It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:48 am



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ] 
 Fake VReality account, split from Oculus Rift thread. 
Author Message
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
I looked at the PCGamer interview and John said you were only using 800 by 600 displays and not the high resolution you are claiming....he also said it was a blurry image and distorted,,,,I will pass on this one..


Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:30 am
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:22 am
Posts: 1515
JohnML wrote:
I looked at the PCGamer interview and John said you were only using 800 by 600 displays and not the high resolution you are claiming....he also said it was a blurry image and distorted,,,,I will pass on this one..


Its a 1280x800 display with each eye lens focused on each side of the screen so each eye gets 640x800. Each eye would see either side of your desktop so your would need to close your right eye to see the left side clearly and vice versa, but when you display a side by side 3d format game or movie it will work as intended with 90 degree field of view ghost free 3d. Its not perfect but if you want 90 degree FOV with 3d this is about your only option short of spending in the 10's of thousands rather than $500.

This is not for everyone but for those who know what the options are this is a great compromise.

_________________
"I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."
Notch on the FaceDisgrace buyout.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:37 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:05 am
Posts: 243
Location: Vancouver Island
Been reading the press buzz comments out there in the wild from various articles relating to John's promotion of the RIFT...it's been frustrating! There's such a gross misunderstanding of what the RIFT does compared to what VR from the 80's-90's did and or even current consumer grade headsets. People routinely focus on resolution, completely missing the point that this is about FOV and the impact that has on general immersion.

Speaking to the choir here but the general public really has no idea what the tech is about, nor do they truly understand how paradigm shifting this will be when it finally hits, which is why VR has been in forced hibernation for the last 30 years. The whole topic desperately needs to be simplified into a visual construct that makes it clear what this does compared to current headsets AND your triple monitor setup. If I had time and resources I'd do a snazzy video for that :)

_________________
Image

http://www.thegallerygame.com


Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:11 pm
Profile WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11393
@Bishop51: Well the mainstream public has basically been brainwashed to believe that resolution is the only benchmark for displays, ever since HD hit the scene. You notice, even on enthusiast forums like HardForum, that many people don't value high refresh rates (120Hz) or 3D displays, forget about HMDs. Same thing with digital camera or camera-phones. Everyone just looks at the mega-pixel number and thinks that's how good the camera is, when really that is a poor indicator of the quality. And the fact is 99% of people probably have never tried an HMD, so all they have to compare it to is a regular monitor so they really have no clue what's good. No worry, its not their time yet. Its our time now.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:22 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:40 am
Posts: 237
Location: New York
@Bishop51: I agree with that last statement about the impact being underestimated. While I believe that games can help push this tech forward, I truly believe that there are so many other uses waiting on the sidelines that won't appear till it is cheap enough, and this is a perfect start, and convenient enough for everyone to access.

Hopefully a few iterations down we'll be able to drive this through our cellphones and get untethered networked VR that can be used anywhere! Personally I can't wait to start writing software to take advantage of this :)

_________________
Ibex 3D VR Desktop for the Oculus Rift: http://hwahba.com/ibex - https://bitbucket.org/druidsbane/ibex


Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:26 pm
Profile WWW
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
paratay wrote:
Thanks for the info PalmerTech , I would greatly appreciate if you can let me know where you sourced the Controller board and Newer version of the LCD as I couldn't find any other place to get them and Vitrolight is a little iffy to say the least even though the panels I got of him were in good order. The only problem was the controller board and not being able to extend the LVDS cable!! it is so small there is no way to extend it. So would greatly appreciate more info on where I can get the new panels with a better controller board as I am doing a few projects with robotics, thanks again!


I hope you can understand, but I would rather hold off for another week or two. I have enough developer interest that I am going to be able to buy enough parts for a couple pre-Kickstarter units at a higher price, so I am getting samples from two different places. The controller boards are made by Rowa Digital, and I am still looking for a good LVDS cable supplier, because none of the companies out there have ones as long as I want. I have extended the VitroLight one, you will need to use shielded twisted pair cabling and match up each pair. You can extend to about 1 meter before interference started kicking in. If you need just the panels and control board, I would be glad to give you some for however much they end up costing me, buying them in large quantities is cheaper than buying just one at a time. :)

JohnML wrote:
I looked at the PCGamer interview and John said you were only using 800 by 600 displays and not the high resolution you are claiming....he also said it was a blurry image and distorted,,,,I will pass on this one..


