RE: Aircraft Upgrades

RE: Aircraft Upgrades (Full Version)

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

Message

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 7:58:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 You don't think I couldn't write a damned game? LOL! Prove me wrong.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:04:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Mr Frag, a. I agree b. I agree if what you are saying is research is generic i.e. you allocate research points to Navy or Army (or possible Navy Bombers/ Navy Fighters/ Army Fighters/ Army Bombers) and that availability dates are therefore accelerated across the board for these categories dependent on research. c. Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? I agree hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Not sure about this one but could be livable with if it was a 15 day or 30 day return Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Yes Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have Not sure of these I would say if a player is silly enough to leave no reserve then thats there fault. On allied side I would like it (I only really play allies [:D]) but could live without it I only really view it as an issue for Japanese. d. For simplicity (and I accept this will give some strange situations) I would keep reinforcements as is. e. Would love it but as with d above I would leave it as is as long as upgraded gp keeps old pilots but at reduced exp. f. This is the real nasty one. I am guessing it would have to be PBEM only via a toggle. The simpler we keep any amendment the easier the computer could cope with it but there is no easy solution hence i think tobggle is best answer. Andy F. is always the killer on these types of changes. This rework would probably require a fairly extensive rewrite of the AI, IF the AI were to be made to make use of it. Otherwise, in AI games the Jap AI just uses the existing upgrades and research configured at the start. This "fix" is really for the human Jap player, really. Although I'm not sure it would be too tough to work the AI to do a pool check to switch models if the pool was empty of it's current models and suitable model was available in sufficient quantity in the pool On reinforcements, I'll speak from personal experience on cross-training. Cross training, even in the next seires in a model (F4C to F4D for instance) typically required a minimum of 4-6 weeks, longer if say F4D to F15. So disbanding for a period of 30-45 days would probably be realistic to simulate cross-training of pilots. Not sure what cross training timing was in WWII, though. Bottom line, a logical progression research model that does not allow player to jump directly from Claudes to Reppu's. Maybe not as restrictive as no A6M5's before A6M3's (as there WAS some parallel development going on), but certainly the preceding model needs to be well along before beginning on the next one. And updrade system that let's you upgrade, with some logical limits like IJA to IJA, Fighter to Fighter, etc... to anything in the pool, up or down. And something to simulate cross-training. The "cost" of upgrade is reflected in the time the unit is out of action due to cross-training. Penalties for changing plant production from one model to the next and perhaps the same limitations on those as upgrades (fighter plants produce fighter or pay an extra penalty if converted to different general type).

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:09:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Ok, lets try and net out the thread. a) Planes should have a variable cost? Higher end aircraft require better production facilities to produce a finished product. Whether this is a time based control or a materials based control is up for discussion. It would be interesting to tie these costs into research so as more advanced aircraft are developed, the costs of older aircraft are reduced. ie: a A6M2 in 1941 is not cheap, but once the A6M5 is available, it is dropped in cost to that of a A5M4 until reaching the capped minimum cost. This would allow the mass vs quality choice and allows producing older aircraft cheaper then the latest model. b) Research should be blind to the player? While we happen to have 20/20 hindsight, the game should not at all. Research should be applied against a historical path of aircraft developed, perhaps split into a naval pool and a land based pool. This ensures that aircraft that were based on previous designs follow a logical progression and you can't subvert the intent by committing massively to R&D against a far future aircraft. c) Conversions of Unit's assigned aircraft? Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have d) Reinforcements? Currently, these are bound to type and date. Should the type be selectable? Should this date adjust based on aircraft availability? Should R&D factor into this? Should the type be bound to the rules imposed by (c)? Should the OOB be stripped down to catagory and date? Should it be removed completely and be based on Pilot availability? e) Pilots? Tough to discuss planes without dealing with the reason they fly. Pilots currently come in 2 forms. A pool system and a off map system that feeds Reinforcement groups. Should this be scrapped completely and replaced with a pilot school type system which is funded resulting in a what you get is all you get system? Does this improve or hinder the above? f) AI? How does the AI deal with any changes? Do they break the game for those playing against the computer? Do default choices need to be assigned to allow the AI to continue to function? Would these become player vs player ONLY optional controls? Mostly good stuff here. Doesn;t need to be that complicated, though. Bottom line 1) Reasonably logical progression of research. 2) Upgrade/Downgrade to anything in the pool within certain logical limits (IJA-IJA, Fighter to Fighter, etc...) 3) Some penalty to simulate cross-training. It usually takes pilots 4-8 weeks to adequately cross train. So disbanding upgraded units for 30-60 days is fair. And simulates other "costs" as well vs complicated PP systems 4) AI doesn't need to use the system at all. It just defaults to the starting setup and upgrade paths. It shouldn't be too hard to add some AI flexibility, though, to switch to allowed models if the pool is empty, the plant bombed out, and other models are in the pool.

byron13 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:10:01 PM)
So, what's everyone doing this weekend? [:)]

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:11:01 PM)
Perhaps on #3 player could opt to trade serious reductions in pilot skill levels for less training time to simulate stressed out Jap pilot training late in the war....

