Most accurate G1000 software (Mindstar or F1 Mustang)

[FL630 3]

Hello,

 

I am starting training with the Garmin G1000 in the next 6 weeks, I am quite excited but daunted by the prospect, people say it's pretty tricky!

 

Like in the real world, I'm flying the Diamond DA42 by Eaglesoft, but I gather this is just the FSX G1000 in the cockpit, and therefore most likely not the most accurate rendition of the avionics suite.

 

So I've come down to two options, both are the same price, but one gives me more for my money. If I'm honest, all I am after is avionics realism with the correct menus and so on.

 

My two options are either to enhance my Eaglesoft DA-42 with the Mindstar G1000, OR for the same price, buy the Flight1 Mustang.

 

Does anyone have experience with either and can point me in the right direction? I understand the DA-42 Mindstar combo will give me the realism of the aircraft, but I'll be in the FNPT II sim in 6 weeks time so the aircraft isn't the biggest deal. If the Mustang's avionics win or come equal to the Mindstar, I'll go for that.

 

Looking forward to opinions

 

Thanks

Ian

[agood 12]

I can't talk about the Mindstar one, haven't seen that. So I'm interested in any feedback on that one as well especially where the plane-specific features are concerned.

 

The Flight1 implementation is the best I've seen of any "regular" plane addon, it is relatively comprehensive and can be updated by real nav data. My wish list around that one (but likely to be ignored by Flight1, not very receptive regarding such requests): 

- Airways display missing

- SID/STAR/approach chart display missing

 

It is also relatively heavy on frame rates and memory, I can't say whether it has to be like that because of the complexity of the gauge or because there is substantial potential for improvement in the code.

 

Having said all that, I own the Flight1 T182T and the Flight1 King Air and love both - both are very well done planes which I also use for G1000 training. I suggest you look into the King Air as well, because that one's got a brilliant little Android app that emulates the keypad for operating the Garmin - works beautifully on a tablet like the Nexus7, and makes operating the Garmin pure bliss.

[some1 65]

I think the newest and most feature rich implementation of G1000 from Flight1 is in their King Air, not the Mustang, which is a bit older addon. So if you don't care about plane type, you should consider this one rather than C510. 

 

Can't compare it to the Mindstar G1000 though. 

[ryanbatc 13,047]

King air's G1000 is far more optimized than the older mustang. The king air is almost as fast at altitude too. The king air g1000 has a few more features like safe taxi and the "banana" shows when you'll reach altitude.

[FL630 3]

I didn't know the King Air was newer, my apologies, I don't really keep up with releases etc. I've just heard the Mustang being mentioned quite often. Unfortunately I don't own any Android devices so I can't take advantage of the F1 app.

 

I'll look into the king air, but I'm still interested if anyone has tried the Mindstar.

[Mazz4200 2]

I bought the Mindstar G1000 at the weekend.

 

Unfortunately i've not had much of a chance to "play" with it as yet, so i suggest having a look at http://www.mindstaraviation.com/G1000_Features.html to see if it has what you're looking for.

 

Couple of pointers:

1) Whether it's my system or the G1000, i've been having a few CTD's since installing it. But i'll give it the benefit of doubt right now as i've been tweaking (i.e messing about) with other things in FSX recently.

2) It's very resource hungry. I have quite a significant drop in fps's when using it. Although i am using a 4 monitor setup.

3) It doesn't like Nvidia Surround. All i get is a big black empty box, no G1000. However, if i "alt-ent" to window mode and un-dock/re-size it, i can return to Surround vision without problems.

4) When it's working properly, it's very, VERY GOOD !

 

I can't compare it to any of the other systems as i don't own them. However, i did consider the F1tech standalone system, the FS2x version and the Flight1 Cessna T182T package, and another system whose name momentarily slips my mind?. RXP is now dead, apparently, and the Project Magenta chaps never answered my email.

