Jump to content

Quasi-Realism (Alpha) (Balance Mod for 1.0x)


Mask

Recommended Posts

Ron is feeling a bit better, now. He still has a lot of code to sift through before he can even start fixing the mod around the new updates... so we're still a little ways off from build 7.

He also felt well enough to reply.

"This is why I was originally only going to give this mod to a few people, and not release it public. Any time you try anything like this, you get flak from two sides. One side understands the game engine but not the realism, and they're like "Can you make your agents do jump kicks?" The other group has some background in realism, but hasn't worked with the game engine (at least not nearly enough), and they're going on about how something is really used, and not taking into account that the game simply can't or doesn't simulate that. And neither group understands the concept of "This is Alpha, we're still working out the details."

I don't really disagree with what those guys are saying ... but there's an issue. They're talking about setting up an MG and using it like it was intended to be used. Two man crew, a loader making sure the ammo feeds and changing barrels when they get hot, firing from bipod or tripod in a prone or seated position. Problem is, that's not what we have to work with....

The game engine models the little X-COM dudes running around firing a belt-fed weapon from the hip, kind-of pointing it in a general direction rather than aiming. This, realistically, tends to result in bullets striking more ducks and geese than the intended targets, more so if you fire more than a short burst. Also, if you just lean on the trigger, you can't really change out the barrel when it gets hot ... so you can completely melt down most guns, at least enough to screw up the ammo feed in some significant way. Playing like you think you're "Rambo" is an extremely inefficient use of a squad automatic weapon.

So they're not lying. They have seen these weapons used ... specifically, they have seen them used in a reasonable way by trained military. But I just don't have the ability to modify the current game code to really show this. I can model what seems to be happening, or I can model what you might want to be happening ... and either one is going to fail to simulate the other.

If somebody wants to talk to the developers about getting prone firing positions and setting up crew-served weapons ... we might be able to do something with that. Until then .... well, I'm doing what I can with the tools I have."

"Almost all infantry light/medium machineguns are, in a word, too darn light for what they are.

Even my granddad told stories about the air-cooled Browning M1919A1 ... even it was too light. It walked like crazy, unless you went to extreme measures to nail it down to something, and it heated like crazy."

See, I /have/ shot a 1919(A4 and A6 variants), including an A6 from the hip(aided by a sling, because it weighs just under forty pounds). None of them were "too light". In fact, they rank way up there as "so heavy they're nearly unworkable for what they are". Other countries have fifty cal MGs that weigh less.

I've actually shot a pretty wide range of MGs(1919A4, 1919A6, RPD, M60(mod unknown), M53(yugoslav MG42 clone)), the A6 and 60 from standing as well. They're a real treat to shoot. Echo has time on the 240, 249 and probably others. I've also burned through plenty of ammo on SAW type weapons(RPK), SMGs and a range of other guns. I've accumulated a lot of trigger time on older weapons, and the shop I worked for was an FFL07/02SOT shop. We didn't just play with them, we /built/ them.

As for heating, the testing that the 1917 and 1919 underwent prior to adoption involved some positively brutal continuous fire. Prior to WWII, ALL MG's adopted by the US Army were torture testede to rediculous standards, up to and including continuous fire of over 200,000 rounds for the 1919(and more, although I cannot recall how much, for the 1917 and 1891). Yes, they get hot to the touch well before that. But nowhere NEAR hot enough to damage the firearm. You start running into throat erosion after a few belts of continuous fire, but even on guns without quick change barrels(such as the 1919, which changing barrels on is a complete and total pain in the ass), throat erosion is not an issue for a bullet hose like we're modeling here.

I /have/ run out a couple belts in one sitting, at one point. It as a friend of mine's final send off(he'd died of a heart attack, and was a huge MG collector, so we did one massive magdump at the range as part of his wake). Four hundred rounds continuous, from his M60. Through one barrel. Unlike in video games, they long since remain functional despite getting hot. AND, even if they do start having heating issues, the part that wears is NOT the "feed mechanism". The feed tray and tgopcover are far enough away from the heat that pretty much everything else on the gun will be fucked up first. What you can expect to see is excessive throat erosion(which will, eventually, trash the barrel for accurate fire purposes), followed by eventual deformation of the barrel. To get to "barrel deformation and loss of correct headspace" on an MG requires heating the barrel to the point of plastic deformation, so you're getting up into the hundreds of thousands of rounds continuous fire. Some MGs may experience malfunctions long before this, due to fouling, or heat expansion affecting tight tolerances, but those still run into the thousands of rounds of automatic fire. Are you laying accurate fire, no. Are you laying fire, absolutely.