You must have seen a different interview than the rest of us, because he never said I was using 800x600 displays. The distortion is by design, it compresses more pixels into the center of the image, and fewer in the periphery, same as your real vision. I really don't know how you came away from that interview with a negative impression, what with Carmack saying he believes it is the best VR demo in the world and all!. Of all the people who tried it, only one person had a negative impression (They had long eyelashes that bumped against the lens on the prototype), and most of the rest were blown away.

Thanks for signing up to insinuate I am lying about what panels I am using, though! :roll:


The rest of you guys are right, consumers find it easier to just look at one number to make their decision rather than understand the big picture. :( I understand that the Rift is not a solution for everybody, but it is still way better than most of what is on the market, certainly for the price range. Seriously, this thing is $99 less than even the Vuzix VR1200! The irony is that if I were to use some of the 1080p panels that are available in low quantities (Like OrtusTech), these same people would probably complain about the price being $25,000! Don't blame me, blame the display companies. :lol:


Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:47 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
Palmer did not mean to insult but you are only getting 640x480 per eye. Also John said he had around 30 people try it and a lot of them did not like the fish eye, blurry view, and he had to actually make his software conform to the distortion. If I am going to drop $500.00 I want a viewer that will work with more that just one game and has a good image.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:57 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:40 am
Posts: 237
Location: New York
JohnML wrote:
Palmer did not mean to insult but you are only getting 640x480 per eye. Also John said he had around 30 people try it and a lot of them did not like the fish eye, blurry view, and he had to actually make his software conform to the distortion. If I am going to drop $500.00 I want a viewer that will work with more that just one game and has a good image.

It's actually 640x800 per eye which is pretty decent. Also, as this is just meant for enthusiasts at the moment, it will help get the hardware out at a low enough price for people to actually start writing software to support it. The tech will improve with time, however the standards don't even exist for most developers to add support in mainstream Apis like directx or others because the market wasn't there. Chicken and egg :)

_________________
Ibex 3D VR Desktop for the Oculus Rift: http://hwahba.com/ibex - https://bitbucket.org/druidsbane/ibex


Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:02 pm
Profile WWW
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
JohnML wrote:
Palmer did not mean to insult but you are only getting 640x480 per eye. Also John said he had around 30 people try it and a lot of them did not like the fish eye, blurry view, and he had to actually make his software conform to the distortion. If I am going to drop $500.00 I want a viewer that will work with more that just one game and has a good image.


First you said 800x600, now you say 640x480? :P Did you red any of the replies people made to you? The resolution is 640x800 per eye, something John made very clear in the interview. Once you warp in software, the image coming out the other side looks perfectly normal, except you get more pixels in the center than the periphery (A good thing!)

The Rift can work with more than one game, you can use IZ3D and Nthusim drivers to handle 3D and warping in almost any PC game. Not many games support "real" head tracking though, just mouse emulation. That limitation applies to any headset, not just the Rift.

It is probably not a good fit for you, though. If you want something with higher res, wider support, and do not care about field of view, I would go with the ST1080 or the HMZ-T1, both of them are $799. FYI, one of the biggest complaints with those headsets is a blurry image, as well. The Rift is actually better in this regard, having adjustable focus and a huge exit pupil.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:07 pm
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 718
JohnML wrote:
Palmer did not mean to insult but you are only getting 640x480 per eye. Also John said he had around 30 people try it and a lot of them did not like the fish eye, blurry view, and he had to actually make his software conform to the distortion. If I am going to drop $500.00 I want a viewer that will work with more that just one game and has a good image.


With this reply, I am not being short or mean with you. It's Just meant in fun.
I have been waiting for someone to put up a post just like yours, and you wrote yours, word for word perfect.
So now I can put up my canned reply to such a post.

