Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

UV 2.30 patch is now in test

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> UV 2.30 patch is now in test Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
UV 2.30 patch is now in test - 2/13/2003 2:04:33 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
A UV 2.30 patch is now being tested by the Matrix UV beta testers. Our goal is to release the patch to the public by the end of the month. Of course, it is quite possible that problems with the patch that are found during testing may postpone the release to the public. We are doing our best to get this patch out as soon as we can, and as soon as we feel comfortable that we haven't caused additional problems.

Joel

Here is a list of the items addressed in the patch now in test:


1) All non-assault point units get 1/10 of an assault point each when on defense only during odds calculations (each support squad, engineer squad, gun element, etc.).
2) We have greatly improved the coordination of naval air attacks that target TFs located in a base hex.
3) We may have eliminated the bug that caused very rare attacks to be launched to hex 0,0.
4) Submarines may now intercept and attack TFs that move through their hex during execution (in the past the TF had to end its turn in a sub’s hex for an attack to be possible). The basic chance of a sub sighting an enemy ship in its hex used to be 33%. Many factors go into determining if an attack is made, and if so, how successful the attack is. These have all remained the same. However, the basic chance of a sub sighting an enemy ship that moves through a sub’s hex (instead of just ending in the sub’s hex) has been reduced to 20% during daytime and 10% at night.
5) Having multiple friendly submarines in the same hex now causes certain disadvantages for the submarines (the time of UV is mostly pre-wolfpack tactics). There will be an enhanced chance of aircraft flying search to find and hit a submarine in the hex. Also, once one submarine locates and attempts to attack a target in the hex, no other submarines will be given an opportunity to locate and attack a target at that moment.
6) Exiting the game should now do a better job of freeing up system memory. Repeated exiting and entering the game should no longer lead to the eventual lock up of the computer.
7) All pilots making a strafing run must now pass an experience test with the chance of passing equal to their experience. If the pilot fails the test, that aircraft will automatically miss hitting anything during the strafing run. At night, the chance of passing this experience test is reduced by 75%.
8) Flak against aircraft bombing at night is no longer quartered if the attack is carried out under 500 feet (strafing and skip bombing).
9) Target selection of specific ground units during ground attack air missions should be improved. The number of men killed by air attack has been reduced somewhat.
10) Nightfighters with radar will have a slightly better chance of intercepting enemy night bombers than in previous versions.
11) We have lowered level bomber accuracy against TFs, especially for pilots with less than 70 experience against ships travelling at high speed. The impact of pilot quality and ship speed on level bomber accuracy against TFs has been enhanced. Even strong level bomber pilots against very slow targets will have less chance to hit than before. This level bomber adjustment does not impact level bombers using torpedoes.
12) Enemy ships at anchor in a port can now be detected by recon missions. The roll-over text on an enemy anchor symbol on the map will now give an estimate of the number of ships in port and estimated reports on up to 10 specific types. The accuracy of the estimate is effected by the detection level of the base.
13) Under some circumstances planes with sweep missions would attack enemy TFs. This should not have been happening and has been corrected.
14) Radar equipment in ground units will not be damaged or destroyed due to fatigue alone. This was done due to the difficulty of getting these units replaced under the current system and due to our desire not to allow malaria to knock these systems out of action.
15) HQ units were not receiving replacements. This has been fixed so they now receive replacements in the same way as any land unit.
16) Ships must now be in Noumea, Brisbane or Truk (either at anchor or in the hex in a TF) to upgrade the aircraft on the ship.
17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex.
18) Partial air groups will not upgrade their aircraft if their parent unit has not upgraded its aircraft.
19) Incidents of naval air attacks facing friendly CAP and attacking friendly ships should be greatly reduced (if not eliminated).
20) Air units will try to do a better job picking TF targets such that they don’t fly into devastating CAP without sufficient escort, especially if there are easier targets to attack. Two exceptions to this are 1) bombers with durabilities over 54 do not require escorts and 2)Air Combat TFs will attack enemy Air Combat TFs even if the Escort to CAP ratio is poor.
21) Air combat with big groups of planes, particularly those with high fatigue led to bloodbaths (40-60% losses per side) in version 2.20. An attempt has been made to tone this down, without impacting smaller air battles too much.
22) Operational losses are now doubled at night.
23) The bug where partial air units disappear from the Long Island and other carriers has been fixed. Also, partial air units should no longer automatically return to a badly damaged carrier that they could not land on.
24) The weather system has been changed somewhat. Now, the only time a weather scrub message will appear is when an air unit with a specified target location is unable to attack its target due to bad weather. Now, every hex with a unit or base will have a weather value, and if it is bad enough no strike missions will fly into or out of the hex. A graphic (a circle with plane in the middle and a line through it) will be displayed in the hex of any unit or base (except bases with only a beach with no supplies or fuel) with a detection level of at least 1 during the execution to reflect this bad weather. The weather is set separately in the night, AM and PM sub-phases so the graphic will change during the resolution phase. Weather that is not sufficient to shut down strike missions from a hex still factors into many combat calculations as before.
25) Ships out of fuel cannot launch aircraft.
26) It should no longer be possible for a player in a PBEM game to reload a save and create a different execution phase result. The execution phase should always resolve the same way.
27) We may have fixed the problem with combat replays during PBEM games not matching if run on different machines. If not entirely fixed, the chance of an inaccurate replay should be very low.
28) The game now automatically accounts for 24 and 32 bit color mode (it automatically temporarily switches to 16 bit while in the game). Players will need to run the exe with a –w modifier when using certain monitors with text problems. When using the –w mode, do not resize your window as the program is not set up to work with different sized windows. You are strongly advised to use a screen resolution that is larger than the game resolution you are playing in (for example, if the game is set for 1024x768 be sure to have a screen resolution larger than this, say 1152x864). When playing in the –w mode, move the mouse to the extreme edges of your screen to scroll the map.
29) Clarification – Fighter sweeps only drop down to strafe an enemy base if set to 100 feet altitude
30) Clarification - The Arrive at Night function used by TFs acts like the Sprint Away from DH function in that TFs will only do it if the DH is an enemy base or a friendly base that is considered in dangerous territory (currently the manual only lists this for the Sprint Away function).
Post #: 1
- 2/13/2003 2:38:02 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Holy Krap you guys have been busy!

