A pity because if it had been 10 $ cheaper, as for probably many other potential customers, it would have been a no-brainer for me.

Edited for tone: OK, lets keep the price in perspective.. Most of us have spent thousands of dollarson our FS rig, a new video card is easily $200-400, so $10 extra to get a really well made airplane that you aregoing to fly for years (compared to some that you fly for weeks only) might just be worth it..And not to pick on you, but yes, you are correct, you do pay twice for two G1000s :( And as to the most expensive GA airplane ever (in the previous post), have a look at Real Air which also makes top quality airplanes,and, you still have to add the RealityXP GNSs.. so $50 seems to be where a top quality aircraft (Real Air Duke, Flight1 182T) comes in at..I understand that some will consider that too high, but quality costs money, in other goods as well..so, this is indeed an individual decision..For what it is worth, I just flew from KSFO San Francisco heading for KPDX Portland, with a detour over Crater Lake,just to have a look and avoid flying into Mount Shasta, with a mixture of GPS routing and old fashioned VOR to VORnavigation. The airplane performed flawlessly and the MFD map has enough detail that you can recognize every stepon your paper charts.. This is one heck of a nice airplane for those who value realism and quality avionics. And, lets remember that this IS a pre-release, so there is still some final polishing to be done..And to show you what you can do.. the second screenshot: a GPS guided LPV landing at night.. (coming in too fast - I know) :(

My sole intent was to hopefully answer some questions in the absence of an official product page or documented features list as well as a good solid performance report. I wasn't saying whether or not it was worth the money. I tried to make arguments for and against it to be as objectionable as possible with a couple of my random opinions thrown in. I am sure that it is unavoidable that parts of it will seem like a mini review. I just hope it answers some questions that hadn't been answered until now.

My sole intent was to hopefully answer some questions in the absence of an official product page or documented features list as well as a good solid performance report. I wasn't saying whether or not it was worth the money. I tried to make arguments for and against it to be as objectionable as possible with a couple of my random opinions thrown in. I am sure that it is unavoidable that parts of it will seem like a mini review. I just hope it answers some questions that hadn't been answered until now.

I think you provided lots of good first hand information that would be helpful to someone who is considering buying this airplane. Sorry if I seemed critical of the price discussion - I'm just a bit surprised at the number of people that feel that $50 is too much but $40 would have been OK. :(

My sole intent was to hopefully answer some questions in the absence of an official product page or documented features list as well as a good solid performance report. I wasn't saying whether or not it was worth the money. I tried to make arguments for and against it to be as objectionable as possible with a couple of my random opinions thrown in. I am sure that it is unavoidable that parts of it will seem like a mini review. I just hope it answers some questions that hadn't been answered until now.

I thought your arguments sounded objective - not objectionable at all. :(

Another thing to bear in mind is that it does actually say this in the 182's manual:This section provides an overview of the Garmin G1000 MFD and its basic functions. For more in-depth userinformation, please download and read the Garmin G1000 NAV III Pilot's Guide at:http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/G1000:CessnaNavIIISystemSoftware0563.18_PilotsGuide.pdfAlthough we have strived to model as many important features in this version of the G1000 MFD, not all featureshave been simulated, and some of those that have been simulated may not be entirely functional.Since they recommend that you can download the 562 page manual for the real instrument and make use of that, one assumes it is a pretty good simulation of the real instrument, even if it doesn't do absolutely everything a real one does. So, considering I paid about 30 quid for Reality XP's GNS 530, that probably means you can subtract about 20 quid off the 182's price and regard that as the cost of the aeroplane, then consider the overall price to be a package which includes an aeroplane and a pretty flashy and realistic gauge that you could put in other FS aeroplanes. That makes it a bit easier to swallow the price for me, since I could then put that gauge in my Saratoga, Skycatcher or TwinStar or whatever, since it does appear to be more functional than other stabs at the thing and doesn't eat up as much FPS either.Al

....a pretty flashy and realistic gauge that you could put in other FS aeroplanes. That makes it a bit easier to swallow the price for me, since I could then put that gauge in my Saratoga, Skycatcher or TwinStar or whatever, since it does appear to be more functional than other stabs at the thing and doesn't eat up as much FPS either.Al

Al,Unfortunately, that is most likely impossible. I don't think it is a gauge you can just move into another addon.

Not actually tried it, but looking at the panel config file, I can't see anything that would preclude that from being done.Al

Not actually tried it...Al

Neither have I, but if it is possible which I doubt, I would reconsider my position on the price.

