or not. Its alot of fun to fly and is a awsome plane. Is there something I can tweak in the Aircraft CFG file??

I purchased the mustang and made some flights from KAST to KOTH and seemed very easy to fly, almost to easy.

The Cessna Mustang is intended to be easy to fly (by one pilot, except in Europe, where two pilots usually fly it), it was designed to be a (rather expensive) step up for pilots who are used to GA prop aircraft, so it deliberately has a cockpit layout that is more akin to a GA aircraft than a commercial airliner (notice, for example, that there is no big bank of switches on an overhead, since that is something GA pilots are not normally used to). It is also deliberately designed to fly in a very friendly manner, especially on approach, with a pretty low speed over the fence. That is in fact one of the reasons why the real aircraft has been such a hit with pilots, although it has also led to some suggestions that it might be a bit slow when up high on the airways.Al

I purchased the mustang and made some flights from KAST to KOTH and seemed very easy to fly, almost to easy. I ended up pulling out 4Gb of ram and cranking up my OC to 3.6Ghz and running my ram at 1600MHZ. The approach speeds dont seem right coming in over the fence. Says I'm doing 90 knots but sure doesnt feel like it. I flew my Carenado Archer II down the same glide path and was giddy on how silky smooth and fast it seemed on the same path. The Overclock bump is a huge improvement. The mustang seems so slow for whatever reason. Im getting good frame rate but the perception of speed for me is way off. I remember my Flight one Archer had a similar representation of speed around you. Not sure if Im going to keep it or not. Its alot of fun to fly and is a awsome plane. Is there something I can tweak in the Aircraft CFG file??

How much wind did you have? 90 knts will be your indicated airspeed...As far as perception of speed beyond what your actual ground speed is-lots of variables including width/length of runway, terrain can influence the sense of speed.I have some videos here of landing in a baron (approach speed 100 kts. and over the fence 90). Why don't you compare the sensation of speed to the real thing-I find the Mustang very realistic. I don't think I've ever felt much of a sensation of speed in an Archer-but it is all relative! :(

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...

Try doing this with the default G1000... Coupled LPV approach into KTPA 36L..

This has been an interesting exchange for sure. I for one have not a clue as to what the developement cycle of say one of Ron's planes or the Mustang might be. I am sure that at least 90% of the readers on this board are the same. It occurs to me that for this hobby and market that is a real negative. It is clear that we as customers all have ideas of what we want and they as developers have their ideas of what they think we want. Our problem as customers is that when we ask that the Mustang G1000 include an ice cream machine then they have to spend untoll hours figuring out how to include it and at a cost they can make a living with as well as a cost we can aford to pay. Why....See second Sentence above in bold. Short answer...We don't have a clue!Suggestion.....A good sticky from someone who has the knowledge and expertise to document the developement of a product from beginning to market. I know you all have your trade secrets and we don't need that info. But a good honest general discussion including some of your common problems. Include maybe some man hours for some of the task. Maybe start at the point where some MOD here starts whinning about wanting a new Baron. :( It's a big project but perhalps Someone like AVSIM could take the reigns and see that it got done correctly. That and with the help of some developers and volunteers I think would be a worth while project for the hobby. It would reduce JIM and RON's medication cost by at least half and we could get a price break on some of the products. LOL

Yes, those stupid, stupid customers. What with their opinions, and willingness to pay for more features. I find it amazing that I have said numerous times that I want to pay for those features missing from the Mustang but apparently nobody heard me. Oh well, that's this forum for ya... write an honest opinion and you get dogpiled by devs and users. Some of whom don't even own the product in question. And then go on to misrepresent what I stated very clearly in my original post. I've said everything that needs to be said on the Mustang and this discussion, so I bid every one adieu.

Yes, those stupid, stupid customers. What with their opinions, and willingness to pay for more features. I find it amazing that I have said numerous times that I want to pay for those features missing from the Mustang but apparently nobody heard me. Oh well, that's this forum for ya... write an honest opinion and you get dogpiled by devs and users. Some of whom don't even own the product in question. And then go on to misrepresent what I stated very clearly in my original post. I've said everything that needs to be said on the Mustang and this discussion, so I bid every one adieu.

We don't consider any of our customers as stupid. And as for missing features in the Mustang, I think we mentioned earlier that they are not missing.The fact that "you" would pay for it and a handful of others possibly, does not guarantee that what I invest in the venture turns to profit. Based on previous experience of which I have plenty of, I would estimate that we would be lucky to pull off 500 customers that would pay for what "you" want. 500 is shooting high. That doesn't pay the bills and further than that.... every person has thier "one" thing that will make the product perfect. I refer to this as perceived reality. It is something that can never be satisfied because it is unique to each user. We have a record of implementing several things in the Mustang that users wanted and they never had to pay a dime for it so don't play the "They don't listen to us" game. Navigraph implementation, custom key commands, and many more. Those were huge items.If you feel you are being "dogpiled" think about how we feel when something is reported in an open forum... something that is inaccurate like the G1000 being little more than the default.Also, open forums cannot be one sided. You write an "honest opinion" and we give an "honest answer" but you don't want to hear it. I am not sure about why there is this perception that all developers should be good little boys and keep yo mouths shut no matter what comes along. That dog don't hunt for me and those days are over. we do have opinions. The good thing is that most people are quite reasonable and for that I am thankful. As for Ron, it doesn't matter whether he owns it or not, his points are valid about developers, the industry, expectations and realities. And I will make sure he gets a copy so you can scratch that concern.

This back and forth between users and deveopers is just the nature of the beast. Until I started working with programmers (I'm not one) I had no clue what was involved in just the simpliest of features. I am still amazed at what it takes in time and money to create, modify, or add anything to a codeUsers are always going to want more or different and developers are always going to have to balance whats feasible and profitable, thats just the way it is. I just hope that the dev's continue to create for FSX because when they stop, it's going to be the end of an era. Flight 1 and ES are two of the best out there, and the only down side I see is that if they release too much too soon, I'm going to need a bigger hanger!

Yes, those stupid, stupid customers. What with their opinions, and willingness to pay for more features. I find it amazing that I have said numerous times that I want to pay for those features missing from the Mustang but apparently nobody heard me. Oh well, that's this forum for ya... write an honest opinion and you get dogpiled by devs and users. Some of whom don't even own the product in question. And then go on to misrepresent what I stated very clearly in my original post. I've said everything that needs to be said on the Mustang and this discussion, so I bid every one adieu.

There are a number of erroneous assumptions in your post so please bear with us for the moment. Neither I nor any other dev or pilot in this thread has called customers stupid. Misinformed perhaps, but not stupid.I find it amazing that you assume that development houses are setup with custom shops to build to one or more customers personal preferences and features list.We certainly are not setup for such services at any price.An honest outline has been provided for all users to understand why some feature or other is not included in a given package.You posted an opinion and others posted theirs. Disagreements happen but that hardly constitutes "dogpiling".If you re read my post #36 it will become clear as to you why I do not have to own the Mustang to understand G1000 implimentation in FS. Please make special note of my mention of our recently released DA42 G1000 implimentation in FS.A re read of Jims or Zanes post will shed further light on why folks disagree with you.Finally, our main interest in this thread is the fact that users often post opinions which are misleading, untrue, and harmful to devs and other users.This is the sort of behaviour that is poison to any community including the FS community and so from time to time we respond in as positive a manner as possible. :(