Ouch, the online hurts the eyes

Discuss the Wing Commander Series and find the latest information on the Wing Commander Universe privateer mod as well as the standalone mod Wasteland Incident project.
Post Reply
arulin
Star Pilot
Star Pilot
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:32 am

Ouch, the online hurts the eyes

Post by arulin »

I know you guys haven't had much time to develop into the online but please get rid of the WC graphics.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Spiritplumber will be back next month; she's the lead developer; I'll pass on the message. Thanks.
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Post by Dilloh »

Spirit is female? Please don't take it as sexism, but it is refreshing to hear avout mix genders in any sort of gaming/progging issue!
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Well, not quite; sorry if it disappoints you; but your "sexism" remains statistically justified. Spirit is supposeldy male, at a physical level, but prefers to think of herself as "she", and I'm not gonna argue with her wishes. I wouldn't even say this much except through PM's, but a year ago she brought it up in the off topics forums, so I guess it's okay for me to clarify. Yeah, electrical engineer, as of next month, robot designer, university beowlf builder and computers maintainer; for some reason we don't see too many females with that kind of mix of interests. Except maybe my cousin in LA, perhaps, who studied mechanical engineering and who fixes her own car, including taking the engine apart and putting it back together; but then again, she's bisexual :), --not that that should have anything to do with it, but whaddya know?
micheal_andreas_stahl
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Gemini, Troy, Helen

Post by micheal_andreas_stahl »

Hmmm, this genre of gaming tends to be male dominated (or at lest that's what i've noticed) though i think it's a pity. It's not ment though it's, well, most the female i know can't take that much of this kind.

I can't see way women/girls can't see the fun in this. The only gaming comunity i was out numbered by females in was the Sims!

Asking why females are not interested in this type of thing is like them asking us why we're not interested in handbags. I think it is percieved 'male dominated', it would take but a few females to change that, which is a little unfair i think, as it is open to anyone.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

I think it's an actual brain hardware difference between the genders:

First of all, what's "love", scientifically speaking?

You can trace a line going from complete individualism, as in plants and insects, through "nuclear family" as in birds, through group-hunting behavior, as with wolves, through clan organization in primates, elephants, whales, etc.; through human societies. That's the evolution from competition to cooperation. Cooperation allows greater specialization and therefore efficiency. The genders specialized first as females bearing and caring for the young, and males protecting and marking territory... creating a safety zone.
So, the male "love instinct" is to protect and defend, even more so than the cultural myth of the male being "the provider". Wheras the female instinct is more purely cooperative, namely to protect the young and to try and secure protection by a male, if possible. So you could say the female brain had adaptation induced reasons to emphasize the cooperation ("love") parts of the brain; whereas males kind of straddle cortical and lower echelons: Partly the "love instinct" to protect, but partly the fight instinct, where the protecting duty demands it. So, fighting is still a primary thing for males, and why fighting games lure us so much; whereas fighting is a secondary thing for the female brain; --home-making being the primary. And not only "home making" but "clan making". Females like to network and create small communities. Should a male leave the clan, this network might make up for the loss.
So, it's little wonder to me that females might like a game like The Sims.
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Post by Dilloh »

Sorry if I insulted anybody, it was not my aim to do so, I was just statistically curious. As MAS said, this genre is male-dominated. I always thought the number of female players is below 1% (I still think this is so), and I was positively surprised to see one of the devs being female.

I want to clarify here that I don't have any prejudices against genders or any sexual forms. I personally know some men and women "not fitting the conventional raster" and they're friends of mine.

Plus, if I had any prejudices, I would be VERY impressed by the technical capabilites of the one or other member around here who is not male.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

I didn't perceive any prejudice in your posts at all. To me, sexism is when a value judgement or admonishment is put forward, like "women can't do x" or "women should do y", or the other way around. Observing statistical facts is not. It's not the facts, but the jumped to conclusions that are often in error, such as assuming a lack of ability, where a lack of interest may suffice. Like this young girl (well, she's probably 30 by now), old friend of mine, who got herself a degree in Physics, apparently just to prove to her chauvinistic father that she could do it. And after graduating in Physics, --with like all A's--, she started pursuing a degree in Medicine, because that's what she wanted to study...
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Post by Dilloh »