"27) We may have fixed the problem with combat replays during PBEM games not matching if run on different machines. If not entirely fixed, the chance of an inaccurate replay should be very low."

Near and dear to me! Thanks for all the effort and support by you and the rest of the staff Joel!

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 2
- 2/13/2003 3:07:02 AM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline
WOW... this is great stuff. Tw'ill be almost like a whole new game...!!!:cool: :cool: :)

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 3
- 2/13/2003 3:08:50 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
To quote Cartman...

Kickass!

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 4
- 2/13/2003 3:58:03 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Just no. 11 on its own would make the patch worth the wait.

All your efforts are highly appreciated.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 5
- 2/13/2003 4:30:42 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Some excellent changes, thank you very much!

Cheers

Rob

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 6
Re: UV 2.30 patch is now in test - 2/13/2003 4:30:56 AM   
mbatch729


Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]4) Submarines may now intercept and attack TFs that move through their hex during execution (in the past the TF had to end its turn in a sub’s hex for an attack to be possible). The basic chance of a sub sighting an enemy ship in its hex used to be 33%. Many factors go into determining if an attack is made, and if so, how successful the attack is. These have all remained the same. However, the basic chance of a sub sighting an enemy ship that moves through a sub’s hex (instead of just ending in the sub’s hex) has been reduced to 20% during daytime and 10% at night.
12) Enemy ships at anchor in a port can now be detected by recon missions. The roll-over text on an enemy anchor symbol on the map will now give an estimate of the number of ships in port and estimated reports on up to 10 specific types. The accuracy of the estimate is effected by the detection level of the base.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Two biggies! Wow!!! #12 has been a personal pet peeve of mine since I started playing UV. Thanks for all your hard work.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 7
- 2/13/2003 4:33:49 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Wow! Can we preorder WitP now to reward you guys?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 8
Re: UV 2.30 patch is now in test - 2/13/2003 4:52:28 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]
A UV 2.30 patch is now being tested by the Matrix UV beta testers. Our goal is to release the patch to the public by the end of the month. Of course, it is quite possible that problems with the patch that are found during testing may postpone the release to the public. We are doing our best to get this patch out as soon as we can, and as soon as we feel comfortable that we haven't caused additional problems.

Joel


[/B][/QUOTE]


Joel, thank you very much for the list of features in upcoming UV v2.30 patch!


I have seen that you answered all of the bugs/issues I (and others) posted in
various threads (like I did in this one):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32362


WOW !!!


You guys at Matrix/2By3 really are great and you showed again how much you
listen to us players!


THANKS AGAIN !!!