The most likely malfunction is a jam due to belt malfunction, if you have the belt hanging loose rather than in a box like everybody in the world uses for carrying belted ammunition.

For accurate, real information, instead of going off of he word of random people(self included), I would STRONGLY recommend you find a copy of George Chinn's "The Machine Gun". I might be able to upload my pdf copies somewhere for you to use. They are The Bible of MG development and use, from a mechanical perspective, and deals specifically with automatic weapons throughout history. It has diagrams, figures, formulas and everythging you need to know about automatic weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for realism mods, it seems most of what we all say is derailing the intention of the mod developers. Again I think the focus should remain on what can be done within the constraints of the game. While Im sure what your saying is accurate to your own experiances none of what you have said really has any relevance. The game dosn't cater for weapon stoppages or barrel changes, nor are the weapons being used in game above and beyond normal combat stress.

The issue with the machine guns from at least my view (and asked if it could be addressed) was that the rate of fire in one game turn dosnt accurately depict the rate of fire a gunner would use to supress an enemy.

The point Ron made about the weapons heating up is valid enough and rounds do occasionally cook off (admittedly rarely due to the rate of fire being excessive) although I think the majority are due to a defucnt round rather than the weapon itself. Last year in BATUS (Canada) a Cpl in my unit manning his GPMG had a breach explosion because he followed incorrect drills during a stoppage (He lifted the feed tray exposing the chamber to cooler air during an obstruction clearance). Again though this has little relevance to the game mod.

I think the mod developers are doing a decent job and the general characteristics of the weapon need to be modded not the intricacies which are being discussed here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the next version... Ron has been sick, and I haven't been expecting it to make much progress. It's done.

Build 7 is, from a brief trial run, operating as it should be. A few added tweaks are in, such as Grenades now work in the quick-grenade slots again, and explode at the end of the turn (new feature the Devs added, which is being made full use of).

Go to the mod page I'm linking to now or use the link in the OP: http://xeno-mods.com/mod/154/quasi-realism-alpha-for-version-19-build-7

Let us know what you find while testing.

Aside from the exciting news of a playable version, we would like some help in a real-life test, as Ron describes.

"This is my problem with forum discussion. No definitions. No frame of reference.

It's heavy, compared to an origami display. It's light, compared to a train bridge. It's controllable, compared to the weather. It's less controllable than a herd of cats. "Accurate" for a full-auto weapon pretty much equals "totally random" for a bolt-action rifle. A statement can be "correct", and still useless.

If these guys have access to the weapons in question, how about some tests? Let's get some numbers to work with.

Test procedure:

Needs one shooter and one person on a stopwatch. Several targets - humanoid, or round, or whatever, as long as it's constant through the tests (and roughly the size of something you might want to shoot ... not a billboard) - set up on a safe range preferrably far away from other people or much of anything else. (This could get a little wild, as far as shooting range safety goes... Not exactly "unsafe", but not exactly procedure either.) Start with about 25 paces on the range to targets, retest at 50 if time and ammo allow.

Need a basic rifle - modern assault rifle preferred, but any good rifle will do for the single-target test, and any semi-auto rifle will work for the multi-target variant. And the weapon(s) to be tested for comparison - in this case, a light or medium belt-feed infantry machinegun. Do note the make and model of all weapons involved, for reference.

Now, set up a basic snap-shot drill. Stand facing 90 degrees to the targets, with them to your preferred weapon side (i.e. your left, for right-handed shooters). (If you wish to repeat the test for your non-favored side or directly behind, later, repeat and note the difference.) The stopwatch person says go and starts the time, representing the point at which you identify a target and decide to fire (instead of diving for cover, or any of the other things you might want to do). Bring the rifle to shoulder and try to fire as quickly as is reasonable (i.e. a "snap shot"). Repeat until a statistical pattern on the times is apparent. Record the times, and note the percentage of rounds that were on paper.

