RE: RHS x.42 new features (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

Dili -> RE: RHS x.42 new features (1/2/2007 6:02:04 AM)

Thanks.Any predition when it will be uploaded



m10bob -> RE: RHS x.42 new features (1/2/2007 10:58:22 AM)

" I think it is the ship on which the Sullivan brothers perished as well. "

No....The Sullivans perished on the CLAA Juneau in the Solomons campaign..



el cid again -> RE: RHS x.42 device solutions (1/2/2007 12:32:54 PM)

I was forced to reduce the number of Japanese slots, or accept no production/reporting of the device.

I did both:

1) For the unique Sneider Rail Gun, I moved it to the upper slot range.

2) For the almost unique 150mm Type 5 AAA gun (only one battery of 2 was operational) - I moved it to the upper slot range as well.

Both the above are chrome - technicalities that are both true and not operationally decisive - but nice.

3) The 14cm Type 10 AA gun - a naval weapon used in numbers on land - I created a slot by combining the
Type 38 Improved Field Gun with the Type 95 Field Gun - both 75mm.

4) The 149mm Coast Defense gun I combined with the 150 mm Field gun.

In these cases, we now will see Japanese land units getting replacements - and no great harm was done to designations or to capabilities. [I indicate both names in the designation]

These cases also mean that two valid Allied device slots for land units are available. Other changes have resulted in a few more open slots - which I will leave for modders - or for some feedback we have left out this or that critical device.
Regretfully all of the slots are only Allied, and only for land units - and I do not think they will work for radar - and certainly not for naval radar.

However - all this is good news. Our testing policy is now producing positive feedback that devices work - and we are addressing the exceptions. I think we have completed that.



el cid again -> RE: RHS x.42 new features (1/2/2007 12:37:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

" I think it is the ship on which the Sullivan brothers perished as well. "

No....The Sullivans perished on the CLAA Juneau in the Solomons campaign..



Now you mention it - I remember it - and surely you are right. Thanks.



el cid again -> RE: RHS x.42 new features (1/2/2007 12:40:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks.Any predition when it will be uploaded


Well - I can upload today - but I am doubtful EOS will be completely working to my satisfaction re AI in control.

Today or tomorrow. Getting there. I am ready to play - and to move on to the pwhex file to make Level 7 go.

Level 7 is actually DONE! Except we lack a pwhex file - and some art integration with that - to make the files work.
This is the result of keeping all three levels together in development - in spite of no product to show for it on the upper end. Everything is coordinated between the versions - all we need is to make the display work.



Ol_Dog -> RE: RHS x.42 new features (1/2/2007 5:07:00 PM)

edited



Dili -> RE: RHS x.42 new features (1/2/2007 10:17:13 PM)

Thanks

quote:

I created a slot by combining the
Type 38 Improved Field Gun with the Type 95 Field Gun - both 75mm.


For the sake of user knowledge it think it will be good that you designate them as Type38i & 95 Field Gun or any other way that will show that it tries to simulate two diferent guns.



el cid again -> RE: RHS x.42 new features (1/3/2007 12:53:52 AM)

Yes - I have been doing a good deal of that - if a device is combined - I try to say what is included.
Thus the allies have 80/81/82mm mortars! You pick the one for the army you are in - but
it is essentially the same performance regardless of which.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 to issue today (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 12:57:12 AM)

I have completed device, radar, supply sink and eratta revisions for all scenarios.

I will issue as time permits today.

EOS has some unresolved startup AI programming - and likely issues tomorrow.

I am surrendering ownership of Level 5 files for data washing - and when they return they will be
5.42.

Translated this means CVO, RAO, BBO, RPO and PPO release today.
Level 6 is fully debugged.
Level 5 has 5 of 8 files fully debugged and the remainder will be washed now.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 6:44:47 AM)

10 of the 12 RHS scenarios (all but EOS in both Level 5 and Level 6) were issued today. 6 uploaded 5 hours ago and the other four just now. They should post in due course. The EOS files should release shortly - possibly tomorrow.

