Colombia Virtual Professional 2005

By Ron Blehm (14 January 2007)

he product is called "Colombia Virtual Professional 2005" ("CVP") and this payware add-on for FS2004 is reported to run circles around any other add-on for this geographical area. In fact, reports have it that real, professional pilots in Colombia have been using this product for training as it is so far superior to anything else out there (picture left, below from this product). As far as I'm concerned, for pilots who fly in this part of the world, this product in FS2004 out-looks and out-performs any other sim including FSX (and I've got screen shots to prove it, center and right below).

       

Introduction:

I had some disastrous results with some add-ons from FS2000 and FS2002 and generally I have tended to avoid these things like a plague. I actually think Microsoft has done a pretty good job of letting some bloke in Oregon pretend he is flying in South America but I can also see that South Americans, who know better, may feel that their area is lacking some detail. If someone in Egypt is curious about Colombia, default MS does, in my opinion, a pretty acceptable job - but if you want to see how things look in reality, I know that add-ons are the way to go. This is true anywhere in the world so simmers just need to decide where they want their details. Sure, FSX has enhanced the surface textures everywhere, but I think the surface data those textures are laid upon are quite weak and out-dated (picture, right).

Like most authors, these developers take their work (and their hobby) seriously but really folks, would you put in countless hours of work and coding if you didn't believe you could make some notable improvements (picture, left, from CVP)? This product may be good enough to make you want to sim here in South America! It seems to me that most reviews slew around comparing screenshots of default views versus new views and I have yet to see one that looks worse! I understand that the default world ain't perfect and I accept that the real Andes look different than the Microsoft Andes.

I have included some screen shots below just to tease you, but this review focuses heavily on the performance of the add-on in FS2004. Having said that, my system is quite average - a 1.99 GHz Athlon with a 512 Meg ATI video card running on an HP laptop. I run AI at 37%, no aircraft shadows and all other sliders maxed to the full right side. So it was that I (and my moderate system) approached "Colombia Virtual Professional" with some caution - Your system specs or performance will likely vary.

What you get, if you get it:

Getting the Add-on:

What you get:

The remaining files unzipped into an auto installer and here was another potential problem: it directs the installer to C://programes de microsoft/flight simulator 9. Well, I'm sorry folks but my computer does not have a pathway that includes "programes de microsoft" in it which, if I'm not mistaken, could lead to files being placed incorrectly. No worries mate, I browsed to my downloads folder again and unzipped them there. When all was done it looked as though I was on proper coarse and heading with a folder called ADDON SCENERY a couple of TEXTURE and SCENERY folders and an INSTRUCTIONS folder. "Great" I said to myself! Clicking on the Instructions I found a page written in English, with photos, showing how you can tune the NAV2 radios to get the scenery to interact with your aircraft. Another page described all of the radio frequency "fixes" they have done. Another page expressed the author's thanks and directed us all back to www.virtualcol.com to watch for news and updates. So far I had no instructions as to how to proceed.

This was frustrating and for a $22 "professional" product I'd expect more out of the preparation. You will likely have a better experience just getting this from the FS Pilot Shop. Also, while I don't want to sound judgmental, the "universal language" of air traffic and ATC and on-line flying is English. This works out well for us Americans who think that the whole world should do everything our way...and it allows us to wallow in a world where we can survive 80+ years without ever having to learn but one language (...and people call us lazy? What's up with that?). I acknowledge that the rest of you all have to be at least BI-lingual if not TRI-lingual and this makes life more difficult for y'all. None-the-less, I found it increasingly difficult to navigate the web site and included information simply because my Spanish skills sort of suck! Those parts that were written in English looked to have been run through Babblefish, or a similar web site, and just pasted in without any grammar corrections, but at least that gave me an approximate direction to head in. (I was concerned about users who grew up speaking Russian for example, then had to learn English in school and now face a product written in (or translated from) Spanish. Aiy! Caramba!) Having said all that, I can assure you that as I have written this review, changes have been made and the product is already more user-friendly. Furthermore, I can promise you that the next version will be even better - including photorealistic scenery that is much more frame rate-friendly!