 

I chose the MIndstar G1000 for a few reasons

1) The F1tech standalone system (and the one i can't remember) are no doubt very good, unfortunately they're both a tad pricey for my wallet, $250+

2) The FS2x version is only $34-ish. But apparently it's a re-hashed (although improved) copy of the FSX G1000

3) The Flight1 Cessna T182 has had very positive reviews, and i'm sure the G1000 has been improved with the King Air version mentioned above. However, i wanted to install a G1000 in several aircraft, and i was unsure if it would be possible to move it from the Flight1 aircraft into another aircraft without breaking licensing agreeements/legal issues etc, nor how hard it would be to do such a thing, or if it was even possible?

4) I felt the Mindstar system had better long term prospects. Just as the real Garmin G1000 is in continual development, so is the Mindstar version. Admittedly it may be several years behind, and at the moment not fully featured, but, i felt if a feature such as synthetic vision for example, were to be introduced on an FSX program, it would most likely come from a standalone program such as this, rather than a patched version of 4yr old aeroplane which appears to be no longer in development.

 

It is a shame non of these programs have a demo, so it can be a bit of a crap shoot. However, i don't think any of them are particularly bad ( apart from the vanilla FSX version) Some  are very good, some are great, but, non, repeat, non, are as good as the real thing. For that you'll need to part with $60k +. Or spend $25 and get the Garmin trainer DVD, which can't be used in FSX, sadly.

 

Think you need to ask yourself exactly what it is you want from the G1000, then take it from there.

[fakeflyer737 1,012]

Neither. Learn the g1000 with a real Garmin trainer or from the real airplane. I do not understand why rw pilots (I'm one myself) seem to want to interagate fsx with rw flying. Ask your flight instructor not a fsx forum.

[agood 12]

Neither. Learn the g1000 with a real Garmin trainer or from the real airplane. I do not understand why rw pilots (I'm one myself) seem to want to interagate fsx with rw flying. Ask your flight instructor not a fsx forum.

Because it's a lot more fun to learn that way?

And because simply clicking around in a simulator is something entirely different from operating a complex avionics package while flying and talking on the radio simultaneously?

 

I also connected my real world moving map apps to FSX, because there's no way to get closer to the questions and tasks I need it for in the real plane than when flying in a sim.

But it might just be me, lacking imagination to make proper use of the Garmin simulators...

[MartinRex007 390]

Here is another option, the Flight 1 G1000 trainer!

 

 

http://www.flight1tech.com/Products/AvionicsSimulations/GarminG1000StudentSimulatorSoftware.aspx

[Q_flyer 766]

Neither. Learn the g1000 with a real Garmin trainer or from the real airplane. I do not understand why rw pilots (I'm one myself) seem to want to interagate fsx with rw flying. Ask your flight instructor not a fsx forum.

 

Why would you pay for an hours training rate in a real aircraft, to gain basic familiarization of the G1000 when you can buy a cheap FSX add-on to get you at least some way up the learning curve ??

 

No G1000 rendition that I'm aware of is 100% functional as the real unit, but there is still a heck of a lot of basic function, navigation around the screens, button locations, etc, that you CAN learn from a simulated G1000.

 

Maybe you just wanted to tell people that you were a *real* pilot, but either way, I think you are seriously ignoring the procedural training benefits that flight sims offer.   

[g_precentralis 191]

Neither. Learn the g1000 with a real Garmin trainer or from the real airplane. I do not understand why rw pilots (I'm one myself) seem to want to interagate fsx with rw flying. Ask your flight instructor not a fsx forum.

 

Because if you do not familiarize with aircraft equipment and procedures on ground in sim or even mockup, you are going to waste a lot of money.

 

With G1000 you really want to know every single button, page and function of device before even consider taking off. 

[Manny 1,293]

The F1's G1000 is the real deal. I believe it uses the Garmin's demo code. The same code in the real world G1000.

 

It is the real thing.

 

It's even got the WAAS LPV Approaches (US only I think).

 

http://www.duncanaviation.aero/videos/understanding_waaslpv/what_is_lpv.php

 

Quote:

 

LPV Operational Benefits

 

Currently over 1,975 runways across the United States and more to come. Many approaches have minimums to 200 ft height above touchdown and ½ mile visibility with greater accuracy and consistency.