It is possible Level 7 (also level .42) will release by Tuesday - one week from today.



Dili -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 10:20:33 AM)

Thanks;

Probable mistake: F1 Daitai/3rd Kokutai a navy unit upgrades A6M2 to Ki44 Tojo. Same for F1 Daitai/Tainan Kktai



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 11:35:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks;

Probable mistake: F1 Daitai/3rd Kokutai a navy unit upgrades A6M2 to Ki44 Tojo. Same for F1 Daitai/Tainan Kktai



Yep. A6M2 should upgrade to A6M3 in these units.

Looks like there will be a 6.421 (and 5.414) micro update!



Dili -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 12:55:46 PM)

Found that any G3M2 Nell units that exist at start dont upgrade to anything so stay on Nells until the end of the war. That could be right, but attrition might be a problem.
Ki-61 Tony-I has an RHS entering operational date January 44. In reality they started to be build in the end of 1942  and entered first fights in Spring 1943 in New Guinea.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 4:27:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Found that any G3M2 Nell units that exist at start dont upgrade to anything so stay on Nells until the end of the war. That could be right, but attrition might be a problem.

REPLY: I checked in my RHSCVO game AI vs AI test number 165: G3M2s upgrade just fine - about 5 options (including the G3M2). Something is wrong with your files - installation - or supply situation for the unit(s) in question. WITP has lots of "tests" before it lets something happen. [For example, a land unit unable for ANY of a list or reasons to attack will show the option greyed out - even though it can attack if ALL the tests are passed]


Ki-61 Tony-I has an RHS entering operational date January 44. In reality they started to be build in the end of 1942  and entered first fights in Spring 1943 in New Guinea.


REPLY: This is a somewhat contentious issue. RHS has greatly delayed the appearence of the Ki-61 Tony deliberately to be historical about it. The dates found in CHS were grossly moved forward. Aside from Francillon's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War (the "bible" for RHS on Japanese aircraft) I have a dedicated history of the Ki-61 - and I am certain we have this right. [The Ki-61 Hein in Japanese Army Air Force Service]

FYI RHS has deliberately NOT elected to use production dates - which seem to have been used by CHS. Instead, we either use actual in theater operational date (in theater applies to the Allies - operational ETO does not count)
OR we estimate that date (when it never happened - mainly for late war planes). For the estimate, we used the best case, from either of two benchmarks: a) if possible from first standard aircraft production date; (b) if not possible because not produced, from first flight date. [There is even a fall back if the plane never flew at all - I have an elaborate way to calculate first flight date from various other dates in the design/development process]. You will NEVER find a Japanese plane in RHS (except by mistake) that is operational before one of the following two situations occur (in order of priority):

1) The actual operational date with a unit in history;
2) TWO MONTHS AFTER the start of line production (actual or estimated) date - to permit distribution/working up.
[This because it is the historical best case for Japan - achieved with a gigantic 4 engine aircraft - H8K1s attacked Pearl Harbor only two months after line production produced the first airframe. If it can be done for a big plane, it could be done for a small one.]

This order of priorities means that a plane that had a lot of development trouble does not get to "jump the gun" by a long time - as was specifically done in the case of the Tony in CHS. This subject has passionate partisans - so Joe and I devised a formal set of rules - and honored them - whatever partisans said. In the end our work was both accepted - and then ultimately not used - by CHS - and RHS was born more or less as CHS with the "alternate plane set."

In spite of these (and in the case of aircraft, it was all published - and is still in the Forum - because I did it for CHS under supervision of Joe Wilkerson) defined criteria, there is still room for confusion:

For example a plane might show up in a battle BEFORE it is operational - and get reported as such - and I don't count that. If I did count that Japan would get improvised night fighters a lot sooner, for example. But a field improv or a prototype somehow in the field does not count as "issue to a line unit of production aircraft."

