Fredde

Replace FSX with P3D or X Plane 11 = 64 – bit

Recommended Posts

Hi

I need help decideing what to choose, I get some headache of what to do next ;) ?????

I am a returning flightsimmer, 8 years ago I was flying FSX alot. I know that was alot of OOM problem since FSX is a 32-bit program. I planing to start from scratch, with a good program in 64-bit and I will begin with a Cessna and make one step at the time 😊

I also know that FSX do not have the ability to get advantage of new hardware. Today I looking for these program: FSX SE, Prepar3D, X Plane. I have some question bellow:

 

1.)

The old FSX was not use 64-bit OS at all. Both the FSX SE and Prepar3D have the same basic platform from the old FSX. I like to start with a new platform and I find the X Plane as a good choice!

X plane use 64 bit OS as I find it very useful since I had several OOM problem in FSX. X plane is support by IVAO multiplayer network and so on :)

Shall I rethinking and choose FSX SE or Prepar3D instead, why in that case?

 

2.)

I have plenty of addon, both for aircraft and environment. I wondering if I should choose FSX SE or Prepar3D anyway?

I mean if there are no different between FSX SE / Prepar3D and X Plane are for just to be able to use my old addon!

 

Some condition:

·       A program who does not need plenty of addon out of the box to look as real as possible.

·       Supporting a lot of external flight sim hardware or support program like FSUIPC, so you can connect external hardware.

·       64-bit support.

·       Co-operate, in a multiplayer, like a pilot and a first officer.

·       Support EFB like, http://www.aivlasoft.com

I like comments what you think, that is the best flight sim to buy!

Best regard Fredrik  

Share this post


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

Hi,

...just a friendly request here. Please don't post the same post into more than one forum category.

We see the new entries regardless of where it is posted. 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplicate posts removed.  This one is the only one left.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim Young

I hope that people can find the correct article even if the article is not place in correct forum of their program!

Best Fredrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fredrick, 

I, like you, was going through the same decision process. 

I tried X-Plane 11 during the beta and, while I liked it, the bugs put me off. Now that is has been released I am really enjoying it. 

The issue is that neither platform is really acceptable out of the box. FSX default planes are horrible. And while X-Plane's are much better, they are still far from perfect. I have purchased two add-on planes in XP. One, a Carenado, is pretty and buggy. The other, a Carendado with REP add-on, is nearly A2A quality. The downside is that there are very few XP11 ready add-on planes. I know they are coming but it is a wait when I want to fly now. 

X-Plane pros:

  • Beautiful scenery out of the box. And if you prefer photo scenery it is easy to use real photo imaging with Ortho4XP
  • Much better default aircraft
  • Better performance than FSX or P3D. Typically much higher frame rates and I have never had an OOM or CTD. It's 64 bit
  • Easy to edit and create scenery. While ADE will allow you to edit FSX airports, WED is so very simple to use to create and edit scenery in XP

X-Plane cons:

  • Air Traffic Control is unusable. It's a joke. It just doesn't work. They know it and are working on a complete rebuild but, today, there is no ATC. There are add-ons, but nothing to the extent of what's available for FSX
  • AI is poor. I mean, if you like that every 172 is N172SP I guess that's OK. LOL. I believe there are some add-ons but haven't gotten that far
  • Weather depiction is bad. Clouds are cartoony. Depiction is wrong a lot of times. Weather "pops" as you move from area to area. Neither of the (expensive!) weather add ons is very good. One has a "weather circle" around the plane that moves with you (you can see it's clear in the distance even if it's not) and the other only has a few cloud textures that repeat often. And they are both very expensive. NOTHING like ActiveSky!
  • Lack of quality add-ons. Most of the good planes (iXEG 737, etc) are not completely compatible with XP11
  • Ground handling is bad. The 172 weathervanes into the wind too much and is near impossible to taxi. You can easily run out of rudder with a moderate crosswind

So, what I do... 

Fly both. I fly the C210 with REP in XP11. I edit airports when I feel like doing that instead of flying. I fly FSX when I want beautiful weather, ATC and the PMDG 737 or Majestic Q400. 

