Fifty bucks seems like a decent price for a bunch of well-rendered airfields. Anyone have this package?http://www.vansairco.com/index.eng.php?fra...2004e&fase=inforicardo

Yep, seems like a good deal for what you get, all the airports, the detailed mesh, plus they throw in 3 aircraft, not bad.The screens not in the forum are all dated 2003, so that worries me a bit and the textures are a bit lacking in detail. But the shots on their forum do look rather good, wonder what kind of performance you get?Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

I have their B717 which has just been updated to Version 2 according to Vans Airco it is a free upgrade for existing users, Great apart from the fact that they do not reply to emails.This company is very hard to get support from, I have seen a lot of folk who purchased the 717 after i did struggle to get their download link.I hope that someone from Vans reads this and shows up here as i would like my 717 update, so buyer beware with this bunch.

Does look an interesting product. Not sure if i wanna fork out that much though :-( The only airport I would like is Cancun, as the default sucks, and i wanna relive the holiday i took there at the beginning of the year :-lol

Ya might wanna check out FlyMex (www.flymex.com.mx) as they too offer all of Mexico's airports & mesh (no planes) in two packages Norte & Central. Worth a look.

>Does look an interesting product. Not sure if i wanna fork>out that much though :-( The only airport I would like is>Cancun, as the default sucks, and i wanna relive the holiday i>took there at the beginning of the year :-lol>>Have you looked at FSB's "Fly To Caribe" series of airports? They made a Cancun scenery, I don't have that one but it looks pretty good.

I would advise you against buying this product. Very poor support, many airports have weird things (like trees that are 3 times normal height and block runways), fuzzy textures. Yes, I have it and I practically lost $60. It is not state-of-the-art scenery, that is for sure. The only thing you get is MANY airports, so perhaps if you are after quantity rather than quality it might be for you.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

The best Cancun is by the Fly to Caribe series. The Flymex series is pretty good, but there's a serious problem with their installation as it puts in all sorts of extraneous AI that took me forever to get rid of and made some weird entries in the scenery.cfg. I think the secret is to back up your current scenery.cfg, install their scenery, then go back and retrieve the original cfg and manually enter the needed lines. Then go to delete their AI bgl so it won't interfere with your regular AI.Bill Melichar's Mexico airport and Acapulco airport are really good too and FREEWARE!Lee

I have the VANS scenery since their FS2002 version. I have had no problems whatsoever with their 2004 version.It is the best package for Mexican airports, much better than Flymex, no comparison. Performance can be rather demanding, depending on which airport you are at. Mexico City is extremely detailed, and with traffic, etc can give rather slow frame rates.Support is rather lacking, but as I said before, fortunately I have had no problems. I have their CD version, and each time I format my HD, installation is a hassle. Installation with the CD version is sort of Flight1's method, this being internet authorization... BUT... you only have one installation!!! If you format your HD and want to reinstall you have to email them so they can authorize your installation. This is a serious problem, as once I had to wait around one month for them authorizing my install.I believe that the Fly to Caribe software uses Flymex's airports.This airport package are the only payware airports that I have, so I can't compare to others, but I can say as a fact that they are not as Michael said "hi-tech".I am from Mexico, do most of my flying in Mexico, thus I consider this package as necessary! From what I

let's see, "Performance can be rather demanding""can give rather slow frame rates""Support is rather lacking""installation is a hassle""once I had to wait around one month for them authorizing my install"and yet you say "much better than Flymex, no comparison"?! You're right , then there is no comparison.... GO FLYMEX! (just given ya a hard time ;) Actually I would like to see some shots of yours to compare against FlyMex)