If time allows, repeat using slightly more time to aim, to represent the more aimed fire in the game. Note change in time and accuracy.

Then repeat the test with the machinegun, firing standing, from the hip or shoulder (preferably testing each), as simulated in the game engine ... note specifics of firing position in the results. Run tests with bursts of varying lengths, to compare. This should give a pretty good picture of the time required to get a heavy weapon situated on a target, and the relationship between rounds fired and accuracy.

If opportunity exists, repeat all tests with three targets, situated at slightly offset ranges and at least 15 feet apart laterally. One round per target with rifles, bursts of varying lengths with full-auto weapons. This will be easier for your stopwatch guy, too ... rifle snap shots are fast enough that timing one of them can be tricky. (Don't bother testing walking full-auto fire across all targets in a sweep - the game won't let us simulate that at this time, either.)

Another variant, if you have the time and resources, is to repeat this with a handgun. Try both with the weapon in-hand, and having to draw the weapon to fire.

If you have a video-equipped camera, it might be easier to check the times if played back one frame at a time. 30 frames a second is a little faster than normal human response on a stopwatch button, so that data should be more precise. With that, a light or buzzer to singal when to fire could replace the second person, if you're doing this alone.

Even if you're not collecting data for a computer game, it's a fun test to run, just to find out what you can really do with the weapons in question. And a table of those numbers would give everyone a point of reference - time and accuracy in concrete data (seconds, and bullet holes in paper), not vague generalities open to interpretation. If several people could do this experiment, preferably with more than one type of weapon, it would solve the issue completely ... we would know exactly how long it takes to fire an MG from the hip, and exactly what is the preferred firing method (in terms of burst length, and benefit of various lengths of time to aim).

If you do try this, do be careful. Fully automatic weapons fired hurredly from unstable positions is generally a formula for an accident, even among highly trained shooters. And as funny as it can be to see a news headline like "firearms instructor accidentally shoots self in class", I really don't want anybody getting hurt.

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

Until I have those numbers, I'm going to guess... I don't know of any military or law-enforcement studies done on the benefits and drawbacks of using a belt-fed weapon from the hip, so actual data is sketchy. If you do get a chance to test this, please note the results precisely ... don't average them for me, or some such. I may be able to pull statistical trends out of the raw data that you might have missed.

This test does not include what military calls "suppression fire" (as in "we were just shooting to scare them") and everyone else calls "panic fire" ("you were just shooting because you were in danger, and it seemed like a better idea than just sitting down and crying"). (For the record, it is more effective than crying, but only marginally.) While the game engine does include suppression mechanics, I'm not really sure we could simulate this, even if everybody agreed it was a good idea.

This should find out who really wants to help, and who just likes to hear themselves talk. If they really want this mod to go forward, they can contribute some time and some ammunition."

Firebeard: I would be quite interested in seeing the definitive manual you mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test procedure:

Needs one shooter and one person on a stopwatch. Several targets - humanoid, or round, or whatever, as long as it's constant through the tests (and roughly the size of something you might want to shoot ... not a billboard) - set up on a safe range preferrably far away from other people or much of anything else. (This could get a little wild, as far as shooting range safety goes... Not exactly "unsafe", but not exactly procedure either.) Start with about 25 paces on the range to targets, retest at 50 if time and ammo allow.

Remarkably I do this on a monthly basis as part of my weapon handling tests here in Afghanistan. While I am unable to be in a position to record timings I can offer you generalised results of a few scenarios in the setting you described. I have done 5 of these monthly ranges with 1 more to be completed next month (september) before i return home.

Weapon: SA80 A2 5.56mm single shot 30 rnds

Standing with the target to my left 90' at a range of 25 meters using the laser dot battle sight on my ACOG I can accurately and consistently hit the center of mass of a figure 11 target (full sized man) within 3 seconds of the whistle blast. One round is fired each whistle blast and then we reset with the target 90' to the left. I usually group my hits slightly higher than center of mass (which ends up sternum - neck area) with an approximate 12 inch grouping.