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 9
- 2/13/2003 5:00:35 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
awesome job guys. Have a tall frosty one on me :)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 10
- 2/13/2003 5:03:19 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline
Some excellent work, I really thought this patch would be a "touch here and touch there" but it looks formidable.

One thing i did look out for and didn't see was a way to stop transport, and most specifically fuel transport, TF's from refuelling themselves from stores in a forward area (straight out of their cargo hold into their bunkers - huh).

I almost can't believe i am writing this one down though as it is hardly game breaking, just a pet peeve. I want fuel in my forward bases for military TF's not transport ones with massive bunkers.

Otherwise some of the glitches still remaining in the game appear to be vanquished - we wont have anything to moan about soon. Maybe my "internet bandwidth usage" - most specifically at some site called: [url]www.matrixgames.com[/url] can reduce in quantity.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 11
- 2/13/2003 5:10:38 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
Great work 2by3 and Matrix!

I think that the best thing about UV has been the awesome support the 2by3 and Matrix.

I can't say thank you loud enough or often enough.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 12
- 2/13/2003 7:04:03 AM   
Point Luck

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: East Coast-US
Status: offline
If it’s any consolation I feel I sure got my Fifty Dollars worth from this game.

THANK YOU.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 13
The new state of the art sub doctrine - 2/13/2003 7:10:55 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Greetings, Coming up for air from testing.
I think the new submarine doctrine will be
subs deployed in a line for forward defense of friendly bases.
subs deployed in depth in straits. (To allow each sub a chance as TF passes through)
subs deployed in line in front of TF's moving (scouts)
There is no need for subs to ever enter enemy base hex.
(Only need to enter friendly for refuel/reload)

New most effective hexes.

The Holes in barrier reef for IJN subs off Cairns/Cooktown/Townsville
Gili Straits (you can place 3-4 subs in a row)
Lots of good hexes SE of Lunga and between Shortlands and Lunga.
Channel NW of Rabaul

make sure if sub sighted to move it from hex it was discovered in

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 14
- 2/13/2003 7:11:01 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex.


All looks great (Better than I'd dreamed), but can you give us a reason for #17? It will make covering invasions much harder. Normally we just had the CV follow the transports. Now that won't be such a good idea.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 15
- 2/13/2003 7:13:05 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex.


All looks great (Better than I'd dreamed), but can you give us a reason for #17? It will make covering invasions much harder. Normally we just had the CV follow the transports. Now that won't be such a good idea.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, It is because carriers need to follow the wind for flight ops (They turn into wind) When located in base hex they are in restricted waters and must conform to this rather then use wind.
Just raise CAP level. (Or sit 1 hex back and fly LRCAP)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 16
- 2/13/2003 7:21:30 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex.


All looks great (Better than I'd dreamed), but can you give us a reason for #17? It will make covering invasions much harder. Normally we just had the CV follow the transports. Now that won't be such a good idea.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually that's not so unrealistic. You should have to use LR-CAP unless you are using CVE's in a primarily CAP role. Due to the radar rule that allows CV's to launch planes sitting on the carrier if they spot a raid incoming, the CV's actually can put up decent CAP (not 100% but closer to 75%). But, fleet carriers sitting near land would not be able to operate at full capacity so their airstrikes will be limited. Historically the fleet carriers stood back from the invasion and flew LR-CAP while some CVE's operated fairly close to some invasions. Yes it will be more difficult to cover your invasions. One main reason we put this rule in was to block the tactic of sitting carriers on a base hex which allowed them to get full CAP coverage from the bases fighters. Carriers needed room to steam to operate their aircraft and would not expect to be covered by 100% of the CAP coming from the base. They would make for open water. I hope I've been clear enough in explaining why we did this.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 17
- 2/13/2003 7:23:24 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Mogami, you are just too quick, and you sure are more concise than I am.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 18
Subs as screens for CV TF - 2/13/2003 7:42:15 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, With the new ability to engage TF's passing through their hex, the submarine has gained in effectiveness as a scout/screen.
Example:
IJN decides to send aircombat TF from Shortlands to North East of Gili strait to cover bombardment TF targeting PM. 2-3 days prior to departure of bombardment and aircombat TF's subs leave port. Several head down Gili strait. They will patrol strait in passing and then deploy in line at bottom of strait. Other subs head to hex aircombat TF will move to. From there they move to patrol zones 6 hexes out (normal range of USN dive bombers) Once subs have swept area to be transited by TF, they leave port. Since subs can intercept enemy TF's while moving you have both a scout force and means of inflicting damage. (Of course you have plan for this and have subs ready for use. Normal sub patrols can be moved from other locations to assist.)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 19
- 2/13/2003 7:56:29 AM   
Point Luck

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: East Coast-US
Status: offline
I think the changes in the sub routines have added a dimension that the game really needed. Now we have subs that will allow the use of some very real tactics. Even though IJN ASW is still somewhat lacking, the ability to harass and interdict enemy sub ops may offset this shortcoming.