And the reply to your post or any post like it, is:
Please Que the Soup Nazi voice, ((NO RIFT FOR YOU)).
Please Que Jack Nicholson voice, ((RIFT, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE RIFT))


Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:19 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
.


Last edited by JohnML on Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:27 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
I am not using those optics, I am using much higher quality aspheric lenses.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:39 pm
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 718
JohnML wrote:
:) I found the optics here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1ovJ1H9sEY

Now you are just being silly.
We have talked about those optics many times on these forums. You could have used the search function and found links.
What is your point.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:41 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
its all good. Just trying to figure out why I would spend money on a 640x480 viewer. I had one and it sucked big time. I think Palmer is right, I will stick with my Sony. Also my Sony is totally clear, not blurry at all.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:55 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
JohnML wrote:
its all good. Just trying to figure out why I would spend money on a 640x480 viewer. I had one and it sucked big time. I think Palmer is right, I will stick with my Sony.


Are you trolling, or are you just not reading what anybody says? For the third time in the last page: The resolution is not 640x480, it is 640x800, nearly double that.

I am going to assume that the 640x480 viewer you had was based on the old 0.44" Kopin displays. The contrast was awful, the image was fuzzy and hard to get aligned, and the field of view was less than 35 degrees. The image size of the Rift is more than 10 times as large as that, and more than 5 times as large as your HMZ-T1.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:01 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
640x800 is double 640x480??? You are using optics that increase the screen size, yes, but with low, low resolution. I can buy your parts online now for $200.00 and you want $500.00?? I am quite sure my Sony is much clearer than your hack job of a viewer. John even said it was blurry and you can see every pixel. Yeah, I will take one - NOT.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:20 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:52 am
Posts: 261
Location: Zurich area, Switzerland
Dont feed the troll 8-)

_________________
Oculus Rift, Vuzix Wrap 920 AR!, Vuzix VR920, Liquid Image MRG 2.2, Razer Hydra, P5 Glove, Microsoft Kinect, TrackIR5, 2 x Hillcrest Labs Freespace tracker, Fujifilm finepix real 3d w3, GeForce 9800GT 1Gb, GeForce GT 430 1Gb, DELL XPS 17 l702x with GeForce 555 GT 3Gb, and good-old VFX1 setup


Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:23 pm
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
Not trolling man, just making a point.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:45 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:05 am
Posts: 243
Location: Vancouver Island
JohnML wrote:
its all good. Just trying to figure out why I would spend money on a 640x480 viewer. I had one and it sucked big time. I think Palmer is right, I will stick with my Sony. Also my Sony is totally clear, not blurry at all.


I get this kind of Troll behavior at my place of business all the time. The troll is usually an active market competitor. In your case I'd guess one of the smaller headset makers on market since Sony and Microsoft are frankly too big to give a damn who's doing what.

Look, if the above isn't what you are then just accept that the RIFT is a bit too green for what you might be looking for. Its definitely not the kind of thing someone who doesn't like to tinker should play around with. Palmer made two very good consumer grade recommendations for you; the HMZ-T1 and the ST1080, both of which offer a hassle free, monitor attached to your face at "bla-bla feet" experience. Not to be too snobby about it but lets just leave it there shall we?

_________________
Image

http://www.thegallerygame.com


Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:52 pm
Profile WWW
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
JohnML wrote:
640x800 is double 640x480??? You are using optics that increase the screen size, yes, but with low, low resolution. I can buy your parts online now for $200.00 and you want $500.00?? I am quite sure my Sony is much clearer than your hack job of a viewer. John even said it was blurry and you can see every pixel. Yeah, I will take one - NOT.


I did not say double, I said "nearly double". 640x480 is only 60% of the resolution per eye the Rift has, I think a difference of 10% is small enough to qualify my "nearly".

It sure is amazing that you can buy my parts for $200, considering you know nothing about my control board, my optics, or my housing. Even more amazing when the head tracker alone costs 90! :roll: The unit John had was a hand-assembled early prototype, there have been a lot of improvements since I told him I would lend it to him a few months ago. The final version has an optional diffusion layer that makes the pixel structure nearly invisible, something that I did not have time to work out on that prototype.

