Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

FS2004 Show Stoppers

Recommended Posts

I would like to know if the following information I picked up is true:1. When there is low visibility on the ground (like a ground haze layer) once you break 1000 Ft. There is still a ground haze but you can see through it for miles above it to the surface.2. Flying at night, you can see clouds that are light colored and not black coming at you for miles even though there is a black sky?3. The clouds are dense and you can SORT OF fly through them, however they will rotate still to face your direction if you look from the outside or side view you can see a flat cloud go by. Not volumetric but more of a cloud wall.4. Like number 1 there is RAPID visibility changes, not gradual (BUT NOT CLOUDS which you can fly to and from and they stay there). One minute you can see forever (UNLESS there are clouds) and the next second it is gone and vice versa. No smooth visibility transition to determine ahead of time?I Would REALLY like people who can test this to let me and everyone else curious know.I KNOW personally what it's like flying at night with a VFR rating and having a cloud start dimming the lights below and ahead of you is like and it comes up on you as a black mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

**** "1. When there is low visibility on the ground (like a ground haze layer) once you break 1000 Ft. There is still a ground haze but you can see through it for miles above it to the surface."****This is true, and as far as I've seen, it mimics real life. I have landed in conditions where it's hard to see a mile away, yet from above, you can make out surface detail. Depends whether one is discussing haze vs. fog....**** "2. Flying at night, you can see clouds that are light colored and not black coming at you for miles even though there is a black sky?" ****I've observed this. Very much akin to flying with a full moon, all the time. Very realistic for full moon flight, but I agree that things would look better if the color of the clouds reflected the night lighting conditions, just as they do in the daytime.**** "3. The clouds are dense and you can SORT OF fly through them, however they will rotate still to face your direction if you look from the outside or side view you can see a flat cloud go by. Not volumetric but more of a cloud wall." ****I agree that these are not volumetric clouds--I don't remember them being advertised that way. They are 3-d, but 3-d in the sense they have depth when viewed from a distance. They still apply the same old trick of rotation, and flying in and out of them doesn't come close to equalling the realism of the real thing. Once doesn't get the sense that one is in the cloud with varying transparency, rather than flying through layers of a cloud. And, due to the rotation issue, I've flown through clouds that should be at least one mile thick, and I've been through them in seconds.**** "4. Like number 1 there is RAPID visibility changes, not gradual (BUT NOT CLOUDS which you can fly to and from and they stay there). One minute you can see forever (UNLESS there are clouds) and the next second it is gone and vice versa. No smooth visibility transition to determine ahead of time?" ****No on the transitions.... Although from above, you can see the effect on vis--certain areas of ground will be obscured by varying levels of haze. However, if you are approaching a line of T-Storms 60 miles distant, you'll see them as being 60 miles distant (if you've enabled your weather to display clouds that far out).I think the title of your thread is a bit misleading though, and invites Microsoft bashing for those with such an agenda. The weather is still far ahead that of FS2002, and I'd take it over Fly!'s volumetric clouds any day. If one wants to pick apart FS2004, I can be honest and say there's a million ways it can be done. Some seem intent on an agenda to do just that--searching for the faults. I have no doubt people will find them. But working in a devel shop as I do, I'll argue that none of the things you mention merit the loaded phrase "show stoppers." The sim delivers more functionality than it's predecessor. But 100 pct. realism? No way. I'll tell you this much, though. Normally, I grow irritated if the fps counter falls off of my precious lock. In a Tampa-Houston flight last night, it did, falling from 29 fps to 14 on final in Houston, as it is prone to doing when flying into an area with many buildings. I didn't care--the view and realism at sunset was spectacular. Flame me all you want for enjoying eye candy and not being a "real" pilot who prefers 100 pct, to the letter realism. But I think this sim is a great addition to the hobby, and not one thing you mention is a show stopper by anyone's definition who knows the profession of creating entertainment titles and/or software titles in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John, Are