So I approach it like a PlayStation. Madden one day. Nathan Drake adventure the next. 

Interesting times here in flight sim land. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frederik,

I am going to add to your woes mate.

Here is how I see it.

64Bit.  choices     1 .XPlane10/11     2. AeroflyFS2

                               Coming??? P3D    DTG new sim.  When are they coming?  Everyone wants to know.

32Bit.                     Everything else.  Complete with OOMs, Good/bad scenery, aircraft and other limitations.

My advice.  You have FSX with addons. Fly that until 64bit becomes the norm.  You also have the option of XPlane11 as a limited demo. Try that for free. If you like ....buy, and if you do not like it, you have lost nothing. You can at least treat the demo as a learning curve and again, wait for WX, AI and ATC addons to improve.

I genuinely believe that each sim has something to offer and it is probably a little foolish or shortsighted (other than from a financial perspective)   to specialize in one sim.  I intend no offence here and I am very well aware that many simmers have only the one sim platform.

I actually own and use (where I can) FSX Gold (no addons) FSX-SE (no addons) P3D (no addons) Aerofly (no addons) XPlane 10 and 11 (no addons) and FS2004 (vast number of addons) I have sgnificant performance problems with all but the FS2004 due to antiquated hardware and a special preference for multiple monitors.  This, however does not stop me playing(?????) with the others on occasion and I follow them all avidly. None of these sims are really expensive especially if purchased over a lengthy time period. There is only your lifespan which limits your waiting, patience and assessment times.

So, do please experiment a little and bear in mind that the new 64bit sims are indeed, (I believe) coming. New hardware will be coming and all will suit particular platforms better than others.

The fact is, that the flight simulation world is ever evolving and becoming more and more complex and/or  more satisfying, which, in reality, means that your question is never going to be answered to the satisfaction of everyone.  Also remember that probably 101 percent of people in Flight Simulation are happy with their choices (would not be involved here or with simming if they weren't) and dream about the others they are not using.  YOU can too.

Best of luck with your decision, but above all enjoy what you have and build on it or what you purchase in the future.

Regards to you and all

Tony Chilcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A problem with X-Plane is that, even though X-Plane 11 is a finished released product and Laminar are charging for it, in many ways it is still a bit like like a beta program, in that there are quite a few things which are supposed to work, but which frankly, either don't work as well as they should without some tweaking, or don't work at all, and that includes some payware add-on stuff which really should not be like that considering it costs money. Unlike with FSX and P3D, X-Plane is a bit more like things were years ago with FS, when people were used to messing around with it to make their own stuff and tart it up, so if you go with X-Plane, be ready to start indulging in a bit of DIY. For example, expect to occasionally not have X-Plane download weather data without having a few tries at it, and expect it to vector you into a mountain or two if you use the default ATC. And as far as add-on payware goes, the scarcity of really good add-on aeroplanes in comparison to the literally vast numbers of ones there are for FS, means that to some extent, developers can get away with charging a little bit more for the X-Plane add-on than they would be able to if that was an add-on for FS.

Moreover, right now, you can buy several add-on aeroplanes for X-Plane 11 at the 'org' store, and it will cheerfully state in the product details for them that they are version 11 compatible, but you'll occasionally find yourself looking online for tweaks to even get the things to fire up properly after having bought them when you expected them to work flawlessly because you trusted the product description to be accurate. You do occasionally find the odd FSX add-on like that, but it's far from common, whereas with X-Plane that's really not that unusual an occurrence and for some reason people seem to put up with it, when we know they'd be going mental if it was an FSX OR P3D product which was released and sold in that state with people being expected to fix it themselves. Most of the time it isn't that hard to sort problems out, but be aware of that if you are used to buying stuff for FSX, clicking on an install file and then not having to worry about anything else, that might not always be the case with X-Plane.