Your Sony is great for some things, but don't kid yourself. My "hack job" is much lighter, more comfortable, lower latency, and higher field of view than the HMZ-T1, and for a lot of us, those are the most important factors in an HMD. Attacking a product because it is not what you personally want is really petty, man. There is NOTHING on the market that comes even close to this in the sub $20,000 range, the closest competitor pricewise is the Vuzix VR1200, which is $99 more, lower field of view, lower contrast, and has an abysmal field of view. I don't bash sports cars because they can't seat 8 people like my van, and I don't bash pancake restaurants because I am allergic to wheat. I just have to realize that those things are great for the people who don't mind the tradeoffs, and that to those people, the tradeoffs I am making myself seem crazy! :lol:


Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:56 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
Dood, at the end of the day you are looking at a 640x800 viewer with optics to make it look large. If you look at the Youtube video he used an iphone and optics to make it look large. Still blurry and not worth the money. You can be pissed if you want but the facts are the facts.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:08 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:51 am
Posts: 11
PalmerTech wrote:
The unit John had was a hand-assembled early prototype, there have been a lot of improvements since I told him I would lend it to him a few months ago. The final version has an optional diffusion layer that makes the pixel structure nearly invisible, something that I did not have time to work out on that prototype.


On this point, I was about to ask: How perceptible is the "screen door effect" if any on the panel you're using, and what are the tradeoffs you see implementing a diffusion layer that minimizes the effects of this? Big pixels don't bother me (I played Doom II at 160x120 resolution on my Mac IIvx, and liked it! </getoffmylawn> :P ) but if the pixel structure could be smoothed out to something that resembled, say, a CRT then I'm all for it. How would this be done?


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:11 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
JohnML wrote:
you are looking at a 640x800 viewer with optics to make it look large.

Yep, that is a fact.
JohnML wrote:
If you look at the Youtube video he used an iphone and optics to make it look large.

As I already told you, those are not the optics I am using. Mine are lightweight, high quality, aspheric acrylic lenses. Those are stacked planoconvex glass lenses.
JohnML wrote:
Still blurry and not worth the money. You can be pissed if you want but the facts are the facts.

None of that is "fact", it is your subjective opinion of a product you have not even tried. FYI, people are still paying nearly $2000 for Emagin Z800s, which are lower res, lower contrast, and lower field of view. Different people have different needs, please try to understand this.


blitter wrote:
On this point, I was about to ask: How perceptible is the "screen door effect" if any on the panel you're using, and what are the tradeoffs you see implementing a diffusion layer that minimizes the effects of this? Big pixels don't bother me (I played Doom II at 160x120 resolution on my Mac IIvx, and liked it! </getoffmylawn> :P ) but if the pixel structure could be smoothed out to something that resembled, say, a CRT then I'm all for it. How would this be done?


The effect is not bad at all, much better than, say, a low res DLP projector. The diffusion layer lowers contrast a bit, but it is still better than most microdisplays, barring OLED stuff. It will probably be an optional stick-on film for the Rift that you can apply to the LCD during construction.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:20 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
Well, I would not say it as "Input resolution of 1280×800, split between two eyes" and you need to tell people the truth that it is 640x800. Do not deceive. I looked up the Z800 and it is 800x600 a much higher picture quality. Not trying to bust your balls, but come on.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:28 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
JohnML wrote:
Well, I would not say it as "Input resolution of 1280×800, split between two eyes" and you need to tell people the truth that it is 640x800. Do not deceive. I looked up the Z800 and it is 800x600 a much higher picture quality. Not trying to bust your balls, but come on.


How is 800x600 higher picture quality than 640x800? Have you ever used a Z800? :lol:


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:31 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:52 am
Posts: 261
Location: Zurich area, Switzerland
Pixelwise 640x800 is better and bigger than 800x600, you should also take into account aspect rate.
Then again if you feed HMZ T1 with side by side signal you will have 640x720 per eye, which is even less than 640x800

I mean, dude, do the math then rant...