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 So, what's everyone doing this weekend? [:)] I'm actually going to do a PBEM turn or two.....imagine that. After my Sat golf date, that is....

Tankerace -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:12:53 PM)
Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution. Sometimes you guys are thick as hell! That was a tongue-in-cheek comment to Frag's insistance on detailed design suggestions when we have no idea what the upgrade/research implementation looks like. We see a lot of "that's a design issue, so no" type of response. Fine, then we can't obviously submit anything useful and "implementable" for substantive change requiring design tweeking, because we are shooting blindly.

Tankerace -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:18:15 PM)
I understand what it was. I just feel that all of us need to not go OT, so we can get this problem fixed.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution. Sometimes you guys are thick as hell! That was a tongue-in-cheek comment to Frag's insistance on detailed design suggestions when we have no idea what the upgrade/research implementation looks like. We see a lot of "that's a design issue, so no" type of response. Fine, then we can't obviously submit anything useful and "implementable" for substantive change requiring design tweeking, because we are shooting blindly. And you'd be quite surprised how WRONG you may be on the source issue. Most of what I have written over the years has included source code distribution to the customer! They do that en-lieu of big dollar maintenance contracts. Usually once they get the code, though, they give up and opt for a maintenance contract. That, I write a large volume of OpenSource stuff on SourceForge projects. ANd that is a world where anything "Closed" is viewed as the Devil-incarnate. And ever work on Unix? Just about everything that ships on those platforms has source code options. The Configure, Make, Make Install is quite familiar with Unix veterans... So yes, source-code distribution is NOT that alien a concept in the world I live in.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:32:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 You don't think I couldn't write a damned game? LOL! Prove me wrong. Benn there, done that. Have a copy of OS/2? The only title I ever saved from a game I wrote was a version of North Atlantic '86 in 1992 for OS/2. It has a much enhanced AI, added aircraft and new ships and more bases, but it is essentially a NA 86 on steroids written to run on 32bit OS/2 PM and compiled using OS/2 VisualAge C++ V3.0. If I can find the old diskettes, and they aren't rotten, I can zip up the .exe's and .dlls and source code and send it. It used to live on Hobbes (New Mexico St Universities OS/2 software archive slot). It may still be there, I don't know. At one time it had over 6,000 downloads...

VicKevlar -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:34:37 PM)
Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it?

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VicKevlar Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it? How about ENDING this thread by having a Matrix official give it a thumbs up or thumb down. 21 pages and not a peep.

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 Benn there, done that. sure you have. But Vic is right. I look forward to your game if you ever produce it.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:51:33 PM)
IRRELEVANT POSTING WARNING I'll admit upfront that i like to play the ija/ijn side and that i'm definately not competent as of yet to handle the production/resource side of the game. Originally I was in favor of changes to allow an ija/ijn player complete control over all of his resources, including upgrades and downgrades. The more i read this thread the more i'm thinking in the "you'll get nothing and like it" judge smails from caddyshack sort of way. Providing one side with a level of control over production/research allows him to more effectively utilize upgrades and downgrades than the other player. That's inherently unfair. If i was playing the allied side (i haven't started one yet) i wouldn't like the fact that the other guy got more toys than i did. When i play japan i start with the greatest single advantage in this game besides the fact that my ship names are so much cooler . . . Midway has't happened and the allied player still has to compete against the Midway has happened timeframe. Maybe I'll change my mind again when i'm up to '44 or '45. Only up to 7/42 atm in scenario 15. BTW is this the most entertaining or worst thread since the f4f v. zero thread on uv?

