And I stress "mini-review"! A few paragraphs and 5 screen shots simply is not enough to be called a "definitive" review of this product. Please remember that to do this add-on justice would require literally dozens (if not huundreds) of comparison screen shots from various parts of the world and at different times of the year. A number of video comparisons would add to the mix. Please keep that in mind while viewing my samples.I took Tom Main up on his offer of a free download to try this latest add-on. Let me first say that Tom and I don't exchange Christmas cards... we don't know each other. I am a long time customer of Flight1, and have been happy with all my purchases except one (and it has proven to be very popular within the community. Call it a simple matter of personal taste). I'm not a member of their Forums, though I do lurk there from time to time. My numerous purchases have left me feeling that Flight1 places a great deal of importance on giving the commmunity great value for their simming dollars. Nuff said on this subject.The download and registration was very easy, per Flight1's usual procedure. The size on hard drive is a little less than 40Mb. The Install screen offered 12 options... I installed them all. I decided to make my tests in an area I'm familiar with and have flown over many times at various times of the year... the S.F. Bay area. I made all screen shots with FSScreen and resized in Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 and saved at an Image Quality of 9. All shots are unedited except to resize per Avsims rules. I use FSUIPC (registered), and set my Graduated Visibilties at 6000, 25000, 6000. All 5 shots were made at an altitude of 3500'.The first four shots were made at the same position. Compass heading was 135, KOAK in the shot. Dates and times as noted.1 August 2004, 1000hrs.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/87679.jpg1 Feburary 2004, 1000hrs.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/87680.jpg1 August 2004, 1800hrs.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/87681.jpg1 Feburary 2004, 1800hrs.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/87682.jpgFor this final shot I reset time for 0700hrs 1 August and MADE THE SHOT at a compass heading of approximately 210. The rising sun is behind me and to my left. The shot was made while positioned over Richmond. I cleared all weather, and tried to put as much relevant sky in the shot as possible.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/87683.jpgSo now to the $64,000 question... is FS Water worth it? Yes and no. Safe to say that Peter and I don't share the same tastes in water. I believe the textures we see in the first two shots above to be too light. The Bay Area doesn't look like this at 10:00 o'clock in the morning while looking at the scene with the sun angle as it is in the screenies. To me the first two shots are closer to default FS9 than I care them to be.Change sun angle though, and all starts looking very nice. The water hue is very good then (shots 3 & 4), as well as in shot 5. The sun shimmering on the water, though not truly shown in any of the shots, is a soft muted glare using my vis settings. This is more accurate than many of the other add-on packages available.The sky seemed marginally better than default to me. Again, keep in mind that the sky alone deserves many more screenies than I can post here. I like what Peter has done to the sky in my backyard... looks very nice.Another advantage of this package is the easy install. How many hours have we spent mixing and tweaking water packages over the last year or so. FS Water simplifies all that. If your time is worth anything to you then certainly this package deserves consideration.Gripes... of course :-) . But they're all a matter of personal preference. The water in the Bay area seemed a bit to light for my taste if viewed at narrow sun angles. Not until the sun angle to camera angle became very obtuse did the water begin to look right to me. And the OceanHeightField was way too much for my taste. It seemed too close to default FS9, and I didn't like that at all. Being a low and slow VFR flyer, I prefer a more subdued animation. By the way, I tried to capture the first four shots above while the animation dynamic was at it's maximum.So, as is the case with many of these add-ons, it comes down to personal taste. Will I buy the package? If I do, ironically it won't be so much for the water. The easy install is very attractive to me, and I like the sky effects that I saw. The water is something I wish to test a bit more before making my final decision. I assured Tom that I would but if I'm happy, though I may take the weekend to make my final decision.In the end the consumer really can't go wrong here. If you're not happy simnply ask Flight1 for a refund within their required 30 days.Hope you found this useful,GregP.S. These are my opinions... take 'em or leave 'em. :-)

Good review Greg. Thanks

Thanks, George.A couple more for the folks who like the higher flight levels.This first shot was made over the north end of the bay. I like the way the bay water is lighter than the ocean, though the bay still seems a bit too light a blue hue for my tastes.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/87692.jpgThis is a few miles south of Point Reyes, headed out to sea. I made this shot as the dynamic animation reached it's maximum.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/87693.jpgI must say that the more I see this water the more it grows on me.Greg

