In ,
Skyhawk wrote:

After a day with FS2K4 I would say it is worth $50. If for no other
reason than the huge difference in the weather, improved ATC, the
Garmin 500/295, and the new aircraft. The DC-3 and R-22 are great!
No, I do not work for MS! I will not remove FS2K2 from my system
mainly due to the instructor station in the Pro version. There are
faults with FS 2004, mainly the bridge problem and all of the water
(oceans, lakes, rivers) seem to be the wrong color of blue. Much too
light.


Now that's another debate in its own right. (So I've changed the thread title)

Living in the UK, where the sea is usually a pale, murky, grey-greenish colour,
I was always foxed by the deep cobalt-blue shade which versions up to FS98 used
(I can't speak about the more recent versions until I get my new PC and install
2k2Pro, next week). I always wondered what part of the world the sea actually
looks like that.

I'm not one for browsing holiday brochures but I've seen plenty of holiday
adverts for various parts of the world and the sea colour never seems to be
quite the same from one region to another.

I bought and installed England & Wales VFR scenery for FS98 and it used a pale,
blue-green colour (reminiscent of "duck-egg blue" - that's the nearest
description I can manage which others might be able to relate to) which I found
much more acceptable. Not quite as dark a shade as I would consider realistic
but the contrast between the land textures and the sea looked about right.

However, it requires using a batch file to substitute the MS sea texture with
its own one, so you get this sea surface all over the world, *except* when you
get into regions with synth-block coastlines. The coast tiles with convex or
concave curves to them are part land and part original MS-sea colour, so the
combination is a bit ugly...

So my basic point is, "who's to say what colour the sea should be?"

--�
regards,

Mark