In fact, I'm in a "typical women's job", working as a male nurse. I somewhat also decided to learn this occupation because I wanted to be part of an enlightened society. I regret it though, but only because of the poor perspective, the low payment, the high unemployment rate and the strange working times the job brings in.
charlieg
Elite Mercenary
Elite Mercenary
Posts: 1329
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by charlieg »

Can't think of anything useful to say but don't want to be silent. Noise.
Free Gamer - free software games compendium and commentary!
FreeGameDev forum - open source game development community
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Dilloh wrote:In fact, I'm in a "typical women's job", working as a male nurse. I somewhat also decided to learn this occupation because I wanted to be part of an enlightened society. I regret it though, but only because of the poor perspective, the low payment, the high unemployment rate and the strange working times the job brings in.
You'll regret it for more than just that. There's only one true "enlightenment" and that's science, and the constant pursuit of truth. Most other "enlightenments" are actually "counter-currents". There's a big difference: A counter-current is a belief system contrarian to an established belief system, designed to neutralize it. It doesn't need to be based on reason and fact, and often isn't: just one fanaticism that helps erradicate another.

And I don't even disaprove of it... Frankly, if it helps change a society more quickly, so be it. Such as the effort involved in writing in gender-neutral ways without repeating "he or she": It has made us all better writers, for one thing; and more importantly, has trained us to reject gender-biased assumptions passing through our minds unchecked.
Believing that we are "all born equal" is a belief, not a scientific conclusion; and a belief designed to counter class, gender and racial presumptions. It is "enlightening" only in the sense that it helps defuse other beliefs that are very dangerous; but it doesn't enlighten in the sense of providing full understanding of what's going on. And while the belief that "we're all equal" was a foundation for Democracy, it was also a foundation for Communism... Buyer beware...

And counter-currents aren't a substitute for thinking for yourself: A lot of the people involved in disseminating a counter-current don't actually believe it themselves; and once a counter-current brings full social attention to the subject matter, its purpose is served, already.

And often they aren't meant to be 'practised' either; for the same reason: It's good that we qustion traditions, such as "why should nursing be traditionally a female job?". But the true answer isn't necessarily "It shouldn't be!". The purpose of questioning is just that: to question, to ponder, to make us think; --not necessarily to make us rush to 'corrective action'. If any corrective actions are needed it is with the de-entrenching of traditional expectations from rule-books. It would be wrong for a hospital to say to you "no, sorry, our nursing positions are for women only". A rule like that absolutely *must* change; --such a correction is fully justified: rules should be minimal, and should try to avoid being instruments by which a society's traditions are rigidly imposed. But it is not necessary for individuals to seek a career that is non-traditional, just because it is non-traditional. That doesn't even help the cause of the counter-current.

What a counter-current needs is for people to act as its mouthpieces for a little while, until its job is done. Nothing more. They don't require slaves for life. Counter-currents are exaggerations by design, and don't require true believers, either. Their purpose is only to neutralize an existing belief; but that purpose is overdone, and overshot, to the extent that their tong-in-cheek counter-beliefs are adopted or become, themselves, entrenched. If 50 years from now, nursing has become a traditional male job, for example, we won't be better off than yesterday. Even without going that far: If 50 years from now 50% of nurses are male we won't necessarily be better off. We're better off already, to the extent that traditional gender biases have been questioned and removed from the written or assumed rule books, and will be getting even better to the extent that this process continues and completes. Anything beyond that overshoots the counter-current's purpose.

Awareness of left-handedness is a good thing in as far as that equipment, computers, desks and whatnot manufacturers should adress the fact that a good percentage of the population are left-handed. But right-handed people forcing themselves to use the left hand to drive the mouse is neither necessary nor "enlightened".

Embracing counter-currents as ways of life is often a subject of comedy: Woody Allen's "Bananas" was a great movie about that: Someone who is trying to prove himself by embracing every counter-current, from Freudian psychology to "exercise at the workplace", to Communist revolution. Highly recommended watch, if you haven't.
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Post by Dilloh »