you experiencing any Win98se related issues? I'm still using 98se myself! (I can hear the rest of the forum groaning..) :7Mike CollierDispatcher/SOCAmerica West AirlinesKPHX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mike (BTW, how did you like our 116 deg. weather yesterday? I chose yesterday of all days to close on my home refi)....98SE has shown no problems...mine has always been a stable setup, and FS2004 continues in that tradition. I have been flying FS2004 about 2-3 hours a day, although I had it up for over twelve hours on Saturday to test out the new GeForce 4/4200. No lockups or crashes. I'm very impressed that 98SE cooperates so well with the sim. As I suggest above, the sim isn't perfect. My one issue--and it may be related to the age of my system--is that I get a FS2000'ish type stutter when I'm flying even in rather bland areas, and the weather engine seems to trigger it, along with ground texture loading. But I can't say it wasn't expected--everyone was complaining about blurred textures. It seems to me that Microsoft has given ground texture clarity top priority in this sim, but the flip side to that is more of a tendency to stutter. Same holds true of the weather engine.But I say it's cpu specific, as the stutters seem scaled to the density of the scenery--IOTW, the fps fall by a specific percentage vs. to a flat amount. I think once I throw a more able cpu at it, I will be fine--and I don't think it will require a 3 Gig cpu..... In the meantime, flying on the P3/800 is fine and realistic in 90 pct. of the scenarios I enjoy.-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I hate to break the news, but Im using almost an identical set-up to you with my press copy of 2004. Except for the CPU. I have a P4 2.8ghz and 512mb ram, along with a GF4 ti 4200 128mb vid card. I am seeing the same stutter you are talking about. most of the time my frame rate is fine, but this stutter is a bit annoying. I have also thought its due to the terrain textures or the clouds, but right now i haven't done enough testing to confirm it. Sems I have it even at minimal settings. I am using the 44.03 detonators and I do use 2x aniso and about -.4 LOD settings with rivatuner. I am hoping its due to the fact that my software is pre-gold release, but now Im not so sure.Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply John! I apologize about my choice of words and I am in NO WAY looking to start anything negative. A better choice would have been questions. Looking forward to getting the sim regardless, I can't wait and appreciate your honesty!I will live with those items since the ATC, Weather, Taxiway Signs, etc... Will MORE than make up for it!!!! Thanks again John!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornit...Hardly being bad news--you've just saved me the cost of an upgrade. Sorry to say, the stutters I mention are in the Gold release. They are present even if I alias to FS2002's scenery (putting airport and building detail on equal footing). And I think they're there because others made such a big stink about the blurries, since it is very hard to cause them now..... -John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I bet the sure fire way to get rid of stutters is more RAM. I have 512MB now and I know if I put 1GB of RAM in there it would maek a big diff. in how fast the textures are drawn.BTW--I bet you talk to some real pilots and they'll say that they also ejoy looking at the "eye candy" outside their windows as well. So do I and many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"John, I bet the sure fire way to get rid of stutters is more RAM"Been there, done that. The stutters seem entirely independent on the amount of free RAM remaining on the machine--and based on usage stats, FS2004 isn't using all that's available on my system (it did prior to my last upgrade, however). The stutters are even independent of the RAM on the vid card--they were present on my 64 Meg GeF/2, a 128 meg Radeon 9200, and my current GeF/4 (also 128 meg). I believe they are simply caused by some changes in priority to the sim vs. FS2002. And considering the tradeoff in superior graphics quality, I can't say I am disappointed.Also, the nature of them is different than FS2000. In FS2000, you'd throw the aircraft into a hard bank, and there they'd be. In FS2004, they happen only periodically, such as when new clouds are first drawn into a scene, or new textures. Avoiding view switches helps somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, "I agree that these are not volumetric clouds--I don't remember them being advertised that way. They are 3-d, but 3-d in the sense they have depth when viewed from a distance. They still apply the same old trick of rotation, and flying in and out of them doesn't come close to equalling the realism of the real thing. Once doesn't get the sense that one is in the cloud with varying transparency, rather than flying through layers of a cloud. And, due to the rotation issue, I've flown through clouds that should be at least one mile thick, and I've been through them in seconds."