Okay, pages later he gets to the review part of the piece, but not without a problem. I had the piece all written and submitted with backups all zipped up tight at home. Come to find out, some of the photos I had sent in were corrupted--no big deal right? Well, my flying PC is also the PC for the entire family and somewhere along the line (twas probably me) my Colombia zips got dumped. Meanwhile, I had received the product Bogota X-treme which is also in the FS Pilot Shop. This product lays over the top of Colombia Virtual Pro, adds even more details in Bogota and around the city (not the other 104 airports) but with less of a frame rate hit as CVP (with all 105 airports). So, as I went back to re-fly this first leg again, what you will see is default versus CVP plus Bogota X-treme. More information on this product at the end of this review.

Flight One = Caracas to Bogota - default weather, "dawn", A318:

I set cruise for 15,000 feet with the first point of interest being Valencia - shown in default and with the add-on (and in FSX by the way) as being in a little hole in the ground. This is one of the unrealistic spots Microsoft refuses to fix but I was running about 13-15 fps in spot view here.

       

The next point of interest was prior to the STD waypoint. In the default I had some rolling hills below (left picture above, from FS2004). However, with the add-on I had to climb to 18,000 to clear the jagged peaks (center picture, above, from CVP)! was still running about 15-17 fps in spot view. This is excellent (picture above, right, from CVP).

       

Over the boarder my fps were unchanged from the default but the landscape below looked much more "unfinished" which is what I'd expect from something like the Andes (picture left, above from FS2004 and pictures center and right from CVP). As noted, I've never actually seen the mountains before but if real live Colombians are saying this is better then I'll believe them! By 100 miles from Bogota the default scenery still had me happily at 18 fps and 15,000 feet. The add-on had me at about 16-18 fps and i was now back down to 15,000 feet. By 20 miles from the VOR neither scenery would allow much descent, but the add-on still looked more rugged and both had 12-15 fps. So far I was pretty-well sold (picture below, left from FS2004 and right from CVP).

   

At this point I noted that on the GPS and in map view I had, in places, two NDBs or VORs where new ones were added a few meters from default ones but both were now showing up - no big deal. Over the VOR(s) I turned to final and in cockpit view had 21 fps default and 13 fps with the add-on. What was more interesting was that the default FS2004 and FSX show the airport up on a plateau like an old landfill - but the add-on raises the valley to match the airport smoothing that part out (picture below, left from FS2004 and center with CVP). It also fills in with some water and buildings (picture below, right, from CVP). Frame rates start taking hits here dropping about 10% over the default but are still about 50% better than FSX on my system. (FS2004 default at 12 fps, add-on at 10 fps, FSX at 5 fps!)

       

Tower view and video of the landing are still about 10% less with the add-on which shows more trees and telephone poles and light stands flashing past. Taxiing was 8 fps default and 6-8 with the add-on which adds multiple nice-looking buildings and jetways and trucks and people and lights and trees (which don't always load properly; see picture below, left). It's all eye-candy and it's all very nice if you need Bogota to look like the real Bogota. As I taxied, I started wondering what would happen if I kept the mesh but just used the default airports. I tried this with 6 fps add-on and back to 9 fps default. What's more is while the default airport looks like all the other dull airports in the FS world, the taxiway intersection I had stopped at was in the same position in both situations. (Nice job Microsoft!) (See pictures below center with CVP and right with FS2004.) The gate locations nearby were the same just lacking the jetways. So my question is, are trees and light stands and jetways in Bogota worth 10% of your performance on finals? I can't answer that for you, only for me.