There's only one true "enlightenment" and that's science, and the constant pursuit of truth.
Science is the truth if you're looking for enlightenment in scientific disciplines. But it's not all of the truth. If you're e.g. an ordinary soldier and have experienced a war, you might be much closer to the truth than Newton ever was.
Their purpose is only to neutralize an existing belief; but that purpose is overdone, and overshot, to the extent that their tong-in-cheek counter-beliefs are adopted or become, themselves, entrenched.
That's true. A HEPs purpose is to integrate a disabled person into the society. You do so until your customers don't need you anymore. But on your way, you might also realize that it is not the disabled person who needs to change, but the society itself. Isn't that enlightenment?
But right-handed people forcing themselves to use the left hand to drive the mouse is neither necessary nor "enlightened".
If you also mean that a guy who studied at a university should take a job which uses his skills - I agree. But sometimes, enlightenment transforms into protest, e.g. seeing that there are only rich people working few and poor people working hard. Protest in form of non-participation, the person begins from the bottom working him-/herself up the social ladder. (S)he'll end where (s)he should have started, but (s)he'll have enlightened his/her comrades: enlightenment is a matter of your social position and: money!
Woody Allen's "Bananas" was a great movie about that: Someone who is trying to prove himself by embracing every counter-current, from Freudian psychology to "exercise at the workplace", to Communist revolution. Highly recommended watch, if you haven't.
Also I agree concerning the content, I can give you a counter-example for "too much enlightenment": Metropolis by Fritz Lang.

Again, we're drifting off-topic :lol:
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Dilloh wrote:
There's only one true "enlightenment" and that's science, and the constant pursuit of truth.
Science is the truth if you're looking for enlightenment in scientific disciplines. But it's not all of the truth. If you're e.g. an ordinary soldier and have experienced a war, you might be much closer to the truth than Newton ever was.
Closer to which truth? And what use is it? Newton's truth was pivotal and historic. Not sure a million more soldiers' truths would have made up for one less Newton's.
But right-handed people forcing themselves to use the left hand to drive the mouse is neither necessary nor "enlightened".
If you also mean that a guy who studied at a university should take a job which uses his skills - I agree. But sometimes, enlightenment transforms into protest, e.g. seeing that there are only rich people working few and poor people working hard. Protest in form of non-participation, the person begins from the bottom working him-/herself up the social ladder. (S)he'll end where (s)he should have started, but (s)he'll have enlightened his/her comrades: enlightenment is a matter of your social position and: money!
Well, I never said that "a guy who studied at a university should take a job which uses his skills"; I don't believe in "should"s; and I don't give a damn what you or anybody does, professionally, unless they are spammers. What I've been trying to say is that the way you stated you chose your profession sounds alarm bells in my intestines: If you had said "I went into it because it pays more", well...; or if you had said "I went into it because I wanted to be close to people suffering, because I feel that's closer to Truth", well...; or if you had said "Since I can remember, I always knew that my destiny was to be a nurse", I'd probably have liked that statement the best; but in none of those cases I'd have bothered to say anything. But your saying you chose your career for its being non-traditional, that goes too far for me, and had to say something. That's probably a mistake of life-long proportions and consequences; one that you might come to regret more than you would think, I would think. That's sacrificing your own life's purpose at the feet of an ideology that, before you know it, you'll realise was just a passing fad. Men are men; women are women. It's good for us to question traditions, and to de-entrench gender biases from laws and institutions, as well as to try and equalize opportunities, and question income gaps; but at the end of the day you'll find that men's and women's choices of careers and passtimes will always differ by a wide margin. There are many, well documented, brain structure differences between the genders. To say that more men should choose nursing, or that more women should play wing commander, that's taking the ideology too far. Institutions and society should stop dictating what men or women should or should not, do, one way or the other. The goal is to have a society free of gender biases, NOT to try and merge the genders back into one. It took nature millions of years to separate them, for good reasons, and we should celebrate our differences, not blame them for social injustice. And the same goes for racism or whatever.
Shissui
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:27 pm

Post by Shissui »

Dilloh wrote:But sometimes, enlightenment transforms into protest, e.g. seeing that there are only rich people working few and poor people working hard.
There is this German guy, a K.Marx. I think that he might have had an experience like that . . . and started a whole new accademic discipline in the process (among other implications of his protest).