-When you fly through the clouds, they do NOT rotate, they melt, like Fly!. I have no issue with the rotating clouds which is very well implemented with no problem in this area (paper thing anomalie or anything else like we have seen in fs2002.) They turn in subtile way, you don`t really notice them. I set my weather display to Ultra high which I see no problem for the 3d clouds for fs2004.-The turbulance, is very well implemented, over FUIII.About the real thing, you are talking about particle inside the clouds which I never seen in sim. which require high power machine not available yet, to manage all clouds in fs2004 in the sky, probably fs2006 with more powerfull computer and higher video cardAnd these are default clouds setup which need alot of works, I can do better volumetric transition on clouds when you through the clouds.The fs2004 weather system is ahead from any previous sim available.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Folks,This thread has the potential of becoming very dangerous (and no, I'm not an admin - I've just been around here a long time). Despite the provacative title, the items Carmine inquired about, while interesting, are hardly "show-stoppers"... Carmine, please don't lose any sleep - I've managed to come up with some pretty "colorful" subject titles myself over the years :-)! However, the discussion about STUTTERING has me very concerned. Implying that the stutters cannot be fixed by turning down graphics settings IS a very serious matter (i.e. a Show-Stopper). I know that "blurries" have been the war anthem for the oppressed these past 2 years - but personally, I've happily endured the occasional blurred ground texture in exchange for FS2K2's smooth frame rates. As someone who has a P4-3GHz system in the mail (primarily for FS2004), I ask that any tester who responds to this issue of stuttering has done some thorough research with different graphics settings and weather/terrain detail... hardware specs and Windows version would also be beneficial. Considering that the software has not yet been released, we are relying on the beta team for the hard, honest facts. If FS2004 constantly stutters, I want to know about it - but after reading countless posts about how much better the new version runs on existing hardware, I find these claims very intriguing.Regards,Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... these might not be show stoppers, but when someone tries to load a non-Gmax or non-FSDS2 plane ... it might turn out to be :-lol DOH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If FS2004 constantly>stutters, I want to know about it - but after reading>countless posts about how much better the new version runs on>existing hardware, I find these claims very intriguing.>Hints of "stutter" on my system seem to go hand in hand with frame rates. I've done lot's of flying in the new "frame rate friendly" Caribbean area in the last week, and FS2004 gives that fluid smoothness impression of X-Plane. Because I like to load up slider settings in scenery areas and fly low, it's when fps quickly change from upper 20's to the teens and back............ that appear as stuttering. It's really no different than FS2002 on my system, and nothing like the irritating & consistant stutters of FS2K.IMO---- consistant fps of upper 20's into the 30's --- is most preferred unless type of flight is where scenery appears to move slowly anyway.L.AdamsonAthlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500/512DDRram 1600*1200*32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's really no different than FS2002 on my system, and nothing like the irritating & consistant stutters of FS2K."Makes me go back to wondering if my cpu speed is the issue. Given a final approach into clear skies, roughly the same scenery density, and into KIAH, in FS2002 I get a smooth 25 fps all the way in. In FS2004, I'll get 25fps followed by a period of 13-17 fps, then 20 fps, then a falloff. Since I still have FS2002 installed, it's a scenario I've replayed with different variations to find something in common. What seems different, is FS2004 seems to labor at clearing textures more. In FS2002, it was not uncommon for a LOD 5 cell to blur for a moment, then reclear. It happened from time to time. In FS2004, I don't see that in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft--as if FS2004 takes a do or die approach to keeping the textures clear. Over the ocean, I agree it's smooth as glass. Moreover (and thanks to your suggestion), I fly w/reflections now, as they have no fps hit on my system and look far nicer than FS2002's.Everything's a tradeoff--I'm willing to concede an odd stutter for what you get in FS2004. And you are right--it is not as bad as FS2000 was, although it still can catch one unawares.Avoiding view switches on final or during high turn rates helps to reduce the issue.