>the bay still seems a bit too light a blue hue for my tastes.Those of us who live right next to the Bay know how water looks like here - it is mostly in fact green (even brown/pink in places). But this level of water-color localization is probably out of reach yet in FS.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Thanks for the review Greg. I'm just wondering how it is on framerates compared to default. It would help if Flight1 could make available for download a short, high quality DivX video, as still images can't do justice to dynamic water textures. David

"as still images can't do justice to dynamic water textures. "Yep, David. BTW I didn't notice any framerate hit on my system (I was using morewatr before, with an OceanHeightField that was much subtler than default).Greg

thanks Greg,I'm 1000% with you on this one.The first two shots are too light in my opinion and for good reasons. Some copromises have to be made and we are considering making more variations of overcast and reflection textures to suit more typical situations in the real world.The higher the altitude the less convincing some of the textures look but this is more about how the sim works. The texutures you are reffering to are most likely the overcast/fair weather textures.It gets complicated to explain in detail the hows and whys what was done was done. Bad English but you know what I'm trying to say.What I will promise is that I would be very happy to use you as a bouncing board to try out some variations of the overcast textures that are more to your liking and then to put these in the package as an option.If you contact Tom Main directly he will give you my email and we can work on making this better for you. Lets face it, if you don't like something for a reason then we should listen and take note of it.I do have to say some of the testers had opinions similar to yours but others really, really liked the final versions of the textures. So we went with the main flow of what people thought they liked.All that said it would be a pleasure for me to re-visit some issues and take another look at some ways of making it better or more suited to individual tastes.It is certainly our intention to add some more variations depending on the level of interest.What is important is that we listen and we take action on this input.Most importantly we thank you.Peter

Btw, I also agree that the first two pics are too light. Also if I may add although this may not be a very popular observation - there is generally too much "gloss". Water definitely has this glossy feel to it but there may be a bit too much of it in here. Michael J.

Hi Peter,I will again emphsize that with a package such as yours there is no right or wrong way... it's all a matter of perception. Which clearly presents some enormous challenges for you.I'd be happy to assist in any way you think I can. Feel free to use the e-mail link in my profile if you wish.Cheers,Greg

Greg,One thing I should point out is there is some limiting factors in the way the FS engine works. Tile bit maps 19-22 cause very, very bright surfaces but the FS9 engine selects these bit maps I do not. All I can do is try and make the colours better and more balanced and more realistic in tone to each other as well as enhancing the reflection texutures.In short there are some problem areas that I cannot fix and this bright region you refer to in your first couple of pics is one such region. Chicago is another such region with the base bit maps way to bright.On the down side these too bright regions are also used for very shallow water and need to be bright to show and enhance the coastlines.If I make these tiles darker then the coastal shallow water suffers as a result. To fix this I would have to re-code FS9,And thanks again for your constructive comments and the effort this clearly requires.No need to pay for this Greg.you have earned the right to keep it and to get full support.Peter

Will do Greg,I'm getting wacked and tired now so I have to get off to bed.Remind me tomorrow to follow up and let's see if we can patch what we can.Peter

I've just contacted Tom Main at Flight1 asking him for instructions on how I can make payment for FS Water. This package is a keeper for me.I again wish to emphasize that there is no final solution when it comes to water textures (or sky textures, or ground textures, or any textures for that matter). What is spot on to one simmer might be totally askew for another. We each own this sim, and we each have the right to configure it the way we wish. FS Water does an exemplery job of combining textures that are very good at many different latitudes. Peter has clearly put alot of effort into the package.Another advantage of FS Water is it's installer and configuration page. When I think back on all the time I've spent over the past few months combining different textures from different water packages, the FS Water installer has now become one of my favorite tools. It's easy to use and understand.The added sky textures included in FS water are the icing on the cake for me. Though the differences from default are subtle, they do definately make a difference for this simmer.From my perspective the price of admission to FS Water is a good deal.Cheers,Greg