Order of all FS releases

[Stubbedtoe18]

What is the exact order of FS releases?

[Daube]

Not sure about
-CFS
-CFS2
-CFS3

Naaaa, actually CFS3 came first, then CFS, and finally CFS2...

[Daube]

Sorry, I had to make this bad joke since your question was not clear at all  ;D

Actually, CFS came right after FS98 since it was using the same engine.
CFS2 came right after FS2002 if I'm not mistaken....
CFS3 I don't remember, I think shortly before FS2004 but I'm not sure...

[pete]

(There seems to be little feedback on the forums right now --folk on holiday I guess) ..

FS goes back a long ay before FS98 ..      

I myself started in the mid '80's but it was going before that ..

See this ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _Simulator

[SubZer0]

That is crazy. It's unbelievable how far we've come in the past 20-25 years. I can't wait to see what FS will be like in the next 10-15 years, given the series actually stays on the market.

[Stubbedtoe18]

Wow...

So the order is like this:
...
-FS95
-FS98
-CFS
-FS2000
-FS2002
-CFS2
-CFS3
-FS2004: A Century of Flight
-FSX ?

[macca22au]

Yes and No.  Remember it started way back in the Apple Mac days.

[Airshow_lover]

That is crazy. It's unbelievable how far we've come in the past 20-25 years. I can't wait to see what FS will be like in the next 10-15 years, given the series actually stays on the market.

I doubt it will go on for much longer.

I mean, for now, I don't see what they can improve on. At least, improve on enough to make you want to go out and by another version. We saw with 2004 that, with some add-ons, it looked better than FSX, and gave better FPS.

[ATI_7500]

I mean, for now, I don't see what they can improve on. At least, improve on enough to make you want to go out and by another version. We saw with 2004 that, with some add-ons, it looked better than FSX, and gave better FPS.

So you want to say that a $200 sim (FS9+Addons) looked as good as a $70 straight-out-of-the-box sim. I can live with that. ;P


(FS9 doesn't stand a chance in looks, especially not autogen.)

[GunnerMan]

Bjorn hit it on the head, yes you can spend 200 and buy addons that make FS9 look better than FSX but what happenes to FS9 when I spend 200 on FSX. I think what M$ should do is make one more version to take full adantage of DX10 and maybe make it Agea Physx compatible and work on that engine for a while with expansion and booster packs. Look at all these payware companies all with a different prioduct, you would thing MS would see this and realise how much money they could make if they made a few quality booter packs.

[hatter]

That is crazy. It's unbelievable how far we've come in the past 20-25 years. I can't wait to see what FS will be like in the next 10-15 years, given the series actually stays on the market.

I doubt it will go on for much longer.

I mean, for now, I don't see what they can improve on. At least, improve on enough to make you want to go out and by another version. We saw with 2004 that, with some add-ons, it looked better than FSX, and gave better FPS.

You're saying you're completely satisfied with the level of ground detail we see in FS9 and FSX? I definitely think things can be improved, if not graphics-wise, physics-wise, maybe added crash animations, and definitely performance wise. FS is essentially simulation of the world; we got the airplane part down I think very well, but there are just too many things that can be improved about the level of detail in scenery.

[Tweek]

Flight dynamics, graphics, performance (relative to the latest machines), interactivity with the environment, etc etc etc. They can all be improved upon! For the time being, we're satisfied with the latest sims, but there's certainly room for improvement.