I’ll miss the capability of Wolf Packing, but gladly trade that tactic for a whole set of new and better ones. Please hurry with the testing I need my subs. (Just kidding take your time to test the snot out of this patch before release)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 20
- 2/13/2003 8:34:09 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
I know you've stuffed just about every suggestion we've made on this forum into the patch and I thank you, but I was wondering if there was room for one more thing. Currently the airplane losses on the (appropriately enough) Airplane losses screen are 100% correct and not subject to fog of war at all. I brought this up a few weeks ago and everyone agreed that at least your opponent's losses should be subject to fog of war. With the current system you can tell a LOT from looking at those numbers. When the "Destroyed on field" jumps up by 2 or 3 you know you've sunk that CA you bombed this turn. When it jumps up by 15, you know that the CV went down with its torpedo bombers on board. The same goes for the other catagories, Air-to-Air, opperational, flak -- they all give away more information that they should. Fog of war should really apply to this screen.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 21
- 2/13/2003 8:42:45 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
God darn it! What are we going to be able to complain about now? :mad:

What a fantastic list of changes. Thanks!!!:cool:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 22
- 2/13/2003 9:28:33 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
This is terrific. Anybody want to start a pool on how long it will take after release for the first "suggestion for the next patch" thread to appear?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 23
- 2/13/2003 9:39:39 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline
Well, there better not BE another one.....I agree that it's time to move on to WITP after this patch is released.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 24
- 2/13/2003 9:57:41 AM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline
as to #17....................thank you, nothing was worse then carriers parked in a harbor hex launching planes like mad and nothing would hit it. i never really thought this was accurate. thank you , i am ready to try and play again. you guys are what give me faith. keep tightning the noose, i love it. :D

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 25
- 2/13/2003 10:33:23 AM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]Well, there better not BE another one.....I agree that it's time to move on to WITP after this patch is released. [/B][/QUOTE]

I dont understand why a few people are constantly complaining and griping about the continuing support of Matrix and their patches. I have never understood the philosophy of people who dont like patches. If you dont like it dont download it. Just pretend the game is finished and go away. You dont have to download the patch!!! Most of us are grateful for the constant support and improvement of the game and continue to hope for future patches and the continued response to our suggestions. I have never been involved in or owned a computer game that had such great support from its company. Thanks Matrix and keep up the great work. I look forword to future patches that can only make this game better and better!!!

PS- Each patch they make is for WITP and UV!!!!! So if they stop testing UV and improving it then that hinders the testing and improving for WITP!!!!!!!!! Please understand this people please...

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 26
- 2/13/2003 12:23:21 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
This looks fabulous. It addresses virtually everything on my wishlist. In another thread, Yamomoto mentioned one small thing that has bugged me in PBEM: during combat replay, my opponent sees a message that "sub x has loaded supplies".

Heh, if that's all I've got left to complain about, I'd say we're in pretty great shape. :)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 27
- 2/13/2003 1:35:54 PM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, It is because carriers need to follow the wind for flight ops (They turn into wind) When located in base hex they are in restricted waters and must conform to this rather then use wind.
Just raise CAP level. (Or sit 1 hex back and fly LRCAP) [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with the logic, but shouldn't this apply to all coastal hexes, not just base hexes?
Does it also apply to beach hexes?

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 28
- 2/13/2003 8:04:29 PM   
Welcome!

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 4/12/2002
From: omaha beach
Status: offline
quote:

shouldn't this apply to all coastal hexes, not just base hexes?



I remember someone saying a long time ago that Carriers would have never enter the Slot because of the lack of room to maneuver.

_____________________________

Forum UV en Français
http://uv.omahabeach-bedford.com/

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 29
Re: UV 2.30 patch is now in test - 2/13/2003 8:52:27 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
4, 6, 11, and 27 were high on my list.

The only thing that I would thing that's still on my list is the Hyper S-Boat issue.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> UV 2.30 patch is now in test Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.704