Another possibility is misidentification. Participants are quite sincere and passionate about what they encountered - and very often wrong. You can find "records" of this or that which are wholly false. Doesen't matter to me: if the Japanese say the plane wasn't there - wasn't even built yet - and particularly if industry and service records seem to verify each other - I would disregard a report "we met that one" on principle. Trained (unofficially but probably more than any graduate student ever is) by the retired official US Army historian (because I grew up near his home), I was taught to diligently seek out the records of the other side, and use them.





Dili -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 9:24:11 PM)

quote:

RHS has greatly delayed the appearence of the Ki-61 Tony deliberately to be historical about it


There is nothing Historical about deleting an aircraft that had 2 Sentais(68 and 78) operational in June 1943 in New Guinea and dozen of kills in their chest until 1944.
It's also bizarre to rate Hien with 12 durability when they had theething problems. Put an operational version in 1943 and  durability to 8 or 9. If the Japanese player can sustain them via supply then it's okay, if not it will happen what happened historically.

There is also not Historical to rate Ki-44 Tojo as one of most manouverable Japanese aircrafts.

quote:

G3M2s upgrade just fine - about 5 options (including the G3M2).


How is that an upgrade ? That is the plane they already have.
For example i opened it with editor and all of them Genzan; Mihoro; Kizarazu; Chitose; 1st Airgroups with G3M2(slot25) "upgrade" to slot 25. So no upgrade. That could be right but since i find suspicious that none of this Elite units didnt upgraded to G4M1 i think it is right to warn just in case...



Mifune -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 10:31:09 PM)

"2 Sentais(68 and 78) operational in June 1943 in New Guinea" This is slightly incorrect according to Francillon on page 114. "Initial deliveries of the aircraft were made in Febauary 1943 to the 23rd Dokuritsu Dai Shijugo at Ota, which acted as pilot conversion and training unit. Combat operations began two months later when the 68th and 78th Sentais were deployed to the north coast of New Guinea." This would make their arrival April 1943, by June their had to have been fully operational units for some time in that theater. Now time to point out the what is not obvious due to poor nomenclature. The Ki-61-1 that you are seeing in the RHS database is the Ki-61-1 KAIc which indeed arrived in January 1944 (see Francillon page 116). So both parties are correct, and certainly one could make a strong case for the inclusion of the Ki-61-1b in April 1943. And before someone asks, the Ki-61-1a was selected for service and completed with production tooling (i.e. not prototype) in August 1942. That model was put to trials against other fighter aircraft by the IJA. But its armament was much lighter (7.7 & 12.7 guns). The model you are seeing in New Guinea is the Ki-61-1b.



Dili -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/3/2007 11:33:32 PM)

I checked and i agree that the first Ki-61-I model is the 1944 one so that is correct in the RHS .  We just dont have the 1943 one.
I said June43 is because i read that was the first operational engagements, but you are right they were in theatre since Spring.

quote:

That model was put to trials against other fighter aircraft by the IJA


And considered more manouverable than all except the Ki-43 Hayabusa;
------------------------------------------------

Btw another quote about relative performance:
"But the two P-38s chasing me had an incredible climbing power. They stood on their tails and were catching up to my Type 3. I felt shivers down my spine. I have never had this experinece before. P-40s, P-39s, F4Fs, and even F4Us could not follow the Type 3 in steep climb. But this twin boomed P-38 was following me with ease!"
Yoshio Matsumoto, 103 Independent Chutai, describing his first encounter with the P-38
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/quotes/ki61.html



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 12:32:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

RHS has greatly delayed the appearence of the Ki-61 Tony deliberately to be historical about it


There is nothing Historical about deleting an aircraft that had 2 Sentais(68 and 78) operational in June 1943 in New Guinea and dozen of kills in their chest until 1944.

REPLY: It appears that the 68th becaome operational (in Manchukuo) in March 1943, and the 79th in April 1943 (in Japan). We do not require they be in combat to count - only in theater. So the field has the wrong date and you were correct.