I think that movement of the nice G1000 into other planes will fail. Not only you will have the wrong system indications and dependencies (since the G1000 is the aircraft's system display too, unlike a GNS430 or 530), but you may also run into some check routines from the copy protection system.So e. g. dropping it into the C310 will give you a single engine display only, and the mentioned copy protection thingies.Dropping it into other single engine planes will always display C182 data (even if you can connect the indicators to the other systems).One also has to add that when comparing the G1000 rendition here and in the Mustang to e. g. the RXP featureset, it will "fail" since you are close to the real thing on the RXP units while the G1000 has lost a higher percentage of its rw features (which isn't trouble at all, regarding the price, don't get me wrong).The big pro for the real sim G1000 is the easy and cheap Navigraph update feature while the RXP units are bound to rw update prizes or that "promising" statement from the devs, which were a thread topic not loo long ago.So you may have a rich featureset on the RXP units, but old nav data (2009), rendering the thing useless at quite some places since it has nothing to calibrate on. A GPS approach not in the database leads to no possible approach at that location you may have planned.There's no easy, legal and cheap sim only nav data solution available, and all company activities also don't aim at making one available, despite the old statements.So the rather "limited" featureset of a sim only G1000 exceeds the use of the RXP units by far in quite some circumstances just because the availability of current nav data.In my eyes, the RXP also receives no (and I really mean no) official support at all, despite some fancy statements and wake up threads like the one here. So whatever happened to the RXP mentality (which seems to have been ok in the past), it went down to a "buy and forget about demanding support" product in the current state. This is a personal statement of mine and everyone is free to check ticket responses or forum activities over at RXP' himself to catch a glimpse. I've tried to trigger some support activities, but I have to admit that I've failed, like others before.Since the thing isn't cheap, the value with that sort of support didn't get any better.In conclusion, one can be really happy about the sim focused and based solutions like the G1000 here since it may eventually offer more use than any oh so real gauge without current data. YMMV of course.

Thanks for the very useful post JetFueler I think I'll stick to my RealAir Duke/Spit and Flight1 Islander.$50 for a single light GA aircraft (albeit with a G1000) is a bit steep for my pocket.RegardsAdam

I thought your arguments sounded objective - not objectionable at all. :(

Ha! My official excuse is that I work second shift and wrote that after having gotten home. Glad my intent, what ever it was, wasn't lost!Ian

I think that movement of the nice G1000 into other planes will fail. Not only you will have the wrong system indications and dependencies (since the G1000 is the aircraft's system display too, unlike a GNS430 or 530), but you may also run into some check routines from the copy protection system.So e. g. dropping it into the C310 will give you a single engine display only, and the mentioned copy protection thingies.Dropping it into other single engine planes will always display C182 data (even if you can connect the indicators to the other systems).One also has to add that when comparing the G1000 rendition here and in the Mustang to e. g. the RXP featureset, it will "fail" since you are close to the real thing on the RXP units while the G1000 has lost a higher percentage of its rw features (which isn't trouble at all, regarding the price, don't get me wrong).The big pro for the real sim G1000 is the easy and cheap Navigraph update feature while the RXP units are bound to rw update prizes or that "promising" statement from the devs, which were a thread topic not loo long ago.So you may have a rich featureset on the RXP units, but old nav data (2009), rendering the thing useless at quite some places since it has nothing to calibrate on. A GPS approach not in the database leads to no possible approach at that location you may have planned.There's no easy, legal and cheap sim only nav data solution available, and all company activities also don't aim at making one available, despite the old statements.So the rather "limited" featureset of a sim only G1000 exceeds the use of the RXP units by far in quite some circumstances just because the availability of current nav data.In my eyes, the RXP also receives no (and I really mean no) official support at all, despite some fancy statements and wake up threads like the one here. So whatever happened to the RXP mentality (which seems to have been ok in the past), it went down to a "buy and forget about demanding support" product in the current state. This is a personal statement of mine and everyone is free to check ticket responses or forum activities over at RXP' himself to catch a glimpse. I've tried to trigger some support activities, but I have to admit that I've failed, like others before.Since the thing isn't cheap, the value with that sort of support didn't get any better.In conclusion, one can be really happy about the sim focused and based solutions like the G1000 here since it may eventually offer more use than any oh so real gauge without current data. YMMV of course.

A quite accurate summary as it pertains to dual engine aircraft such as DA42, etc.:(

I just got my T182T from Flight1 and I must say that I'm impressed. I went for a test ride from KMLB to KAPF and later from KSAV to KTLH... I enjoyed the ride very much using the G1000... It's true... it has some glitches in the screens but remember that it's not an official release from the Flight1 website... Now the only planes missing from Flight1 are a 172SP, a Turbo 206H, an Acclaim Type S and a Baron G58... All of them with a T182T/Mustang G1000 quality... Flight1 ---> Modern.... Carenado ---> Old School (which is NOT bad at all)...Dexter

In the meantime, landing at CYVR Vancouver..

Did a very long test flight in the 182 - LEAM-EGCD - this evening (from Southern Spain, over the Sierra Nevada mountains, up past the Pyrenees, through France, to refuel on the Channel coast before continuing to Northern England). I've been pretty impressed with it, it flies really convincingly and when that crappy Northern Europe IMC kicked in over the English Channel, the avionics really showed their worth for SA, as indeed they did when turning for Woodford over the Pennines. I've flown there a lot in real life, and it can be pretty dangerous in poor weather, so that fancy avionics fit is a real boon; there are lots of aircraft wrecks up in those hills from controlled flight into terrain in bad weather, including an entire flight of four P-51D Mustangs which plowed into the hills in formation during WW2 while following their flight leader in the low cloud.The weather starting to get poor, departing France having refueled:Al