-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mark, "the discussion about STUTTERING has me very concerned. Implying that the stutters cannot be fixed by turning down graphics settings IS a very serious matter"Reference from actual acceptable system market:There is no such as stutters issue in Fs2004 with acceptable system.Testing with brand new system with no files corruption on any *.dll & drivers with stable Os windows XP.Mid system market P4 2.53gHZ 533 MHZ, Kingston 512 Ram 333mHz, gforce4 TI 4200 128 meg 8x, Asus P4P800 8X running at 533MHZ.I get no stutters, smooth flight, I set most slider to full except the antialasing to 2x at max, disable all shadows and dynamic scenery add-ons, still no stutters.I have spend most of my time flying fs2004 than tweaking fs2004 slider, problem will occurs on lower system, old Frequency system bus,mother board type, and ram type, with old windows version and old windows installation.Fs2004 is running the same thing with the actual system market, like fs2002 was running at the 2001 system market time.For sure you will want always more frame rate with upgrading your system to 3,4 GHZ and 4ghz when they will be available in the market. I consider even fs2004 run better then fs2002 for compare the system market from 2001 and 2003.Remember fs2002 most users did upgrade, the max system market was available at the fs2002 release time was 1.2 ghz, 512 ram, 64 meg gforce2.For those who will run fs2004 with 1.2 ghz, 512 ram, 64 meg gforce2 will have to tweaks MOST of the slider and disable feature to get acceptable performance.Performance can degrade alot on lower end system, old Frequency system bus,mother board type, and ram type, with old windows version and old windows installation. You will get your performance according to your system capability.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is no such as stutters issue in Fs2004 with acceptable system."Chris--IMHO, you are simply not in a position to define an acceptable system, or I should say redefine it vs. what Microsoft says an acceptable system is in their product specs. Microsoft says nothing about 98SE being unaccaptable, as an example. You are using your experience, and anecdotal experience from others, to come to that conclusion--and it disagrees with mine. My 98SE is as pristine as they come, and I challenge anyone with credentials equal to mine to prove otherwise. It's been rock solid stable with FS2002 and FS2004, and if I compare notes, I'm in here with fewer issues than many of my XP "peers".To be quite frank, although I can live with the stutters given the new sim's features, I can't live with someone telling me "you have to buy this, this and this" to resolve an issue, given the exact same scenery detail, that didn't exist in FS2002. We're both on the testing team, and I'd be happy to discuss this offline. But I also feel I owe it to those who do use lower end systems--which is a large part of the market each release of MSFS tries to capture--to be honest about its strengths and weakenesses. Those who scale the sim back to scenery detail equal to FS2002 will see peak fps as high as what they're used to, but they will also see stutters which "seem" to be related to both the weather engine and texture processing. But if you set the fps lock at 15fps, sure you won't see them--and many of the users I've interfaced with have done that, and find it alright vs. eye candy. I don't--there's a huge difference between 15fps on final and 25fps.None of us do Microsoft any favors by not having an honest discussion of what we've seen. Telling users to "throw more system" at the problem isn't the solution. Telling users the value in the sim despite the problem is.When I was invited to join the test, I first balked, having a concern that having a lower end system--one I have to have for non MSFS reasons, simply wouldn't service the project. But then I felt I did have value--that I could inspire people to believe--those people with allowances, or mortgages, or medical issues--that they could enjoy the sim given what they have. And they can, but they will see some issues like what I've mentioned. No reason for anyone to come in here and give them an inferiority complex. 