Simviation Forums

After sitting longingly looking at the Flight 1 Mustang for months I've finally bought it

Don't be too Disappointed, at least you don't have to actually Insure or buy Fuel for the damn thing,, its the cheapest Aircraft any of us will probably ever own along with all the other flight sim aircraft out here,,, just a thought anyway, I get in trouble a lot for thinking,,,,,

Great shots.

Don't be too Disappointed, at least you don't have to actually Insure or buy Fuel for the damn thing,, its the cheapest Aircraft any of us will probably ever own along with all the other flight sim aircraft out here,,, just a thought anyway, I get in trouble a lot for thinking,,,,,

I'm not disappointed I really like it! It just doesn't seem to be on the same level as other payware addons in the

Well done on the shots...

Great shots, Dave.........I noticed that Flight 1 aircraft have higher minimum system requirements listed than most other manufacturers. That has always kept me from putting any money down on one :-/

Great shots, Dave.........I noticed that Flight 1 aircraft have higher minimum system requirements listed than most other manufacturers. That has always kept me from putting any money down on one :-/

It does seem quite strange why a tiny aircraft with a mid level fms would need such high system requirements, the big G1000 screens are what kills the fps I think.

What does annoy me is that in various forums where the Mustangs systems and FMC are discussed the general response from Flight 1 is....It would be far to complex and expensive to make an aircraft with fully functional systems and an FMC and keep it in the $55 area.

My response would be....Captain sim 757, 767, Quality wings 757, Feelthere ERJ 175.....all those have much higher quality system simulations and fully functional FMCs and most of which are cheaper.

I don't understand why Flight 1 have this attitude.

I like the Mustang anyway there's no other really option in the small personal jet area. Feelthere do the Phemon 100 but that doesn't compare.

It's the polygons that make a model FPS heavy. So the Carenado C-172 will be more FPS Heavy than the default C-172. The Mustang is probably high in polygons so it doesn't perform as well as another plane would.

Beautiful shots. 8-)

I can run the PMDG NGX at 25fps easy but the Mustang struggles to get about 20.

According to Nick Needham (on an AVSIM review I read), "...any CPU speed less than 2.6 MHz seemed to not work well with the F1 Stang..." - could that be the problem?

Beautiful shots. 8-)

I can run the PMDG NGX at 25fps easy but the Mustang struggles to get about 20.

According to Nick Needham (on an AVSIM review I read), "...any CPU speed less than 2.6 MHz seemed to not work well with the F1 Stang..." - could that be the problem?

My CPU runs at 2.8Ghz whilst running FSX and the PMDG 737ngx is significantly more detailed systems and appearance wise.