The 23rd Indipendent Chutai took first delivery of production machines in February 1943 - so that is the correct date.

I have no explanation for the date data in the field - but information theory says there will be errors - and with over 133,000 fields to manage - surely there must be some.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 12:42:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

"2 Sentais(68 and 78) operational in June 1943 in New Guinea" This is slightly incorrect according to Francillon on page 114. "Initial deliveries of the aircraft were made in Febauary 1943 to the 23rd Dokuritsu Dai Shijugo at Ota, which acted as pilot conversion and training unit. Combat operations began two months later when the 68th and 78th Sentais were deployed to the north coast of New Guinea." This would make their arrival April 1943, by June their had to have been fully operational units for some time in that theater. Now time to point out the what is not obvious due to poor nomenclature. The Ki-61-1 that you are seeing in the RHS database is the Ki-61-1 KAIc which indeed arrived in January 1944 (see Francillon page 116). So both parties are correct, and certainly one could make a strong case for the inclusion of the Ki-61-1b in April 1943. And before someone asks, the Ki-61-1a was selected for service and completed with production tooling (i.e. not prototype) in August 1942. That model was put to trials against other fighter aircraft by the IJA. But its armament was much lighter (7.7 & 12.7 guns). The model you are seeing in New Guinea is the Ki-61-1b.



This is a case of compromise required due to slot limits. We (CHS and RHS and probably stock) all use the same system: use the most numerous production sub model of a type, and permit it to appear when the earliest sub model of that type appears. So we can sort of have our cake and eat it too: the KAI gets to appear early - since we cannot have a separate 1b slot.

But Mifune has decoded the date error - probably. This is the right date for that sub model - and probably that is how it got set.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 12:50:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili


quote:

G3M2s upgrade just fine - about 5 options (including the G3M2).


How is that an upgrade ? That is the plane they already have.
For example i opened it with editor and all of them Genzan; Mihoro; Kizarazu; Chitose; 1st Airgroups with G3M2(slot25) "upgrade" to slot 25. So no upgrade. That could be right but since i find suspicious that none of this Elite units didnt upgraded to G4M1 i think it is right to warn just in case...




OK - back up.

1) I report there are five upgrades INCLUDING the G3M2 model. I checked again. There are. You have some other issue preventing you seeing them.

2) In RHS the G3M2 CAN BE an upgrade for a G3M2 unit. In these cases it isn't. But if the unit is a special one - say an ASW unit - if you upgrade to a different model - and then back to the G3M2 - you "convert" it to the default loadout - in this case a torpedo attack version. That is a bigger deal in EOS - when the Army uses the G3M2 with its own typical loadout (8 x 100 kg bombs) - in addition to the Navy ASW loadouts. [In EOS there is an experimental nomenclature system - with the letter K indicating an ASW unit - and this is only partially present in other scenarios. If popular I will diligently apply this to all scenarios at some point. It makes it easy for players to know when an unusual loadout is the initial one. But the price is that - if you upgrade the unit - even to its own type - it no longer has the unusual loadout - and from then on he designator is misleading.]

3) If you can, identify air units by slot number. Makes investigation faster.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 1:07:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

There is also not Historical to rate Ki-44 Tojo as one of most manouverable Japanese aircrafts.





Your problem is the WITP system itself. You probably think of "maneuverability" as things like turn rate,
and not as things like speed (the main componant) or ROC (the second most important component).
We added wing loading and power loading as well in RHS. But in three of those factors - speed, ROC and
power loading - the 44 is superb.

There are three threads dedicated to the maneuverabilty field. It is - and must be - a compromise field - since we have only one. Planes superb in one sense get rated for it - whatever that sense may be. This applies to all planes. One may however quibble with the composite formula. I personally prefer to separate horizontal and vertical maneuverability - and give ratings for different altitudes as well. Not germane - we do not have the choice to change the system in WITP I.

