Most accurate G1000 software (Mindstar or F1 Mustang)

[ryanbatc 12,857]

I guarantee I can hop into a Cirrus tomorrow, and setup all the avionics, setup an approach etc, because I've flown the G1000 from Flight1.  The Cirrus' Perspective is about the same.  Obviously there's just a "few" more features in the real G1000 over F1,

 

Here's a SR22....  all the basic functions from the F1 are there... just the colors and knobs are in a few different spots.  The base product is the same operation as F1.

 

 

[Manny 1,293]

F1 (mustang/kingair) are not

 

Is any of the things in the F1 Mustang wrong or does not work like  in the real thing? If so which ones are fake (or works differently than the real thing) in the F1 Mustang ?     (which is different from "Not all features are available". some features like the mouse cursor thingi may not be available in the F1 like the real thing)

[Mazz4200 2]

 

 

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

 

For what it's worth, the Mindstar G1000 is the same software used in the Redbird Simulators.

[ryanbatc 12,857]

Is any of the things in the F1 Mustang wrong or does not work like  in the real thing? If so which ones are fake (or works differently than the real thing) in the F1 Mustang ?     (which is different from "Not all features are available". some features like the mouse cursor thingi may not be available in the F1 like the real thing)

 

It's just missing some key features - like vertical navigation, adding airways into flight plans, good terrain mapping, obviously XM weather which fsx wont really support.  There's a few more "deep inside" things (you'll go to the Aux page on the F1 version and find a lot you can't change).  But I'd say if you are very competent with F1 G1000 or RXP 430/540 you can operate the real one and do fine on your flights.

 

Obviously yes, the real manual is what you want but there's nothing wrong supplementing real world aviation with sims.

[FL630 3]

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 do I want to integrate it? Well, a half decent FSX G1000 will set me back £30, my time is free to press buttons, make mistakes and ruin things without any real issues. To fly the DA-42 in the real world is £415 per hour, not including all the time I waste getting things wrong at roughly £7 per minute. Whilst I appreciate it that real world is better than FSX, one cannot argue that the costs involved with NOT knowing your way around the G1000 is actually quite prohibitive.

 

I am not looking for the ultimate in realism down to the exact noise of the tactile buttons surrounding the screen, but if I can save myself a few minutes per flight by knowing exactly where I can press buttons to get the waypoint in the correct place, to program a STAR, change this or change that, it makes a difference to me. It would only require me to spend roughly 4 1/4 minutes of my time in the real aircraft looking for a menu which I could easily learn to find to pay back the price of the software.

 

In addition to this, if I want to practise procedural IFR flight, I can do so in my own time at my desk to try to practice without all that money going out of the window, or into the fuel tanks. I'm not sure when you did your multi instrument rating, but I can assure you many trainee pilots in my position use simulators to practice procedures in IMC in combination with real instruction. So Ron, with all due respect I will ignore your advice and carry on my search for a suitable piece of software.

 

For the others who have replied, thanks! I'm not sure the F1 King Air will be quite what I want, going from Maz4200's post the Mindstar seems to be a good drop in, though I'm concerned about the frame rate drop, my computer is hardly high spec. The actual F1 G1000 trainer looks great, but $250 is a little out of my league right now.

 

Are there any other software developers who are producing realistic G1000's, or is it really just the aforementioned two?

 

Thanks

Ian

[g_precentralis 191]

While you are searching for G1000 simulator, maybe you want to take a look at manual:

 

http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf

 

Domain is:

Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization: Garmin International
Registrant Street: 1200 East 151st Street
Registrant City: Olathe

 

So I believe it's legal.

[Mazz4200 2]

To put the frame rate drop into context.

 

I'm running a 4770k at stock speeds, GTX780 at stock, Win7 on SSD but FSX from a seperate Sata HDD, with 8gb RAM. 3x23" monitors in Nvidia Surround and a 4th 19" monitor connected to the iGPU for the 2D panels.

 

In FSX i have everything maxed, apart from road traffic and boats. Water on highest settings, ground shadows enabled etc etc. FSX frames limited to 30 internally

 

Away from large urban areas (i.e. much autogen) I can easily maintain a rigid 29.9 fps in most GA aircraft. Soon as i switch to the C172/C182 that come with the Mindstar G1000, un-dock the panel and move it to the 4th monitor, my frames immediately drop to high teens. As i say, i haven't had that much time to experiment, but in the brief time i've flown with it i've never seen them climb back into the twenties (this is flying over Orbx UK scenery, ASN, REX4 etc)

 

Obviously i could fiddle with the the settings a bit, but i've not had the chance yet.