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 8:58:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace I understand what it was. I just feel that all of us need to not go OT, so we can get this problem fixed. Well, a good start would be Matrix/2X3 even admiting this is a problem in the first place! The silence is DEAFENING.

esteban -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 9:05:24 PM)
It seems to me that while the Japanese player should not be able to R&D specific designs (because he already knows their performance from the aircraft DB numbers), there is a lot of obfuscation going on over the issue of model-specific R&D. It seems, even if you pour a ton of resources into researching a particular model, that you cannot advance that model's availability more than 6-8 months. Having Reppus in December, 1944 is nice for the Japanese player, but hardly a game-breaking advantage.

joliverlay -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 9:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Ok, lets try and net out the thread. a) Planes should have a variable cost? Higher end aircraft require better production facilities to produce a finished product. Whether this is a time based control or a materials based control is up for discussion. It would be interesting to tie these costs into research so as more advanced aircraft are developed, the costs of older aircraft are reduced. ie: a A6M2 in 1941 is not cheap, but once the A6M5 is available, it is dropped in cost to that of a A5M4 until reaching the capped minimum cost. This would allow the mass vs quality choice and allows producing older aircraft cheaper then the latest model. Agreed. It does not have to be this complex. Costs for planes do not have to change. The increasing average cost as new planes are developed has the same effect. This is what is in BTR now. b) Research should be blind to the player? While we happen to have 20/20 hindsight, the game should not at all. Research should be applied against a historical path of aircraft developed, perhaps split into a naval pool and a land based pool. This ensures that aircraft that were based on previous designs follow a logical progression and you can't subvert the intent by committing massively to R&D against a far future aircraft. Disagree. The preformance characteristics of planes being developed was not unknown, just often ignored. Also, the planes were DESIGNED to the preformance. c) Conversions of Unit's assigned aircraft? Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have I urge caution. It does not take that much to change from similar models of the same planes. As I mentioned before, the Germans often changed Gruppen from ME-109 to FW-190 depending on what was available, and did not disband or stand down for log periods of time. d) Reinforcements? Currently, these are bound to type and date. Should the type be selectable? Should this date adjust based on aircraft availability? Should R&D factor into this? Should the type be bound to the rules imposed by (c)? Should the OOB be stripped down to catagory and date? Should it be removed completely and be based on Pilot availability? e) Pilots? Tough to discuss planes without dealing with the reason they fly. Pilots currently come in 2 forms. A pool system and a off map system that feeds Reinforcement groups. Should this be scrapped completely and replaced with a pilot school type system which is funded resulting in a what you get is all you get system? Does this improve or hinder the above? f) AI? How does the AI deal with any changes? Do they break the game for those playing against the computer? Do default choices need to be assigned to allow the AI to continue to function? Would these become player vs player ONLY optional controls? I'm not sure this is a problem. If the AI can put the best plane availabe into a squdron it should. Did it not work this way in Pac War?

joliverlay -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 9:11:50 PM)
Please note most of my responses to Mr. Frag are burried inside the box with his quotes. Sorry I did not use the proper format.

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 9:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico The number of P-39s or P-40Es in front line American units in 1945 were�? Historically what you fear players would do is what was done historically: mediocre or bad designs were relegated to secondary use. Do you disagree? I wasn't talking about 1945. Rather, 1942-3. However even in 1945 there were still P-40 units. Same goes for the German example. ME-109's fought to the end of the war and was the numerically largest airframe built. So no, i disagree, it is not historical. That doesn't make it wrong but it is rather an inevitable course of action and IMO produces an ahistorical situation. As an option though, i have no problem with it, nor did i have a problem with less restrictive upgrade options. I was particularily in favor of downgrades because they represented a sizable pool for Kamakazi attacks.

Andy Mac -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 10:05:16 PM)
Guys As I see it all I would like as a minimum position is 10 - 20 of the Oscar 2 gps changed to upgrade to a variety of late war aircraft to give a Japanese player able to produce better fighters more options to use those fighters he has produced. Can be Tojo's Randys/ Franks anything but basically a variety to provide options. As I see it this is a simple fix that in reality can be done by using the editor without breaking anything. Exact number and and upgrade path can be fought over elsewhere. For me that would solve 90% of the problems. (Even just make it an alternative to the existing 15 so that you the player have the choice of which one to play) I would like a fully flexible model if possible for both sides similar to the one outlined by Frag on page 20 of this thread. If I have to I can live with the game as is because its such a great game that I will be playing it for years anyway. Now I think this thread has got a tad out of hand so this will be my last post on it I will watch it with interest Andy

Sultanofsham -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 10:23:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ... ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered. Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model. Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines? And that has what to do with picking what aircraft a squadron will fly? Oh thats right, nothing. Off and running with the goalposts again Frag?