This practice is then repeated with the target to the right at 90* and also again behind at 180'

At reduced range 5 meters each time the grouping is reduced approx 3-4 inches per 5 meters and the time taken to aim and fire is slightly quicker.

We also do cadence shooting which is essentially firing rapidly while walking towards the target. Depending on the cadence stated in the practice detail we fire either 1 round per 2 seconds, 1 round per second or 2 rounds per second. To be honest we don't do enough of it to become competent and I would approximate starting from 25 meters and advancing to 5 using 30 rounds I generally hit around 75% of my shots on target, and that could be anywhere from knees to head.

With regards to generalised firing we use 1 round per 6 seconds for aimed shots and 1 round per 2 seconds for rapid fire as a general rule. Typically at 100 meters in the kneeling position, with a zero'd weapon I don't miss a target, at standing out of 20 rounds ill miss maybe 2-4.

With the GPMG I can't give you any advice as for safety reasons we can't use them on 25 meter ranges and we also never fire from the standing or kneeling position due to the fact its woefully inaccurate. Keeping a full 3-5 round burst on target at 100 meters prone is hard enough due to recoil. Realistically the first 2 rounds are accurate the rest fall close enough to the target to cause effect (ie get them supressed). Burst are kept between 3-5 rounds every couple of seconds. barrels changed around the 800-1000 rounds fired mark.

LMG such as Minimi are a different story, but they are 5.56mm calibre and are more accurate.

Obviously these are firing under controlled conditions and noone else is shooting back at me, also I regard my self to be above average in marksmanship. Im a combat engineer and not special forces as I'd like to hope the xenonauts are.

Hope this information helps however I wont be able to do any formal testing, British run ranges are very strict and rigidly run, however the americans I have noticed have a very lax attitude on ranges and may therefore have more scope to be able to run informal test such as those you describe.

Edited by Aufklarer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the next version... Ron has been sick, and I haven't been expecting it to make much progress. It's done.

Build 7 is, from a brief trial run, operating as it should be. A few added tweaks are in, such as Grenades now work in the quick-grenade slots again, and explode at the end of the turn (new feature the Devs added, which is being made full use of).

Go to the mod page I'm linking to now or use the link in the OP: http://xeno-mods.com/mod/154/quasi-realism-alpha-for-version-19-build-7

Let us know what you find while testing.

Aside from the exciting news of a playable version, we would like some help in a real-life test, as Ron describes.

"This is my problem with forum discussion. No definitions. No frame of reference.

It's heavy, compared to an origami display. It's light, compared to a train bridge. It's controllable, compared to the weather. It's less controllable than a herd of cats. "Accurate" for a full-auto weapon pretty much equals "totally random" for a bolt-action rifle. A statement can be "correct", and still useless.

If these guys have access to the weapons in question, how about some tests? Let's get some numbers to work with.

Test procedure:

Needs one shooter and one person on a stopwatch. Several targets - humanoid, or round, or whatever, as long as it's constant through the tests (and roughly the size of something you might want to shoot ... not a billboard) - set up on a safe range preferrably far away from other people or much of anything else. (This could get a little wild, as far as shooting range safety goes... Not exactly "unsafe", but not exactly procedure either.) Start with about 25 paces on the range to targets, retest at 50 if time and ammo allow.

Need a basic rifle - modern assault rifle preferred, but any good rifle will do for the single-target test, and any semi-auto rifle will work for the multi-target variant. And the weapon(s) to be tested for comparison - in this case, a light or medium belt-feed infantry machinegun. Do note the make and model of all weapons involved, for reference.

Now, set up a basic snap-shot drill. Stand facing 90 degrees to the targets, with them to your preferred weapon side (i.e. your left, for right-handed shooters). (If you wish to repeat the test for your non-favored side or directly behind, later, repeat and note the difference.) The stopwatch person says go and starts the time, representing the point at which you identify a target and decide to fire (instead of diving for cover, or any of the other things you might want to do). Bring the rifle to shoulder and try to fire as quickly as is reasonable (i.e. a "snap shot"). Repeat until a statistical pattern on the times is apparent. Record the times, and note the percentage of rounds that were on paper.