You should be aware too, that whilst the default X-Plane does look pretty good and can get decent frame rates, it's perfectly possible to bring it to its knees with the addition of a few fancy add-ons, so in some respects it's not as big an improvement over either FSX or P3D as some people would have you believe, particularly when we know that it is all the add-on stuff which causes those FSX and P3D to start chugging along with low frame rates, or to crash with OOM errors, because like X-Plane, P3D and FSX run pretty well with only default stuff, so don't be fooled by a comparison with default versus souped up versions, yes the default X-Plane looks pretty good, but start tarting it up and you will see those frame rates drop, this is not a phenomenon exclusive to other flight sims, you can bring any flight sim to its knees with a lot of fancy add-ons.

If you want a similar experience to that which either FSX or P3D can offer when you stick a fancy PMDG jetliner in there, then as with those sims, you need to be aware that part of what makes that fancy FS add-on airliner realistic, is all the other add-ons you use with it, such as additional ATC, additional weather programs, additional flight planning utilities, add-on airports etc, so you will be spending money on add-ons in addition to that add-on aeroplane, because you're going to need better than the default ATC (the default ATC in X-Plane makes the default ATC in FSX look like a masterpiece of stunning realism), better than the default flight planner and better than the default weather engine. So that's gonna cost you well over 100 Dollars if you figure on adding: X-Life Deluxe for the improved ATC (20 Dollars), Goodway for the improved flight planning (25 Dollars), FS Global Real Weather (30 Dollars) and decent add-on airliner (40-50 Dollars). Note too FS Global weather only offers a partial improvement in the weather, but it does nevertheless improve it. A plus point is that there are some freebie plug ins for X-Plane and some fairly decent free aeroplanes too, but if you are used to flying around in iFly and PMDG 737s and 747s, the FSL A320, A2A Flying Fortress or the Just Flight DC-8 or Captain Sim 707, then you are probably going to need to spend money to get close to that kind of experience in X-Plane.

None of the above is to say that you shouldn't consider X-Plane, but you need to be aware that the 45 quid price tag for X-Plane is not a magic bullet which will instantly offer a massive improvement in all respects; as with FSX and P3D, you have to get your hand in your pocket to soup it up a bit or indulge in some considerable DIY (and possibly both). But that you can indeed do; there are some very good Airbuses, Douglas and Boeings for X-Plane as well as some decent regionals and GA aeroplanes. Not as many as with FS of course, but you should nevertheless be aware that as with FSX and P3D, much of the time you get what you pay for in X-Plane as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thank´s a lot, I willl read it more closely sooner.

I understand that X plane 11 has some major problem, I have aloso think of starting in a fsx plattform maybe and your comments is more than welcome to advice me to do the right choice :)

OOM error is not a problem if you do not run in very high graphics settings. When you are returning after some years you will allways look after a new things.

I will go for maybe the FSX SE or P3D?

Comments at FSX SE and p3d would be nice.

Best Fredrik

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely wouldn't purchase P3Dv3 now, because you will have to rebuy the next version (P3Dv4), that allegedly has 64bit support. Therefore: Wait until DTG flight sim and P3Dv4 have been released until you make up your mind. In the meantime, stick with what you have and try the XP11 demo. XP has some minor (not major) problems, but overall it's a fantastic sim with a fresh look, great freeware and an expanding payware scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to be technical but anecdotal.

I have tried x-plane several times (trial downloads) but everytime I did, I immediately uninstalled. Having read some comments above, I am glad I did not purchase it.

I tried FSX:SE, bought the download version, and it requires me to have internet connection every time I launch the prog. So without internet, no simming. The support offered by dovetail was so disgraceful I requested a refund (turned down)

I went searching for FSX Gold edition and fortunately found one on ebay ($40). I have never been happier. The default aircrafts are still so much fun to fly. I have the PMDG 777, 737, Aerosoft A320, Blackbox A330/340, Just flight 757 and wilco/feelthere A330/340. They all fly like a breeze especially after tweaking fsx according to instructions from PMDG. I fly for 14 hours non stop with no OOM or CTD. By the way, I have Active Sky 16 for weather - beautiful rendition of real weather and clouds, thunderstorms and wind shear etc.

My laptop is ACER F15 (F5-573G-73BD) 15" full HD, 64bit windows 10 home edition, 1000GB HDD, 16GB RAMM, NVIDIA 940MX with 4GB dedicated VRAM bought for $900 brand new.