I am surprised we found a consensus at all - but we did - spending over a year to get it. Unless human testing indicates a problem - I am loth to mess with it.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.414 and 6.422 to issue (SANS EOS) (1/4/2007 1:21:45 AM)

I cannot get EOS out today (must work) - but not working for 5 days after that - so it will come out soon.

I will issue a micro update with the few discovered eratta for 5.413 and 6.422. Seems that we won't get data washing of 5 until the weekend - so it can be done on the updated set.

There were two units that didn't upgrade to the A6M3. And the Ki-61 I may have the wrong date.
I also failed to convert the starting locations of Enterprise and Lexington to historical. All other mods use the Matrix system - and put them in the wrong place for technical reasons. I think we can be historical - and I have yet to see any problem in testing. The concerns about initial battles were misplaced - they are possible with either position - and not at all the rule.

And US PT boats upgrade to a model that carries a huge radar that would - if mounted - sink the boat!



Mifune -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 1:45:59 AM)

Dili, since you probably have not seen the manuever thread. The manuever rating used in RHS is done by a formula. The formula was devised from reading a great deal of material from actual aircraft manueverability to forces applied to R/C aircraft. The formula are numbers that one could unversally obtain for basically all aircraft. The aircraft stats used for the formula were from reference materials that are considered reference standard (i.e. Francillon). RHS applied the formula universally across the board. I even applied the formula to a great many aircraft (and aircraft versions) not found in the RHS aircraft database. I assure you that the manuever rating was a mathematical one, not a subjective one.



Dili -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 3:08:29 AM)

quote:

REPLY: It appears that the 68th becaome operational (in Manchukuo) in March 1943, and the 79th in April 1943 (in Japan). We do not require they be in combat to count - only in theater. So the field has the wrong date and you were correct.


Okay. Just to not have a mix up it's the 78 not the 79.


quote:

1) I report there are five upgrades INCLUDING the G3M2 model. I checked again. There are. You have some other issue preventing you seeing them.


Okay, i could have some mistake in my install that dint showed up in past. In your RHSCVO 5.41 to what aircrafts these units upgrade? 

quote:

3) If you can, identify air units by slot number. Makes investigation faster.


Sure.

quote:

You probably think of "maneuverability" as things like turn rate,
and not as things like speed (the main componant) or ROC (the second most important component).
We added wing loading and power loading as well in RHS. But in three of those factors - speed, ROC and
power loading - the 44 is superb.


So speed was factored twice, In game and in mvr formulae? Uneasy about that.
The most important thing is energy and how a plane looses more or less of it do to aerodynamics(Wing loading; drag...); Also instantenous and sustained turn rates vary and acceleration.  So a formulae of mine for MVR would be Wing Loading+PowerVsWeight+Drag+Reports from the war(subjective value) - no speed since it is already in game, actually speed is a byproduct of all that in a perfect formulae speed shouldnt be there if we have all info ; Weighting right all that factors for aerial combat would be the real issue.
And of course all that can be wrecked by an inexperienced pilot... :)

Btw is altitude a factor in game engine?  And what is ROC?

quote:

RHS applied the formula universally across the board.


That is reassuring.




Mifune -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 3:21:42 AM)

"And what is ROC?" = Rate Of Climb



Dili -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 3:44:33 AM)

Okay. My main problem is using end results to reach other end results ; rate of climb; speed; manouverality are all results of drag; power to weight ratio;wing loading etc.

Maybe there is no better system after all speed can indicate more or less drag(if we look to the power Vs speed ratio); but rate of climb links to power to weight ratio and drag so we are factoring drag twice.



