Revision Numbers

5 posts ยท Nov 21 1997 to Nov 22 1997

From: Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@S...>

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:22:43 -0000

Subject: Revision Numbers

On Friday, November 21, 1997 8:40 AM, Sprayform
> [SMTP:sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk] wrote:

<snipped>

On a topical note what is the Official GZG designation on this? They seem to
use Roman Numerals on Dirtside II and Stargrunt II. Is this a publishing

tradition? However the romans were toast a long time ago and their numeric
system, somewhat challenged.

In email and usenet etc the short forms DS2 and SG2 seem to be more popular so
have become the de facto standard in discussions etc. While because Full
Thrust second edition never got numerals its called FT or sometimes FT2.

As this is meant to be a futuristic SF game maybe we and JT should use arabic
numbering (decimal), which are more common in computer programs etc.

When is FT 3.1.1 (beta) out? Or are you just going to be calling it 'Full
Thrust' third edition and put a different picture on the front?

This is going to matter more when the comparison between rev's start
happening.

sincerely

From: Rick Rutherford <rickr@s...>

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:22:23 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: Revision Numbers

> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Tim Jones wrote:

Okay, let's call the current version "FT00000010", and the next version
will be called "FT00000011", assuming 8-bit bytes will be used in the
future. Alternatively, if you'd rather the ASCII representation be used,

we could call them "FT00110010" and "FT00110011", respectively.

:)

From: Andy Cowell <andy@c...>

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:24:26 -0500

Subject: Re: Revision Numbers

In message <01BCF680.8D2796C0@Tim.Jones@smallworld.co.uk>, Tim Jones writes:
> As this is meant to be a futuristic SF game maybe we and JT should use

Well, binary is a lot more common, but I don't hear a cry for FT11.:) Did you
know I play DS10?

From: Alex Williams <thantos@d...>

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:56:13 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: Revision Numbers

> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Andy Cowell wrote:

> Well, binary is a lot more common, but I don't hear a cry for FT11.
:)
> Did you know I play DS10?

Ideally, if one wishes to mimic the computerized technical fields, it should
be FT3.0 with revisions in the way of sups being FT3.1, FT3.1.5, etc, being
further revisions of the patch kits and errata. Alternately, he could name
them in hexidecimal, but you'd never see a difference until FULL THRUST 10,
which'd be FTA.

Back to work on a reactive network simulator... it could be used to build AI
drones for an FT PBeM, I guess.:)

From: Fabet@a...

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:00:08 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: Revision Numbers

> In a message dated 97-11-21 14:31:58 EST, rickr@ss4.digex.net writes:

<< Okay, let's call the current version "FT00000010", and the next version
 will be called "FT00000011", assuming 8-bit bytes will be used in the
future. Alternatively, if you'd rather the ASCII representation be used, we
could call them "FT00110010" and "FT00110011", respectively.

No lets use hexidecimal and version numbers (sort of like Traveller meets
Microsquish) and can have things like FTA21.3B.11.