Is Mindstar G1000 more realistic than the F1 G1000?

 

I bought the initial version of Mindstar G1000 a few years ago.. but I have not used it since.

 

If Mindstar G1000 can do WAAS approaches then I may consider getting the latest version. If they can run on a  networked PC also, then that would be surely on my purchase list.

I don't think anybody's asking for a mindstar like g1000 anyway. One like flight 1's would suffice.

 

Yep, that's it.

 

I understand the reality of the situation - it's just... if you're going to do a plane that's more about systems, you need to do those systems to at least a fair level of detail, and I'd certainly be willing to pay a fair price for that.  Obviously Carenado feels they can do something less, and the market must be agreeing or they wouldn't keep doing it.  I just know that I'm not buying and it seems reasonable to say why.

 

Scott

Yep, that's it.

 

I understand the reality of the situation - it's just... if you're going to do a plane that's more about systems, you need to do those systems to at least a fair level of detail, and I'd certainly be willing to pay a fair price for that.  Obviously Carenado feels they can do something less, and the market must be agreeing or they wouldn't keep doing it.  I just know that I'm not buying and it seems reasonable to say why.

 

Scott

 

I agree with you 100% ^_^

If the Mindstar could be installed into these kind of aircrafts and had an acceptable performance it would be certainly my choice to retrofit to my needs, just as I allways do with RXP and so do not need to care about the GNS delivered with the product. But as far as I could investigate the Mindstar can only be used for singles like the C182. One would need completely different gauge segments for NG, TRQ etc. instead of MP or RPM for pistons ... and I also find no info on its performance / FPS-hit in the sim.

 

Please teach me right if I am wrong, for my part a really interesting option!

Yep, that's it.

 

I understand the reality of the situation - it's just... if you're going to do a plane that's more about systems, you need to do those systems to at least a fair level of detail, and I'd certainly be willing to pay a fair price for that.  Obviously Carenado feels they can do something less, and the market must be agreeing or they wouldn't keep doing it.  I just know that I'm not buying and it seems reasonable to say why.

 

Scott

 

If you take away the graphics on this airplane there isn't likely to be much there.  My guess is that the PropJet will be considered a far superior plane in terms of systems and FDE.  But I am looking forward to those screenies.  LOL.

If you take away the graphics on this airplane there isn't likely to be much there.  My guess is that the PropJet will be considered a far superior plane in terms of systems and FDE.  But I am looking forward to those screenies.  LOL.

 

I really like the Jetprop a lot, I think that would be the best way to go for Carenado. Beautiful graphics, really good FDE, nice glass cockpit and for the "hardcore GA fans" the possibiltiy to put the RXP GNS gauges in,

I really hoped that they would consider something similar for the TBM 850...

 

 

I really like the Jetprop a lot, I think that would be the best way to go for Carenado.

 

The JetProp was a nice combination - a bit of glass with the Garmin 500, but with RXP integration to do the heavy lifting and pick up some of the missing bits of functionality (along with a few mods from the community).  The end result was a very nice airplane, with great looks, a solid flight model and reasonable depth.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that had Carenado gone just a bit further with that one and fixed a couple of details, it would've been an excellent plane.

 

Scott

Look at the price of the Mindstar G1000* which is about as real as anyone can make one, and then figure just how much they'd have to charge for the TBM850 even if they were able to code one as full of features.

Yes. It characterizes the can't win issues that developers must face. If they build in full function or build in another developers avionics as standard it drives up the costs so that has to affect the pricing decision. Likely that not all end users have the sophisticated knowledge or interest in using all the features, but they would have to pay the price anyway, or decide not to buy at that price. On the other hand a developer could engineer a separately priced module that allows those who choose to do so to step up with a still separate third party plug in. But then some would complain that developer A charges for something like that while developer B does not. So it turns into a no win situation.

 

What would be the nice-to-have would be to see the third party avionics developer work hand in hand with the aircraft developer and have the avionics developer create and sell the step up modules and avionics. The standard model would be priced and sold by the aircraft model developer and the step up would be there from the avionics model developer for those who want it. Then too, the step up avionics might be portable to use with interface modules for other aircraft.

What would be the nice-to-have would be to see the third party avionics developer work hand in hand with the aircraft developer and have the avionics developer create and sell the step up modules and avionics.

 

For the most part, that's the situation we've had for the last few years with RXP's GNS units, though I don't know how much "hand in hand" has gone on.  The nice thing has been, the RXP costs are a one time deal that many of us have been able to amortize across many aircraft.