Would he qualify as having had "too much enlightenment"?
I want to live in Theory. Everything works in Theory.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

That's a secondary topic that bugs me as well: the trivialization of the word "enlightenment". Well over 90% of the time, it seems to me, people who embrace new ideologies aren't any more questioning of their own ideologies than the previous generations were willing to question their own. Zero sum game, and in fact, perpetuation of the essential problem, with only a change of flavor: That of people reaching maturity and some of them reaching positions of political or social influence who aren't any better thinkers than the old generation were; and just as hard-headed, if not more so; and calling any change "enlightened" that agrees with their newer biases. Which is no different from the implied falacy in most advertising: "New == Better", --whether it does or it doesn't never being adressed. Marxism is a specially perfect example of ideology that discourages any self-questioning. How many people here read The Capital, or any of Karl's books? One thing I noticed when I used to hang out with leftists in my young years was that few of them bothered to read the books, but assumed they knew their own ideology. Marx's writing is a constant trashing of Capitalism (clever trashing, and in many cases quite insightful), but there's almost nothing in his writings about an alternative. Socialism and Communism end up being defined negatively: NOT this, NOT that, NOT the other... There's no building process; no attempt to describe the proposed and supposedly better system to any degree of detail, except to say that wealth would be distributed equally (Socialism) or according to need (Communism). But even such basic questions as who is in charge of doing this distribution, and how are they selected, aren't answered. Much less the question of how does the system ensure enough production that everybody's needs can be met. And, contrary to popular opinion, I'd venture to say Marxism isn't even "a philosophy", because for an ideology to be some kind of philosophy, mininmum requirement, in my book, would be for it to adress questions such as "what is good", or the purpose of a sociopolitical system, in like the very first chapter. So, let's assume Communism could somehow magically meet all our needs. Then what? Is that the purpose of our existence? And how are "needs" defined, anyways? Sure, I need to live forever...
Dilloh
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
Location: Black Forest, Germany

Post by Dilloh »

:lol:
Sorry chuck if I don't hook up with the discussion, but remember we had one about communism lately and it's really hardcore to me to write in english about that complex topics... but the others have fun!
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

Two things.

a) I know quite a few girls with that kind of interests. "tecchies", for short. Some do find games like these interesting, some don't, but they are there. What I notice they don't is engage in online comunities - I guess I'll have to ask why.

b) The only reason I would find as "right" for choosing a profession is: "because I like doing that". Any other reason is a recipe for unhappiness. I think that's what chuck was afraid of, of seeing a guy taking a route to probable (though not certain) unhappiness. At least laboral unhappiness.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

WELCOME BACK, KLAUSS :D

Yeah, this thread is old; Dilloh doesn't work there anymore AFAIK.

Klauss, what are your future plans? If you think you'll have any time at all to work on Ogre or shaders; I'd like to help, and try to get that done. We need shaders ASAP, even if not perfect ones, but the lack of shininess modulation is intolerable. I'd propose we forget shadows, and get all the rest of the stuff to work, since I believe shadows were the biggest hangup...
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

Ya, I already forgot about shadows. There are two ways of doing them, and none is built-in in Ogre, so it definitely will have to be on the wishlist of 0.5.1 at the very least.
  • Per-ship texture shadows, it would work like a wonder, although a tiny bit expensive, and a bit hard to code since we'd have to devise a heuristic to select which ships will receive shadows and which won't.
  • View-space shadows. You know... the paper you found once. The guys at Ogre were working on that, and I think a Google-SOC project was to implement some of those techniques. But they don't come easy to use, so...
Actually, there is one other way, and I might implement it - per-object shadows. It's this easy: for every object to draw, draw a cone from the sun to the object, and compute how much of it is occluded - get a lighting percentage out of it, and modulate lighting accordingly. Might work and be simple enough.

So... with that in mind, what would be needed is try to get the Ogre interface framework functional to the basics, and then you have shader support. Getting there implies having a scenegraph implementation that can handle big populated universes - Ogre's builtin octree won't cut it, both for precision issues and performance ones (it doesn't work as well with vs-ish worlds, I tried).

Also, a 2D/3D GUI framework is needed, the one I started sketching became intractable. Too generic. So, if you feel like writing one from scratch, feel free. I'll probably just concentrate on the Models (graphic objects) anyway, so I won't be stepping on your work.[/list]
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Sorry Klauss, what kind of framework? Like to do what, when?
ace123
Lead Network Developer
Lead Network Developer
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:13 am
Location: Palo Alto CA
Contact:

Post by ace123 »

I'm a bit worried that we are trying to bite off more than we can chew here.

As to the 2D framework, maybe a simple place to start would be to take the base_interface.cpp and port that to a different rendering system. That way, all the existing python scripts would still work.

