>>This paragraph is included with the Garmin 1000 simulator>litature.>>NOTE: Due to the graphic memory intensive nature of the>G1000 simulator, it must be the only application running on>your PC.>>Wonder how it would run in conjunction with FS2004? :( Bet its not that big of a deal,Garmin is just warning people with lame five year old,low memeory,crud video cards or on-board,integrated video that you'll have problems. I doubt that when run in a sized down configuration its any less intensive than the Garmin 530.It'll be interesting to hear from users...David

>Only if they were modelling the latest model 206/182. The>extra price would not be the biggest issue, add +1 year to the>project if you want a fully-functional G1000 gauge.That's what I'm saying,I wish they would have modeled the newest 206 instead of just another Cessna,which is just a tad larger and pretty much has the same old Cessna type panel. The G1000 has been out for a year or slightly longer,been nice to see it integrated in. I'll pass on the 206 for now but jump on it if they do release one with the Garmin 1000. You'll see that gauge in an aircraft,and I'd bet it won't be a year from now.David

> I'd bet it won't be a year from now.I agree, try 2 for a fully-functional G1000 MFD

>Bet its not that big of a deal,Garmin is just warning people>with lame five year old,low memeory,crud video cards or>on-board,integrated video that you'll have problems. I doubt>that when run in a sized down configuration its any less>intensive than the Garmin 530.>I've heard that my Garmin 296 hand-held has a lot more computing power than the older panel mount Garmin 430/530 series, which doesn't surprise me. The 296, and now the " XM weather capable" 396's have much better colors, higher screen resolution, and are capable of showing a lot more data on the screen. I have to assume the Garmin 1000 as being at least as powerful, and perhaps a lot more. But in reality, the small 296/396 screens, look like a mini 1000.L.Adamson

I just flew from Mi to fl and my backseat passenger had a 396-way ahead of the 430/530 which imho is like a a 16 color ibm of the early 80's. The info it gave with xm (396) made the flight a go/no go-such as freezing levels and knowing when the solid ice producing clouds would end allowing a climb to 8000 ft. to cross the smokies...However-this even blows the 396 away....what I am using now....http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=chartcaseinfohttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Bet its not that big of a deal,Garmin is just warning people>with lame five year old,low memeory,crud video cards or>on-board,integrated video that you'll have problems. I doubt>that when run in a sized down configuration its any less>intensive than the Garmin 530.>Nope, it's true. It will not run at all on my 2gHz laptop at all - although it does run fine on my 3.4gHz gaming machine. (The laptop, Dell Latitude D800, has a decent NVidia video chip and runs FS9 and other things like Doom3 fairly well - it's no slug.)---I will be very surprised if someone manages to get this working well with FS9 at all, let alone on the same PC. It's a completely different beast than the GNS530 simulator - the problems with that were different, it being a 16 bit application (since the GNSx30's actual processor is a 16 bit microprocessor).Dave Blevins

>I will be very surprised if someone manages to get this>working well with FS9 at all, let alone on the same PC. It's a>completely different beast than the GNS530 simulator - the>problems with that were different, it being a 16 bit>application (since the GNSx30's actual processor is a 16 bit>microprocessor).Dave, just for fun I loaded the G1000 Trainer and tried to start FS9 on my P4 3.2 GHz, 1MB DDR development machine...FS9 wouldn't even finish loading... :-violin