 

This whole issue is why many of us shudder when we hear a plane is going to feature a G1000.  It's not that we don't like glass, it's just that we know how hard it is to do something like this right and not have it effectively be a step backward from planes with what should be "lesser" avionics packages.  Imagine, if you would, that you had two choices.  A real world turboprop with quality analog avionics (HSI, flight director and so on...) with a pair of fully featured Garmin GNS 530s.  Or, that same real world turbo prop with a full G1000 set, but with only the functions as implemented in the last couple of Carenados.  I know which I'd choose, no matter how pretty the G1000 panels looked.  In the sim world, apparantly enough users prefer the pretty face, though.

 

Unfortunately, even if someone where to do a generally plugable version of the G1000, (and the Mindstar unit is not that) the devil would be in the details.  A GNS530 in a 172 is the same as a GNS530 in a Turbine Duke, but the same isn't true of G1000 glass.

 

Ah, well...

 

Scott

 

Edit - once again, though - I'd happily take functionality similar to what F1 did in the Mustang.  It doesn't have to be complete - just not a step backwards from what I have in other analog and hybrid avionics packages.

 

 

What would be the nice-to-have would be to see the third party avionics developer work hand in hand with the aircraft developer and have the avionics developer create and sell the step up modules and avionics.

For the most part, that's the situation we've had for the last few years with RXP's GNS units, though I don't know how much "hand in hand" has gone on. The nice thing has been, the RXP costs are a one time deal that many of us have been able to amortize across many aircraft.

 

This whole issue is why many of us shudder when we hear a plane is going to feature a G1000. It's not that we don't like glass, it's just that we know how hard it is to do something like this right and not have it effectively be a step backward from planes with what should be "lesser" avionics packages. Imagine, if you would, that you had two choices. A real world turboprop with quality analog avionics (HSI, flight director and so on...) with a pair of fully featured Garmin GNS 530s. Or, that same real world turbo prop with a full G1000 set, but with only the functions as implemented in the last couple of Carenados. I know which I'd choose, no matter how pretty the G1000 panels looked. In the sim world, apparantly enough users prefer the pretty face, though.

 

Unfortunately, even if someone where to do a generally plugable version of the G1000, (and the Mindstar unit is not that) the devil would be in the details. A GNS530 in a 172 is the same as a GNS530 in a Turbine Duke, but the same isn't true of G1000 glass.

 

Ah, well...

 

Scott

 

Edit - once again, though - I'd happily take functionality similar to what F1 did in the Mustang. It doesn't have to be complete - just not a step backwards from what I have in other analog and hybrid avionics packages.

I agree. I'd choose the same one as you

Can't wait for this one!!

Oh no .... if it´s gonna perform like the Sr22 .... I think I am gonna pass it this time .... what a pity :(

 

I hope that Carenado have solved the FPS issues. Then at least that part of the G1000 complaints will go away. I'm a VFR person - I'd take a basic G1000 like the one in Carenado's SR22 or T812T, if the FPS hit wasn't so huge for something that doesn't really offer any new functionality over FSX default G1000.

 

I think the SR22 is slightly better than the T182T (I get ~11 FPS with the T182T where other quality add-ons give me 23 FPS in the same spot), so maybe they will finally figure it out with the TBM and 206 (and hopefully issue patches for their previous G1000 products).

I wonder why they bothered to ask us what we prefer. Steam it glass.

 

Wonder if we will see the results of the feedback on upcoming projects. Except the 850 ad 206 I guess.

 

Lee

 

 

I wonder why they bothered to ask us what we prefer. Steam it glass.

Wonder if we will see the results of the feedback on upcoming projects. Except the 850 ad 206 I guess.

 

I don't think they did the survey until after the 850 was announced (and it is a tempting airplane, isn't it?)  But, I'm not sure whether the survey reflects what people want or whether it reflects on the response from the quality of glass Carenado has made so far.  I'd suspect the latter.  If they continue to improve their glass the results might change. 

 

 

I wonder why they bothered to ask us what we prefer. Steam it glass.

 

 

Wonder if we will see the results of the feedback on upcoming projects. Except the 850 ad 206 I guess.

 

I don't think they did the survey until after the 850 was announced (and it is a tempting airplane, isn't it?) But, I'm not sure whether the survey reflects what people want or whether it reflects on the response from the quality of glass Carenado has made so far. I'd suspect the latter. If they continue to improve their glass the results might change.

True on both accounts.

 

I just thought that they were working on the exterior and hadn't started vc work yet but that couldn't be the case.

 

I also agree that if the glass was higher quality people would want to see it more.