       

Flight Two = Bogota to Neiva - real weather, mid-day, Jetstream-31:

Take-off from tower view had 23 fps in the default and 15 with the add-on. I flew over the city which again, looks much better with the "Professional" add-on. I was 12 fps default and 9-10 with the add-on (photos below, FS2004 left and CVP right). I climbed on up to 15,000 feet and headed south down the Andes. The gentle default mountains had me running at 30 fps and the higher, more rugged add-ons in the mid teens. Cruising in spot view at 15,000 feet this drop is acceptable and the further from Bogota I got the better the frame rates got. At one point I was better with the add-on than I had been in the default setting. Much like the last leg, at some point in the default I was able to drop to 10,000 feet over a high valley with a river running through it. With the add-on the river was still there, looking good, but I could only drop to 12,000 feet as everything is now more prominent. 10,000 feet default had 29 fps and 12,000 feet with the add-on had 23 fps, both appeared smooth. Again, congratulations to MS for getting the river in the right spot - someone from Ghana would never know the difference were it not for this add-on!

   

I took a straight-in approach to runway...19 in the default, 20 in the add-on with cockpit view at 35 fps versus 9-12 with the add-on. Once on the ground I was treated to a very, very nice looking airport and the little guy with the flags actually moves his arms to get you all parked (photo left, below CVP). Very nice indeed but parked in the dull world had 20 fps as opposed to parked with the passengers and carts in the add-on showing 12-13 fps. I couldn't resist the urge to keep the mesh but undo the airport and fly the approach again. It was a little tight over the trees but heck, that makes it fun! Frame rates without the airport were pretty darn close to default but the surrounding mountains are much more impressive thanks to the great mesh! (Photo center, below withouth CVP and photo right, below with CVP).

       

Flight Three = Neiva to Mitu - Custom weather "summer rains", 16:00, Dash-8:

   

Once over the mountains I dropped to 9,000 feet and things looked about the same as default, jungles are a bit thicker but frame rates are the same and weather is less-than-ideal for photos (sorry). Twenty miles from Mitu I started my descent, 12 fps default, 10-12 with add-on. Other than a long float on landing (which is not a problem with the add-on) I was happy (though not surprised) to see some nice buildings there and even a miniature, static DC-3. (They are normally bigger than a Dash-8 aren't they?) While the DC-3 is only 3/4 scale I also noticed that at night, the little floodlights on the buildings illuminate the ground below. Now that is cool!

Flight Four = Mitu to Cucuta - clear weather, dawn, Mike Stone's "Lancerjet":

       

One reaches a point on this flight were a river spills out of the mountains and this again is shown in both versions, it's just more rugged with the add-on (photo center, above from FS2004 and photo right, above from CVP). Cockpit view at DME 39 had 60 fps default and in the 40's with the add-on. Spot view at 31 DME was the same in both versions of the mesh (photo left, below from FS2004 and center, below from CVP). Final from the cockpit was 15 default and 12-15 with the add-on. Again, very acceptable performance and a nicely done airport. This is well worth having if you care that the buildings in Cucuta look like the real world. (I'd never heard of the place frankly; see photo right, below from CVP).

       

Flight Five = Cucuta to Cartagena via Maracaibo - real weather, 07:45, Metroliner III:

   

Take off in cockpit view was 18 by default and 13 with the add-on. Real weather was 83°F, hot and humid which resulted in an incredibly bumpy flight. Spot view on climbout was 10 default, and 8 add-on. I cruised at 6,000 feet to Maracaibo, Venezuela which is not part of this package (I just wanted to confirm that). Performance was dead even. After Maracaibo I had to climb to 12,000 feet to clear the mountains and I had 13 fps at this point. Okay, 12,000 feet was in the default, I had to climb to 14,500 with the add-on but I had 15 fps this time. That rocks! (Photos above, FS2004 left and CVP right.)

Back over the wet low-lands I had 10 fps over the RSB NDB default and 10-12 with the add-on. Are you seeing this? Frame rates are equal or better with this outstanding mesh, dropping a bit at most of the airports - but this time, cockpit final had 8 fps default and 10 with the add-on! Why can't Microsoft code textures like this? Taxiing was 10 default and about 13 with the add-on. One thing I have noted is that on final with this product, you'll see the white runway lines but the grass is showing through. As you get closer the pavers work frantically to lay down the runway textures before you land - it's actually a bit amusing to me.