Mifune -> RE: RHS 5.413 and 6.42 uploaded (sans EOS) (1/4/2007 4:17:46 AM)

To quote from a previous thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1224088&mpage=5&key= You can go there and read that thread for all the details of the RHS manuever rating. Many points were covered and do not need to be rehashed here. Many things were also discussed and it should be an interesting read for you. "Here is the RHS maneuver rating formula. (max speed/20) + (initial RoC/200) - ((empty weight/wing area)/25) - ((gross weight/take off horse power)/5) / number of engines. Rules of the math are to two decimal places throughout the calculations, until the final rating. The final figure is then rounded to nearest whole number since only whole number can be used by WitP. Sources of the numbers must be from one of the standard references such as Francillon or Weal. When calculating initial RoC I try to calculate from a source listing RoC 0 through 15-20k if possible. SO one must bear in mind what initial RoC represents. I did not use zoom RoC or optimal RoC with these calculations, the same considerations were given to max speed. It is quite difficult to find standard set of stats for all the aircraft, but a deliberate effort has been maintained so the overall numbers are not skewed by misleading numbers. In addition to further elaborate the loading factors within this formula the third set of calculations represent wing loading and the fourth set represents power loading. These loadings are weighted for use within this formula."



el cid again -> Ki-61 (1/4/2007 6:42:29 AM)

The RHS plane seems a cross between the Ib and the IKAI. It has KAI guns - Ib range - and fictional speed closer to the KAI. Giving it to players a lot sooner, I think we give them the Ib version - less gun power- more speed - same range - more maneuverability.

Altitude is a factor in RHS - but only in a peculiar sense. We give planes an "operational ceiling" - defined as half way between "optimum operating altitude" and "service ceiling." Further - we get OOA by formula. I found that it is approximately 60% of service ceiling for normal engines, 80% for turbo supercharged engines, and 90% for jet/rocket engines. So operational ceiling = 80% for normal engines, 90% for turbo supercharged engines, and 95% for jet/rocket engines. We combined this with an "effective ceiling" for AA - not max ceiling possible. it is a compromise system - but systematic - and it works fairly well. IF the Japanese fly at historical 25,000 feet- they can escape the AA at Clark (at 22,600 feet). But they cannot escape the higher performing 105s and 5 inch guns - nor can they fly above the ceiling of most US fighters.



Dili -> RE: Ki-61 (1/4/2007 8:26:07 AM)

Damn lost my reply. This will be shorter.

Thanks Mifune i will read it fully.

el cid again  may question was more directed to air to air combat; for example a good climber(i dont mean rate of climb at sea level but time to  6km to 8km Altitude) usually performs well at altitude but i suppose that is not modelled into witp.

When you have time please tell me what kind of plane those Nell units update to.



el cid again -> RE: Ki-61 (1/4/2007 12:11:24 PM)

The normal unit upgrades to

G3M2
G4M1
G4M2m22
G4M2e
P1Y1

Probably some units upgrade to Ki-67 as well (probably only those units that did in these scenarios - which are not EOS). And some units - and maybe some of those planes - can upgrade to the G8N1 four engine bomber. A few units will appear with those planes as well. And in my 1945 test game I note that sometimes AI gives you a unit with an OLDER plane if enough new ones are not available. Also sometimes it gives you the unit with only 1 plane! [The unit then fills out with replacements over time] The point is - there are a fair number of naval bombers - not all of them on this list.

In EOS you get rather more choices - and it varies more as well. There are rether more variations of bombers available - including an ASW version of the G4M. Navy and Army planes can cross over in many cases - and there is the G7 - a plane rejected in favor of the G8. You may be able to convert to army bombers - including not only the ones you see in this scenario - but Ki-49 II (sometimes with an ASW loadout and sensors) - and Ki-74s - which are not present in these scenarios. Then there is the wierd case of the Me-264. It is only present in EOS. It is so expensive you never get very many. By 1945 I was able to have something like 15 units - but many of those were recon detachments of 3 - and almost all the rest were squadrons of 9 or 12. Maybe one group of 27 or 30. I dedicated fairly significant assets to making it - but AI decides what planes it buys - and it never buys more than a handful - on the typical day none at all.



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.359375