My question is how much of vega strike should we rewrite? In my dream world, 99% of the code would be written differently than it is right now. But do too much at once and you end up needing to rewrite or at least modify 10000's of lines of code. Then, you would be better off spending the years necessary to rewrite the entirety of Vega Strike.
Do too little at once, and you will be forced to work around the quirks of the way the physics simulations depend on old and deprecated graphics structures and Unit classes, and at the end we end up with many of the same bugs and workarounds we have now.

However much I hate to say it, it might be best to change as few interfaces as possible... for example figure out how to get the OGRE engine in by only modifying code in "gldrv" and "gfx", leaving the interfaces as similar as possible, even though the Unit and Mission (well, everything for that matter) systems are due for a massive rewrite.

It would be really cool to have a nice OGRE rendering engine that will be easy to plug into vega strike without having to disturb too many cobwebs.

I'm saying this mostly because of my experiences in implementing multiplayer in VS. At least 90% of my time has been spent working around quirks in the Vegastrike engine that wouldn't have been a problem if it had been designed with networking in mind.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Well, I was going to let Klauss reply, but he seems to have disappeared again. My belief is that Klauss has already written 1000's of lines of code: Not only integrating Ogre but redesigning stuff like collision detection and physics and units. I'd be all for that, but I'd be also for some quick and dirty temporary patch to have shaders, ogre-full or ogre-less.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

ace123 wrote:I'm a bit worried that we are trying to bite off more than we can chew here.

As to the 2D framework, maybe a simple place to start would be to take the base_interface.cpp and port that to a different rendering system. That way, all the existing python scripts would still work.
That might be wise.
But that interface is seriously lacking. To be able to fully take advantage of cegui at some point, a higher-level interface would be needed.
I'd like to have such one, but as you say, it may be too much work for now. Maybe pave the way for such an interface, make a minimalistic one that let us translate base_interface.cpp into using Ogre, deprecate it, and later extend the minimalistic interface with cegui-powered stuff.
ace123 wrote:... for example figure out how to get the OGRE engine in by only modifying code in "gldrv" and "gfx", leaving the interfaces as similar as possible, even though the Unit and Mission (well, everything for that matter) systems are due for a massive rewrite.
Unit and Mission should be left alone - they're too massive to include in a graphics rewrite. However, Unit seriously needs a separate rewrite since the damage model has been hacked one too many times, and it is now, in my opinion, unmantainable. Proof of that is the milliard of bugs that have piled up, all traceable to unintelligibile unit code. But back to graphics things, I don't think such a minimalistic approach is applicable to graphics either. GFX/gldrv is too low-level for any kind of Ogre-backed replacement to be any worth. Ogre is a high-level API, and provides serious scenegraph/rendering abstraction that GFX/gldrv does not. Mapping the low-level interface into the high-level one would be madness, and would wipe out any benefit one might obtain from Ogre. Rather, I'd rewrite at the Unit level - each Unit::draw() (and the like) would be replaced (actually, removed - units won't get drawn, they'll have a visual representative, and the visual subsystem will take care of drawing all representatives - units will only handle the representatives). That's manageable, I think, since VS is somewhat separated at that level (there is some separation between physics and graphics and it takes place at those function calls, but there is still some mixing - like the physics system querying the mesh for its geometry, but I've designed my way around that).
chuck_starchaser wrote:Well, I was going to let Klauss reply, but he seems to have disappeared again. My belief is that Klauss has already written 1000's of lines of code: Not only integrating Ogre but redesigning stuff like collision detection and physics and units. I'd be all for that, but I'd be also for some quick and dirty temporary patch to have shaders, ogre-full or ogre-less.
Yep. If you sum up the ocheap and the Ogre-interface sketch, you'll probably get a few thousand lines. Let me count...
Ha... like 7k lines. I didn't know I wrote that much.

Anyway, I was refering to the framework commited in Vega Strike SVN under branches/ogre_branch/vegastrike/src/UserInterface. GUI-related stuff is due for rethinking (layers/elements/etc... I'd like to keep the layers idea, but elements should be made less abstract)
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

klauss wrote:Anyway, I was refering to the framework commited in Vega Strike SVN under branches/ogre_branch/vegastrike/src/UserInterface. GUI-related stuff is due for rethinking (layers/elements/etc... I'd like to keep the layers idea, but elements should be made less abstract)
K, I'll check it out tonight ;-)
Post Reply