Flight Six = Cartagena to Bogota with a little detour south - Custom weather "hot and humid", 14:30, Venezuelan DC-3:

Again, I had to climb about 3,000 feet higher than the default to clear these more realistic mountains and then...HOLY SMOKES! I don't know if it's the texture or the weather or what but I thought I was flying over Jurassic Park (photos below, FS2004 left and CVP right).

Frame rates here were 18 default and 13 with the new terrain but oh my goodness, it was a different, inhospitable world down there!

   

Finally I turned back north towards Bogota and at 100 miles out I was running 10 frames default and 12 with the add-on. DME 34 from the cockpit was 12 by default and 15 with the add-on.

Flying base over the city was 9 versus 6 - better looking city but a bit herky-jerky (right). Final from spot view was 8 and 5 and the replay video showed 6 and 5 respectively.

Okay then, one last flight to get me out of Colombia = Bogota to Quito - real weather, 08:40, Boeing 732:

       

Take-off from spot view had me at 22 fps default and 5-7 with the add-on which quickly increased to 12 over the city (leftmost three photos below, from FS2004, CVP and FSX respectively). My default cruise of 17,000 feet and 22 fps increased to 22,000 feet and 24-26 fps with the add-on. How ground which is this much better can give me increased frame rates is just amazing (rightmost two photos below, from FS2004 and CVP respectively).

               

I was curious as to when or where the better ground textures ended. I really couldn't tell other than noting some new "table-top" mountains arising out of the Andes just north of Quito - I'm guessing it ends right around Quito somewhere. I can tell you that the approach into 17 with the add-on is considerably tougher, which is what I had hoped for all along. One of the pilots in Colombia sent me some plates for Quito and ... oddly, there are no IMC approaches into 17! Today, I was in visual conditions so flew into 17 anyway. I had 17 fps default and 15 with the add-on (photo below, left from FS2004 and center from CVP). This approach is a bit roomier than Dutch Harbor or Samos but those places aren't at 9,000 feet ASL either (photo below, right from CVP).

       

Cockpit final was 20 default and 12-15 with the add-on, really not too noticeable. As I floated down for a smooth landing I decided that I actually like the textured look of the default runways better than the runways of the add-on (photos below, FS2004 left and CVP right). (Quito airport was not changed by this package) The replay from the tower had 13 fps default and 12 with the add-on by the way. At that moment I decided that (for me) the new-looking Andes might be worth the money but the hits at the airports really do effect my flying and if I have to give up gates and tractors in order to land that's okay because after all, this is a FLIGHT simulator not a "taxi 'round the airport" game. If your system can handle FSX than you may do well to get this whole package and stay with FS2004 as the look and performance will certainly be better!

   

Conclusions:

Our little VA has flights into both Bogota and Cali, so I may look on www.virtualcol.com for improvements for just those facilities without getting the other 103 airports in this package. For me, personally, Id rather pay for a good Canary Islands mesh than having properly colored windows in Santa Marta.

As noted earlier on, after we discovered the screen shot corrupted files I had to re-fly the first leg of this review yet again. At that point I had uninstalled the 105 airports but received Bogota X-treme2007 and have been using that. For me, this is the perfect combination -- a great mesh, a functional Bogota and everything else default. If you want to fly here or need your details, if your computer can handle it, than this whole package (or the soon-to-come 2007 rework for FS2004 and FSX) must be in your sim.

   

I want to thank Nels for posting this piece as well as Tony Radmilovich and Peter Stark for the FSX screenshots (after spending the better part of two months tweaking things to get a solid 8 fps I uninstalled it!). I also need to thank Luis Arbelaez and Jose Joaquin Gonzalez for sharing this rock-solid product with me. I hope that the 2007 version sells out!

Ron Blehm
pretendpilot@yahoo.com

Learn More Here
Learn about Botoga X-treme here