Tankerace -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 10:36:34 PM)
Saying "how many P-40 units were there in 1945" is like the argument about M3 Light tanks. In the ETO and MTO, they were completey outclassed. As such, they were phased out considerably. However, in the PTO, M3 Light tanks were more widely used than Shermans, mainly because a Stuart could deal with ANY of the Japanese tanks. I for one plane to have several P-40 squadrons at the end of the war. Mostly N, but a few E models. As to the R&D thing, like vonmoltke I like the old PTO I and II system used by Koei. You would spend money (which for WiTP could be supply, resources, pp, etc) and so much would advance you to a level. At certain levels, particular airplanes (and also ships in PTO) would become available. Then, once you had the ability to produce the plane, you could began building the plane in numbers. While doing this, you could continue research. After another high had been reached, you could build that plane too. So, each plane would have different costs to be built, thus forcing the player to decide on large amounts of old planes, or smaller amounts of new planes. Another conept pioneered by PTO was its aircraft assignment. While it did not use real squadrons (a downer), it did let you assign planes to squadrons at base airfields, and on ships. On carriers, for instance, you had 4 squadrons available. This represented the VF, VS, VB, and VT assigned to a carrier. You could allot a max of 20 planes to each, and assign any plane you wanted (provided, of course, it was a navy plane). So, if you wanted to, you could put 20 F2As, 20 F4Fs, 20 F6Fs, and 20 F4Us. While that particular system is unrealistic, the concept is a good one. If the player could allot any US naval fighter that he has in his pool to his VFs, or any bomber, etc, that would be what the game was supposed to be. IMO, that would be the best solution. In addition, since the WiTP website touts "Complete control of aircraft upgrades", what we have here, unfortunately, constitutes false advertisement. I'm not saying that I'll sue Matrix or anybody, because I love the game. However, we do deserve what we were promised.

Apollo11 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 10:53:58 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc. Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont. My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system. Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft Further restrictions: Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups. (further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only) I would 100% support this solution! Leo "Apollo11"

2ndACR -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/13/2004 10:58:07 PM)
I also support it 100%, I just got buried in the shouting. I thought about starting a new thread, that way if and when it got out of control I could request it to be locked.

vonmoltke -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 5:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace So, if you wanted to, you could put 20 F2As, 20 F4Fs, 20 F6Fs, and 20 F4Us. One minor correction Tankerace: only two models of each type were allowed to be in service at any given time. To produce a new aircraft, not only did one of the old lines have to be shut down, but the existing aircraft had to be scrapped. The control of loading aircraft on ships was a little more defined than "army vs. navy"; the game did make a distinction between carrier capable and non-carrier capable aircraft. It only mattered to the Japanese player, though.

Tankerace -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 5:31:44 AM)
quote: My idea, nay "solution" Only 2 could be in production, but on the East coast you always still had some F2As and Wildcats, even after shutting down the prod. lines.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 12:24:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Top Cat quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix If some of you gentlemen would care to take your personal arguments off-line, we might manage to keep on topic here long enough to actually get one of the developers to definitively say "Yea" or "Nay" on this one.... [:-] Steve. Err what did I say that was off topic? Spoke about upgrades, research and wether things are historical/realistic Top Cat Sorry TC that wasn't aimed at you! [X(][&o] My mistake with the "Reply to" button [:(] Actually aimed at certain people who were effectively hijacking the thread with a "My **** is bigger than yours" type argument. I notice that no devs have been in and finished this yet....[&:] Steve.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 4:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VicKevlar Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it? [:(] I didn't even get a chance to brag about my pathetic attempts at programming Basic two decades ago or the joys of FORTRAN on punch cards while owning a cat. [;)]

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 4:56:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico The number of P-39s or P-40Es in front line American units in 1945 were�? Historically what you fear players would do is what was done historically: mediocre or bad designs were relegated to secondary use. Do you disagree? I wasn't talking about 1945. Rather, 1942-3. However even in 1945 there were still P-40 units. Same goes for the German example. ME-109's fought to the end of the war and was the numerically largest airframe built. So no, i disagree, it is not historical. That doesn't make it wrong but it is rather an inevitable course of action and IMO produces an ahistorical situation. As an option though, i have no problem with it, nor did i have a problem with less restrictive upgrade options. I was particularily in favor of downgrades because they represented a sizable pool for Kamakazi attacks. Weren�t most of the front line P-40s N-models and not �E�? The same goes with the Me109, most of the model �B�, �C�, �D�, etc were long gone before the end of the war� at least in front line units. The need for �better� aircraft was constantly being felt by the manufactures. Some of this was taken care of by producing new aircraft while much of it was done with upgrades. Agree or disagree?

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.203125