'Nuff said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And these are default clouds setup which need alot of works, I can do better volumetric transition on clouds when you through the clouds."Yes, We all can't wait to see what wonders you can work! Even though I was first disappointed in some of the things(mostly related to weather), I can't wait till FS2k4 is running with wxRE v2.0 with Chris' new and improved SkyWorld(& clouds). It will certinaly help make up for those few shortcomings. Not to mention a newly built system by then should help a lot too! As I've been told from the 2k4 Readme file, FS2k4 removes any Overcast layer if it determines your computer can't handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,Thanks for being straight-forward about the stutters. I have a system similar to what Chris described (1.4ghz, only 256 mem) and now I know I should expect stutters and I'll have to cut back on the sliders based on what you and Chris have mentioned. Reading about issues like this before I buy the program will temper the impact of getting the sim with heightened expectations.I'd like to hear more gold copy owners talk about the sim's limitations. There has been so much posted about FS2004 and very little about what may cause the "average" user problems. I'm not asking for people with an agenda to "pile on" and bash the sim. I just want to hear clear, non-editorialized information on how the sim runs for users of all types of systems. Then I'll know whether going out and getting a new CPU, or more memory, or a new graphics board will be the solution rather than throwing more money into a hole and having the same problems. I guess there aren't enough testers on this forum and I'll just have to wait for the product release to get the widespread reviews.Anyway, your post to this topic was the first news from a tester that the sim has some limitations for "lower end" users. I appreciate your candor. ;)Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John, I am not here to tell anybody anything about acceptable for anybody. The acceptable things was considering for me with my preference performance.I saw all your kind of your problem you have been through since the start and I did not saw them with my system, it is my problem?, you have just upgraded your gfroce2 card, to a mid video card like mine gforce4 128 meg and you saw an improvement on various things that's you been complaning before your new card.I am sure if you upgrading your pIII800 t a mid system 2.53Ghz or higher 3.0GHZ 533fsb or 800fsb and motherborad, your post will be completly differents.About Win98 and Winxp, I have been trouble supports near 4 years at the past tons of people with win98, on ton's of things such as blue screen, lack of ressource, from any program opened or running at background, poor performance after 1 hours etc, rebooting, All these problem which I never saw never with Windows Xp compare to win98. And in my personnel home experience, which I do alot of 3d rendering, 16 track music, playing games, at the time when I having win98 require many rebooting system for have an accurare performance , which never happend with Windows XP with many day and days without any rebooting the OsYou will find more organized ressource system and performance with stable environment with Windows Xp than windows 98.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I upgraded to a GeF 4 as I had no other choice--you know as well as I do that I lost my cooling fan in the GeF 2--and naturally I wanted the most compatible card with my current system. But I think you're missing the issue. Take two identical flights, identical scenery details, and FS2004 stutters. FS2002 doesn't. And to be sure, I even brought FS2004 to the point where scenery detail was far below that in FS2002--I excluded all the buildings, cleared the skies and even eliminated the airports, so that only ground textures were showing and nothing else. Still stutters. And this isn't to knock FS2004--it is to make the point that the issue has nothing to do with a cpu or O/S--other than the way new code interacts with it. A higher power cpu may mask the issue, but there's still an issue. Almost all the high end users lock their systems at 20-25 fps. Remove the lock and they won't see the stutters caused by fps dropping by a third on final, since their peak performance may be 40-50 fps. I can tell you if I lock fps to 15, then I don't see any stutters and I could post such baloney in the forums. The point being, I do "see" them because I'm setting up FS2004 with the expectation that it can at least meet FS2002's performance. FPS counters can lie--they don't tell the whole story.I'm also sorry I don't have the money I thought I could spend on the system you recommend. Over the weekend, I got hit with a $1500 car repair bill. I shouldn't have to give up my car to get rid of stutters. And I won't--I'll live with them and enjoy FS2004 for what it is, and also I can live with the self respect for not trying to gloss over every issue with FS2004 with "Get a better system."