 

As to the alternatives, have a look at FS2x. It's only about $34 which is roughly £20ish. But with exchange rates as they are right now, i only paid £30 for the Mindstar G1000, so, it's not really gonna break the bank.

 

There is that other one i mentioned, but for the life of me i can't remember what it's called or who makes it. I'll have a look through my browsers history, see if i can find it.

 

 

Quick edit:

1) Mindstar actually recommend you use the real Garmin G1000 manual to learn how to use their version, so that should give you an indication of how acurite to the real thing it is.

2) The Redbird simulators that use Mindstar software are FAA approved simulators, although i'm not sure at what level. But it's still a good sign.

3) I did try the Simionic ipad app. It's only 6 quid, and it's not bad, but only replicates the PFD at the moment, and, well, it's obviously nowhere near as advanced as Mindstars. 

 

Later Edit:

http://www.flythissim.com/default_simavio.html is the alternative i couldn't remember. It's also a lot cheaper than i thought (perhaps there was another one?)

However, you need to be weary of this one, in as much as you have to buy a base package first for £25, then the add-on G1000 panel for about £50, and that only entitles you to install the panel into one aircraft. However, the add-on NavData seems to be cheaper than the Mindstar (Navigraph) package.

 

As always, you pays yer money, you takes yer chance. Your mileage may vary etc etc

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

If you would like something similar to your Diamond aircraft, I would get and install the Flight1 182T.

 

It has basically the same G1000 as the Mustang, but the 182T is a lot more similar to

your airplane,  than a light jet!

 

The 182T handles nicely and gives you lots of time to work the G1000... in the Mustang,

you will spend more time flying the airplane, than getting to know the avionics  :unsure:

[WarpD 824]

What you choose to purchase is up to you, and I'll not enter into discussions as to who's product is better, etc.

 

However, I will state that Bert is not entirely correct in his recommendation.

 

The one thing people forget, or honestly don't know (I'm uncertain of which), is that each airframe that has a G1000 in it has a rather unique G1000 in it and while the basics are the same across the airframes... that's about it.

 

Engine displays are usually different.

Softkey assignments can be different.

Features available are different.

 

There's a reason Garmin puts out a manual for each individual airframe their G1000 is available in. So... no, using a 182T to familiarize for a DA-42 is no wiser a choice than doing the same with a Mustang.

 

The 182T is a single piston engine with a turbocharger. The DA-42 is a twin engine diesel. The Cessna Mustang is a twin engine jet. The three have very little in common at all.

[n4gix 4,947]

Later Edit:

http://www.flythissim.com/default_simavio.html is the alternative i couldn't remember. It's also a lot cheaper than i thought (perhaps there was another one?)

That one is X-Plane v10 only.

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

My point is not that the 182 and diamond are similar, but that a 182 is easy to fly

and does not take as much attention as a light jet.

 

So, as a training platform, I would select the 182.

[FL630 3]

I was unsure on the exact differences between different aircraft's G1000's, I only thought it was the larger things like if it had AP or not. The Mindstar is looking more and more tempting right now to add into my already realistic Eaglesoft DA-42, if its good for FAA certified sims it must have some level of accuracy, certainly beyond the current modified-FSX G1000.

 

I agree Bert, the 182 is more realistic than a light jet for my situation, but who can turn down a pretty private jet over an old spam can?

 

 

Ian

[RedSpinnaker 35]

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.

 

Is this a troll post?

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

 

I agree Bert, the 182 is more realistic than a light jet for my situation, but who can turn down a pretty private jet over an old spam can?

 

 

Ian

 

 

As for fun and challenging planes to fly - yes, the Mustang gives me much more of an adrenaline rush  :rolleyes:

 

But if you want to get to know the G1000 better,  I find the C182 to be a nice stable training platform

and the Flight1 implementation is quite solid  B)

 

Having said that,  the Mindstar may indeed be your best bet, if you can install it into your

Diamond aircraft..

I was unsure on the exact differences between different aircraft's G1000's, I only thought it was the larger things like if it had AP or not.

 

Here the Mustang and C182T as a comparison... ^_^

[agood 12]

Agree on the C182 being the best option for training - especially considering that the operation is slightly different in the larger planes due to the separate key pads.

 

But just look at that King Air, she's magnificent! :-)