My honest opinion, nothing beats FSX gold edition. Not even FSX:SE.

I think you need to get the right gig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It´s look like FSX DE is good product even 10 years after its release? :)

Today I have a i7 4820K, 16gb RAM and GTX1080 so I have a much better computer since 10 years. FSX should run better and smoother now?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

I am somewhat befuddled with this thread.

I do not believe for one minute this should be a sim promotion or sim demolition. There are numerous threads on  AVSIM that decry or promote the various attributes of each and every sim.  These are freely available for evaluation and really should be looked at on an unbiased level by every individual. 

I believe the only advice Frederik really requires is the "proceed with caution" one.  He, and indeed, everyone else on this site has to be aware that there is a certain "bias" towards each and every sim and there is plenty of advice offered here and elsewhere on precisely this theme.

Frederik, and only Frederik, can know precisely, what he wants and he really should be looking at all the relevant threads for further evaluation. Individual recommendations are prolific here.

Again, if 64bit is relevant to Frederik, then waiting for approximately six months for a final decision is not a huge decision but it does, or can, have huge ramifications for his final assessment and ultimate decision.

Regardless of this, he can still derive tremendous satisfaction in simply assessing and evaluating each and every (if that is his wish)  sim that is currently available whilst still using FSX.  I simply advise him to approach this decision with an open mind and to specifically address HIS requirements for flight simulation.

Again, Frederik, good luck with your decision.

Regards to all

Tony 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all and thank´s all for they opinion. I will wait for any decicion and run FSX at the mean time. 64-bit is not all so I will wait and try to make fsx the best in my opinion :)

Best regards to all

Fredrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fredde said:

It´s look like FSX DE is good product even 10 years after its release? :)

Today I have a i7 4820K, 16gb RAM and GTX1080 so I have a much better computer since 10 years. FSX should run better and smoother now?  

Yea IMHO

You just have to play with the settings in fsx

I am not looking any further for a sim

I can send some of my private videos if you like

2 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

Hello all,

I am somewhat befuddled with this thread.

I do not believe for one minute this should be a sim promotion or sim demolition. There are numerous threads on  AVSIM that decry or promote the various attributes of each and every sim.  These are freely available for evaluation and really should be looked at on an unbiased level by every individual. 

I believe the only advice Frederik really requires is the "proceed with caution" one.  He, and indeed, everyone else on this site has to be aware that there is a certain "bias" towards each and every sim and there is plenty of advice offered here and elsewhere on precisely this theme.

Frederik, and only Frederik, can know precisely, what he wants and he really should be looking at all the relevant threads for further evaluation. Individual recommendations are prolific here.

Again, if 64bit is relevant to Frederik, then waiting for approximately six months for a final decision is not a huge decision but it does, or can, have huge ramifications for his final assessment and ultimate decision.

Regardless of this, he can still derive tremendous satisfaction in simply assessing and evaluating each and every (if that is his wish)  sim that is currently available whilst still using FSX.  I simply advise him to approach this decision with an open mind and to specifically address HIS requirements for flight simulation.

Again, Frederik, good luck with your decision.

Regards to all

Tony 

You do not have "befuddle" us more with your long-winded response. He asked a genuine question, and deserves a response. Not an overblown whinge. Have a good day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eby said:

Yea IMHO

You just have to play with the settings in fsx

I am not looking any further for a sim

I can send some of my private videos if you like

Yes it would nice :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fredde said:

One for v1, v2 and v3. Does the License for v3 approving you buying v4?

No.  You need a separate license for each version.  Discussions of licenses are prohibited here in the forums. 

 

4 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I do not believe for one minute this should be a sim promotion or sim demolition. There are numerous threads on  AVSIM that decry or promote the various attributes of each and every sim.

I am not sure where you got the information for you to post this.  Is someone trolling? 

 

4 hours ago, Fredde said:

It´s look like FSX DE is good product even 10 years after its release? :)

Today I have a i7 4820K, 16gb RAM and GTX1080 so I have a much better computer since 10 years. FSX should run better and smoother now?  