If time allows, repeat using slightly more time to aim, to represent the more aimed fire in the game. Note change in time and accuracy.

Then repeat the test with the machinegun, firing standing, from the hip or shoulder (preferably testing each), as simulated in the game engine ... note specifics of firing position in the results. Run tests with bursts of varying lengths, to compare. This should give a pretty good picture of the time required to get a heavy weapon situated on a target, and the relationship between rounds fired and accuracy.

If opportunity exists, repeat all tests with three targets, situated at slightly offset ranges and at least 15 feet apart laterally. One round per target with rifles, bursts of varying lengths with full-auto weapons. This will be easier for your stopwatch guy, too ... rifle snap shots are fast enough that timing one of them can be tricky. (Don't bother testing walking full-auto fire across all targets in a sweep - the game won't let us simulate that at this time, either.)

Another variant, if you have the time and resources, is to repeat this with a handgun. Try both with the weapon in-hand, and having to draw the weapon to fire.

If you have a video-equipped camera, it might be easier to check the times if played back one frame at a time. 30 frames a second is a little faster than normal human response on a stopwatch button, so that data should be more precise. With that, a light or buzzer to singal when to fire could replace the second person, if you're doing this alone.

Even if you're not collecting data for a computer game, it's a fun test to run, just to find out what you can really do with the weapons in question. And a table of those numbers would give everyone a point of reference - time and accuracy in concrete data (seconds, and bullet holes in paper), not vague generalities open to interpretation. If several people could do this experiment, preferably with more than one type of weapon, it would solve the issue completely ... we would know exactly how long it takes to fire an MG from the hip, and exactly what is the preferred firing method (in terms of burst length, and benefit of various lengths of time to aim).

If you do try this, do be careful. Fully automatic weapons fired hurredly from unstable positions is generally a formula for an accident, even among highly trained shooters. And as funny as it can be to see a news headline like "firearms instructor accidentally shoots self in class", I really don't want anybody getting hurt.

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

Until I have those numbers, I'm going to guess... I don't know of any military or law-enforcement studies done on the benefits and drawbacks of using a belt-fed weapon from the hip, so actual data is sketchy. If you do get a chance to test this, please note the results precisely ... don't average them for me, or some such. I may be able to pull statistical trends out of the raw data that you might have missed.

This test does not include what military calls "suppression fire" (as in "we were just shooting to scare them") and everyone else calls "panic fire" ("you were just shooting because you were in danger, and it seemed like a better idea than just sitting down and crying"). (For the record, it is more effective than crying, but only marginally.) While the game engine does include suppression mechanics, I'm not really sure we could simulate this, even if everybody agreed it was a good idea.

This should find out who really wants to help, and who just likes to hear themselves talk. If they really want this mod to go forward, they can contribute some time and some ammunition."

Firebeard: I would be quite interested in seeing the definitive manual you mention.

Normally, I'd be all for this, but given the preponderance of evidence that already exists(there's been studies since before WWI), deaaling with accuracy, walking fire, etc, like hell am I spending the several hundred dollars it would cost to do this test(and given that these tests don't actually demonstrate what we're trying to prove here), for the same conclusions that have already been proven. They don't just randomly decide on doctrine, they've done studies on MG employment in the US following the first world war, world war two, korea and vietnam. What you describe, hipfiring an MG, is called "walking fire", and has been a Thing since man portable automatic weapons have been(in fact, several squad automatic weapons were designed with this in mind). We /have/ figures for what you want. Comparing the accuracy of hip fired rifles, to that of hip fired MGs, isn't even remotely accurate, nor would comparing rate of fire, or recoil chracteristics. Of course, even disregarding the above, your proposed tests would geenerally violate nearly all ranges' rules, excepting some 270deg ranges for 3 gun matches.

As for how long it takes to fire an MG from the hip for any given burst, look up the rounds per minute of the MG, divi8de by 60, and then multiply that figure by how many seonds our little support gunner guys are going to fire(dotrinally anywhere from 3-5 seonds, I'm going to defer to the two guys here with prior infantry background as to how long the burst should be). For an M240B(the infantry variant), that burst is going to be anywhere from 33 rounds(the low speed 650rpm setting, for three seconds) to 63(750rpm setting, for 5 seconds). For an M240G, you're looking at a low of 33 rounds(650rpm, 3 seconds), and a high of 80 rounds(950rpm setting, 5 seconds). Potential rate reductions due to fouling excluded, since they're fairly minor.