_________________
Oculus Rift, Vuzix Wrap 920 AR!, Vuzix VR920, Liquid Image MRG 2.2, Razer Hydra, P5 Glove, Microsoft Kinect, TrackIR5, 2 x Hillcrest Labs Freespace tracker, Fujifilm finepix real 3d w3, GeForce 9800GT 1Gb, GeForce GT 430 1Gb, DELL XPS 17 l702x with GeForce 555 GT 3Gb, and good-old VFX1 setup


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:35 pm
Profile WWW
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:51 am
Posts: 311
Location: UK
Post Removed, bad time...

;)


Last edited by Nick3DvB on Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:56 pm, edited 7 times in total.



Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:43 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am
Posts: 9
PalmerTech wrote:
JohnML wrote:
Well, I would not say it as "Input resolution of 1280×800, split between two eyes" and you need to tell people the truth that it is 640x800. Do not deceive. I looked up the Z800 and it is 800x600 a much higher picture quality. Not trying to bust your balls, but come on.


How is 800x600 higher picture quality than 640x800? Have you ever used a Z800? :lol:



Yes I have and I will not buy a 640x480 or 640x800 display. You deceive everyone when you advertise 1280x800.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:45 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
JohnML wrote:
You deceive everyone

It is one thing to insult my hardware, it is another to insult my integrity.

This has been fun, John, but the jig is up. Your IP traces to exactly the same city, state, latitude, and longitude as the IP of VRealities (http://www.vrealities.com/).

As per the MTBS3D rules:
Quote:
It's unfortunate, but we have even had cases where companies pretend to be customers so they can undermine their competitors on our forums. This is in poor taste, it's unacceptable, and is not what MTBS is about.


You are clearly violating this rule, and any sense of professional or personal ethics along with it. If you want to continue posting here, please use your old account "VReality", as your current account will be terminated.

Best,
Palmer


Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:52 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:51 am
Posts: 11
PalmerTech wrote:
JohnML wrote:
You deceive everyone

It is one thing to insult my hardware, it is another to insult my integrity.

This has been fun, John, but the jig is up. Your IP traces to exactly the same city, state, latitude, and longitude as the IP of VRealities (http://www.vrealities.com/).

As per the MTBS3D rules:
Quote:
It's unfortunate, but we have even had cases where companies pretend to be customers so they can undermine their competitors on our forums. This is in poor taste, it's unacceptable, and is not what MTBS is about.


You are clearly violating this rule, and any sense of professional or personal ethics along with it. If you want to continue posting here, please use your old account "VReality", as your current account will be terminated.

Best,
Palmer


I've never heard of, never mind purchased a product from VRealities, and now I never will.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:01 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:05 am
Posts: 243
Location: Vancouver Island
PalmerTech wrote:
JohnML wrote:
You deceive everyone

It is one thing to insult my hardware, it is another to insult my integrity.

This has been fun, John, but the jig is up. Your IP traces to exactly the same city, state, latitude, and longitude as the IP of VRealities (http://www.vrealities.com/).

As per the MTBS3D rules:
Quote:
It's unfortunate, but we have even had cases where companies pretend to be customers so they can undermine their competitors on our forums. This is in poor taste, it's unacceptable, and is not what MTBS is about.


You are clearly violating this rule, and any sense of professional or personal ethics along with it. If you want to continue posting here, please use your old account "VReality", as your current account will be terminated.

Best,
Palmer


KABANG!!! lol :lol: Like I said, when a troll is particularly critical and argumentative about something he clearly has no intention of buying...its usually a threatened competitor. Seriously ban this guy's account for being such a poor sport and unprofessional bully.

When will people learn? VRealities lost a lot of business here because of this clown.

_________________
Image

http://www.thegallerygame.com


Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:03 pm
Profile WWW
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
Split this from the Oculus Rift thread, no need to have this clogging up 3 pages of discussion there.

Going to lock this, will make another thread if people want to continue.


Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:08 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 32 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.