 

Once you’ve flown a GPS approach with LPV you’ll be amazed at how the aircraft performs and how stable it is. Electronic glide paths eliminate intermediate step down approaches, or dive and drive approaches. This type of approach provides more comfort for your passengers, less ear popping, and just more comfort and safety overall. The glide path become independent of ground or barometric equipment. Everything is calculated internal to the aircraft.

 

• WAAS and LPV eliminate:
• cold temperature effects,
• incorrect altimeter settings,
• and lack of local altimeter source

[fakeflyer737 1,012]

Because if you do not familiarize with aircraft equipment and procedures on ground in sim or even mockup, you are going to waste a lot of money.

 

With G1000 you really want to know every single button, page and function of device before even consider taking off. 

 

 

Read the manual, use a garmin trainer or a flight school sim with a g1000 (Flight1 Tech), go flying with an Instructor.  Flight1 will tell you themselves their G1000 (KindAir Mustang) is an "entertainment product." and A LOT of things are missing from it.

[ryanbatc 13,047]

Neither. Learn the g1000 with a real Garmin trainer or from the real airplane. I do not understand why rw pilots (I'm one myself) seem to want to interagate fsx with rw flying. Ask your flight instructor not a fsx forum.

 

Hey "Ron," I learned to fly in a warrior equipped with gns430-  I barely knew anything about it because I never did any instrument training and just have my PPL ASEL.  My BFR has since lapsed and I haven't logged time in about 10 years.  Two years ago I flew the SR20 sim downstairs at the local flight school.  Me and another coworker (also a flight simmer) were just having fun and the flight school guy stepped out of the room to take a phone call.  When he came back in I had already setup an ILS approach (did the GPS overlay), seletced VLOC and was flying a pretty nice approach in simulated IMC.  The guy was amazed...  "how did you figure this out."

 

I'm a flight simmer and I had been using RXP's 430.

 

Last year I went flying with another coworker, this time a cessna with GNS430 as well.  I told him we should do a vfr pratice approach.  So I worked all the radios and setup an ILS.  The setup is exactly what I do in FSX's RXP version.  The pilot really didn't know how to set it up (he doesnt have instrument rating either but he isn't a flight simmer either).

 

My point is that using FSX instruments can really apply to real world procedures.

[fakeflyer737 1,012]

Why would you pay for an hours training rate in a real aircraft, to gain basic familiarization of the G1000 when you can buy a cheap FSX add-on to get you at least some way up the learning curve ??

 

No G1000 rendition that I'm aware of is 100% functional as the real unit, but there is still a heck of a lot of basic function, navigation around the screens, button locations, etc, that you CAN learn from a simulated G1000.

 

Maybe you just wanted to tell people that you were a *real* pilot, but either way, I think you are seriously ignoring the procedural training benefits that flight sims offer.   

 Ya I want people to know I'm pilot, exactly. Hit the nail on the head Sir.

Hey "Ron," I learned to fly in a warrior equipped with gns430-  I barely knew anything about it because I never did any instrument training and just have my PPL ASEL.  My BFR has since lapsed and I haven't logged time in about 10 years.  Two years ago I flew the SR20 sim downstairs at the local flight school.  Me and another coworker (also a flight simmer) were just having fun and the flight school guy stepped out of the room to take a phone call.  When he came back in I had already setup an ILS approach (did the GPS overlay), seletced VLOC and was flying a pretty nice approach in simulated IMC.  The guy was amazed...  "how did you figure this out."

 

I'm a flight simmer and I had been using RXP's 430.

 

Last year I went flying with another coworker, this time a cessna with GNS430 as well.  I told him we should do a vfr pratice approach.  So I worked all the radios and setup an ILS.  The setup is exactly what I do in FSX's RXP version.  The pilot really didn't know how to set it up (he doesnt have instrument rating either but he isn't a flight simmer either).

 

My point is that using FSX instruments can really apply to real world procedures.

 

cool, but the RXP stuff (I own it) is a trainer, F1 (mustang/kingair) are not.