I don't know how to upload the pdfs. Could you point me to a good place to, or would you prefer I email them to you. It's several volumes(some of which are broken up into parts for size).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This site is even quicker, Firebeard: https://mega.co.nz/

Well, depending on the size. If it's something not difficult to break up and upload, I can just take my time downloading the pieces. If they're pretty cumbersome files, dropbox would be necessary.

About that reply... Not sure what to say. Well, I have some idea: I'd like to thank you both for supplying us with valuable data. could ramble on just how great it is of you both to go to such lengths... but I fear my writing inadequate at this time to convey how good of you it is.

EDIT: Ron also took a look. Aufklarer's results fall in line with his expectations from his own experience and from people he knows. It's a pity we can't experiment with hip-fire time to aim and accuracy with machineguns, but this will help..

He also wishes you well, hoping you get out of Afghanistan safely.

Edited by Mask
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will note that what Aukflarer's referring to (as he mentioned himself) is not commensurate with the qualifications required for special operations and special operations capable forces like we're looking at in-game. If you'd like additional information on the standards required for even basic troops in, for example, the US Marine Corps, you can find it easily online with a publication called "Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery," listed as MCWP 3-15.1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

It works more or less. The aiprops.xml file screws up the alien behavior because the nodes defining their behavior are missing (probably didnt exist in an older version), so i used the original aiprops.xml.

strings.xml (i think) also screws up a few things like the roles names (and eventually their selection) in the loadout screen.

Still, the mechanics do work (much faster ballistics, super wide range grenades) but I get the feeling the aliens have been softened a lot. I played vanilla version veteran for a while and it was impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Now that Xenonauts has hit version 1, Ron plans to start the Quasi Realism mod up again.

There was a change a while back to explosives. Before, the further you were away from the explosion the less damage you took. It was changed so that damage was uniform within the explosive radius. Has it changed again?

If there are any other oddities or utilities that have come up in modding Xenonauts, please let us know. It seems the Xenonauts Community Edition mod appears to add a few options, and we'll be looking into that. There are also some other interesting mods, so it'll be fun to consider compilations.

Go ahead and offer any additional feedback for the mod, too, on what you'd like to see. This mod is about adding some realism to the game, so the ideas should have a basis in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Quasi Realism Alpha for Version 1.0x of Xenonauts is now up for download!

It's still an alpha, so expect bugs. Please report bugs and give any feedback you have.

There's some stuff that hasn't been gotten into yet. Aliens troops are still being rebalanced, etc.. Expect more updates soon (don't worry, you can keep savegame data).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, like the mod - especially the weapon sight range changes.

There are a few bugs though - firstly it seems to be locked on some really high difficulty - I was getting massive UFOs before I had a chance to get Wolf armour even on easy.

Second is that mag weapons don't seem to do any damage - they shoot, a projectile comes out, the enemies are suppressed, but there is no damage. I tested it extensively with point-blank shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Harriloon. Glad you like the mod.

Aliens were tweaked to get more points for completing their missions, so the invasion can progress quite a ways if you don't get radars and jets up all over the place in a hurry. It is possible to get Wolf armour before the beyond medium UFOs come up, I've tested this on the most difficult setting. Of course, that's not to say the difficulty is well balanced in this stage (most people probably don't spend an hour working out their exact base placement and funding for the first two years).

Did you place multiple bases to try and cover most of the world with radar? Or set up only a couple of bases? That makes a big difference to the difficulty curve, as you have plenty of funding now but the alien invasion speeds up quite a bit with completed missions. If you did cover most of the world in radar, then that probably is a bug in the difficulty, and we'll see about rectifying it.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean when you say mag weapons. Do you mean the magnetic railguns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

 

Hey @Mask, I really like the idea behind this Mod! Just make it as similar to reality as possible and, if it is not working, then it is because there is some spec that is not realistic! I'd love to give it a try but the link is down. Also, has it been updated to the latest versions?

thanks,

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...