-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One item I've not seen mentioned was windows vs. full screen mode. In FS2002, it actually ran faster in a windowed mode, and the screen was slightly brighter. In full screen mode, it slowed noticeably and the image was quite dark. Would you folks have a comment on that based on your experiences?Thanks,Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GlennThe only time I've noticed a difference, is when my desktop is set at 16-bit color, and FS200x is set at 32-bit color. "Windowing" MSFS in that situation causes it to assume the color depth of the desktop. In FS2004, there's an improvement if the desktop is 16 bit and FS2004 is 32 bit, but not the other way around.The stutter issue I discuss happens even if fps are hovering in the 50's, as they did when I ran FS2004 with textures only, and clear skies. And it happens in windowed vs. full screen mode.Having raised the issue, here's the reasons I'd still get the sim:-Superior and realistic sky color and daytime cloud coloring.-Sky variation, based on date. No two days are the same.-Almost completely new textures. Not more complex, but more realistic.-Clouds that appear off in the distance...-Haze that settles in a valley. What I mean is you can set vis. to 3 miles at a weather station, and if you cap the vis. ceiling at 2000 ft and the surrounding peaks are 3000 ft, from above it takes on a very realistic appearance. Very much like the Great Smokies--if you've ever flown over them, you know what I mean.-Very good "average" fps performance. Usually in the mid-20's, save for the stutters I mention.-Taxiway signs everywhere-Detailed Sky Harbor--my home airport :)-New options to tweak copter flight models-Superior water reflections-Lots of fun aircraft-Very stable, rock solid performance on 98SE and XP-Legacy support for Landclass and photoreal scenery-More consistent (and configurable) A/P G/S tracking-Built in LOD tweaking. If you've used "hacked" driver sets to enjoy clear ground textures in FS2002, FS2004 supports adjustments to the LOD. Along with enabling anisotropy on the vid card side, it allows for textures that are clear beyond reality...-Thunderstorms that look as close to the real thing as I've ever seen. Lightning lights up parts of the cloud and ground, as an example.I'll stop here....fingers are sore from typing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for this John :-).Yes, I had my copy of FS2004 ordered a month ago :-hah! From the first images I knew this was going to be a winner. For me, the weather alone was enough to do it (I always fly with real weather, downloaded static (i.e. old from FSMeteo) or dynamic/live), but I'll be really interested to try out the weather themes (sorry, I'm an ex RW pilot of a lot of years - I like to make it really as real as it gets :-) ).I've decided to upgrade my hardware especially for this version. Going to a 3.0 800 Mhz H/T system with the ATI Radeon 9800 and 1 GB Kingston DDR RAM (am using an Intel built in sound board though, so not sure if I will need the SB Audigy or not at this point - comments?). However, after reading the posts from you and Chris, I will go on the assumption that I can expect stutters. As long as it isn't anything like what we were getting in FS2000 when you'd be sliding down final and all of a sudden you'd do a couple of double-takes which would throw your whole approach off, I won't sweat that too much. I agree, with all else you are getting, I can live with this (the ground textures look really superb!). One thing I've seen very little of, and that's being an ex-RW bush pilot, I'll be interested to see how seaplanes react on the water in terms of getting them moving, etc. Also, if you turn all the water detail and reflections off, if it will look something like ice in the winter (I used to replace the water textures with ice textures in 2002, but you still got that damn bobbing up and down on your skis :-) (if I got that in real life, I usually panicked, following which I'd reach for a life jacket :-) )).Anyway, I really appreciate yours and Chris' comments here (I realize they are somewhat divergent about some issues, but that's fine - no sweat on that :-) ). Two weeks to go! Thanks again John.Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Anyway, I really appreciate yours and Chris' comments here (I realize they are somewhat divergent about some issues, but that's fine - no sweat on that )."And Chris has shown insight of great value. One tip he recently gave improved my performance with AA about 20 pct. My insights are not all scientific either--some are driven by the heart. I know I could expect smoother performance with a higher end cpu, but even buying a new vid card was a stretch--and I only did that after receiving an email suggesting that had I let my fan issue go, fire or board damage could have been the result. Happened to someone who lost a fan on the same GEF/2 model that mine was.Chris also shared his pleasure with the 4200--one bit of advice which really finalized my decision to go with it. Having a BX board, and only a 250W power supply, my choices in modern cards had been limited to the Radeon 9200 or the GEF/4200-TI.... The 4200 is outstanding, stable, and was the best $90 ever spent. I'm glad I had the chance to grab one while I could....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this