FS numbering query

[canuck]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I just occured to me with all thios speculation about FS10/FS2006

FS1 - FS5 & FS5a - easy to understand yes.
FS95 was effectively FS6 ergo
FS98 was FS7, With me so far? then
FS2000 was FS8 surely and
FS2002 was FS9 so why not
FS2004 mus be FS10 and
FS2006 should be FS11

So how come we refer to FS2004 as FS9?

If this has been covered before I apologise

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

The problem with the timeline is that FS98 was officially version 6.1,
not version 7. Ergo, FS2004 when released was version 9.

1980 - FS1
1983 - FS2
1988 - FS3
1989 - FS4
1993 - FS5
1994 - FS5a
1995 - FS5.1
1996 - FSW95 (FS6)
1997 - FS98 (FS6.1)
1999 - FS2000 (FS7)
2001 - FS2002 (FS8)
2003 - FS2004 (FS9)
2004 - FS2004 (FS9.1)

Trip

-------------------------------------------------

"Canuck" <someone@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d2m6oe$ph8$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>I just occured to me with all thios speculation about FS10/FS2006
>
> FS1 - FS5 & FS5a - easy to understand yes.
> FS95 was effectively FS6 ergo
> FS98 was FS7, With me so far? then
> FS2000 was FS8 surely and
> FS2002 was FS9 so why not
> FS2004 mus be FS10 and
> FS2006 should be FS11
>
> So how come we refer to FS2004 as FS9?
>
> If this has been covered before I apologise
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Been covered before, twice that I remember but our new Rocket Scientist Varmit will correct me if I'm wrong. Look at
the name of the folder that FS 2004 is contained in by default. They wrote it so they get to serialize it. Flight
Simulator 9 a.k.a. FS9. End of discussion.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Canuck" <someone@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:d2m6oe$ph8$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>I just occured to me with all thios speculation about FS10/FS2006
>
> FS1 - FS5 & FS5a - easy to understand yes.
> FS95 was effectively FS6 ergo
> FS98 was FS7, With me so far? then
> FS2000 was FS8 surely and
> FS2002 was FS9 so why not
> FS2004 mus be FS10 and
> FS2006 should be FS11
>
> So how come we refer to FS2004 as FS9?
>
> If this has been covered before I apologise
>

 

[canuck]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Understood! However, my memory of the diff between FS95 & FS98 was huge so
how they can say that 98 was 6.1 amazes me. Thanks for clearing that up
anyway, the question popped into my head last night whilst trying to get to
sleep.

"Trip Lane" <Trip@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:cJSdnf8Xxox6TNPfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> The problem with the timeline is that FS98 was officially version 6.1,
> not version 7. Ergo, FS2004 when released was version 9.
>
> 1980 - FS1
> 1983 - FS2
> 1988 - FS3
> 1989 - FS4
> 1993 - FS5
> 1994 - FS5a
> 1995 - FS5.1
> 1996 - FSW95 (FS6)
> 1997 - FS98 (FS6.1)
> 1999 - FS2000 (FS7)
> 2001 - FS2002 (FS8)
> 2003 - FS2004 (FS9)
> 2004 - FS2004 (FS9.1)
>
> Trip
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> "Canuck" <someone@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:d2m6oe$ph8$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>>I just occured to me with all thios speculation about FS10/FS2006
>>
>> FS1 - FS5 & FS5a - easy to understand yes.
>> FS95 was effectively FS6 ergo
>> FS98 was FS7, With me so far? then
>> FS2000 was FS8 surely and
>> FS2002 was FS9 so why not
>> FS2004 mus be FS10 and
>> FS2006 should be FS11
>>
>> So how come we refer to FS2004 as FS9?
>>
>> If this has been covered before I apologise
>>
>
>