FSX w/SP2 or Acceleration is still a good product.  When it was first released in 2006, we were happy to get 15 fps.  Now we are getting fps between 40 and 100 pretty easily.  With the default scenery/aircraft/weather, I can get over 300 fps where I could barely get over 30 back in 2006/2007.  Still there is stuttering and pauses but that's not FSX/Acceleration or FSX-SE fault.  It works great with default scenery, default airports, default aircraft, default weather, and I think even better with a commercial product like GEX which replaces all of the default textures with optimized textures.  But individuals who purchase FSX boxed or FSX-SE, go out and buy add-ons looking for the eye-candy.  Commercial aircraft products, commercial airports like those made by FlyTampa or FS Dreamteam, or new landclass, vectors like Ultimate Terrain or Orbx/FTX stuff, or photo scenery all make for better immersion and enjoyment of the product.  It gets pretty boring with the default stuff.  Man has to make his enjoyment and learning experiences with FSX as real as possible and there are many commercial (and some freeware) that can make that happen.  But, watch out!!  Once you buy the add-ons, you have compromised the integrity of FSX/Acceleration and FSX-SE.  If a product makes for pauses, stuttering and other anomalies, get rid of it.  It is not working properly and no computer system can make it better.  Or, experience the occasional pause/stutter or other anomaly and fly!

The same analogy, as above, is exactly the same for X-Plane and P3D.  If you are losing fps, VAS, have stutters/shimmering, or other anomalies, dump the add-ons and just fly with the default.  Blame the commercial add-on developers because it is important that they develop a product fully compatible with P3D or X-Plane.  Also, you can lower your settings and get a better experience with a flight session but then, why purchase the add-ons?  You want the eye-candy.  Still, do not blame Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, or Dovetail for running out of VAS, low fps, stutters, or other anomalies.  Blame the add-on developer.  

Lastly, FSX-SE and P3D are based off of the basic FSX/Acceleration engine.  There is no one working on FSX (boxed version) anymore.  Dovetail is providing some improvements with FSX-SE.  Lockheed Martin is making major changes to the FSX engine with P3D.  They are also working in concert with other commercial developers to make their product work better with the add-ons.  That's the future....

Best regards,

Jim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be inclined to agree that the Steam version of FS is the one to go for at the moment, since it would require the minimum risk in terms of what you spend.

If we are to believe that Lockheed Martin are not far away from releasing a 64 bit version of P3D, then now would not be the best time to buy a current version of P3D, as it might be very soon relegated to being the 'older' version, moreover, even if you were 'prepared' (lol) to take that monetary hit, you might find any P3D add-ons incompatible with a newer version, so that could get expensive down the line if you bought some expensive add-ons for it. This is not the case with FSX-SE, since it is effectively frozen as far as development goes. We know LM have had three cracks at P3D thus far, and it continues to develop, so it is a fair assumption that they will continue to release newer versions, and they will certainly not want professional client users of P3D to be getting OOMs, so it makes sense for them to go 64 bit with it, thus we can safely assume a 64 bit version will be on the way before long.

FSX-SE has the virtue of being inexpensive (very much so if you catch it in a sale, when it is sometimes sold for 7.99), it runs better than the boxed versions of FSX, is more stable in terms of OOM issues and includes all of the patches and expansions which the boxed version of FSX had available (i.e. everything that you'd get with Acceleration, Deluxe, Gold etc, plus the well known tweaks such as max texture load and high memory fix), so it will run any FSX add-on which requires those. Pretty much every old FSX add-on you have will install and run in the Steam version of FSX, and many of them will run on P3D and possibly may do later down the line if you did eventually go for a 64 bit version of P3D, so there is potentially an advantage there too.

Moreover, if you take the pragmatic view, any sales which DTG get for the Steam version are contributing toward their inclination to keep going in creating sims, such as their forthcoming simulator which is based upon development work they did with FSX-SE and Flight School - i.e. using the ESP base but in 64 bit with optimisation, improved ATC, improved autogen, GUI etc, whereas I don't think Lockheed Martin need to worry about funding lol.

I've got P3D, FSX-SE, DTG Flight School, AeroFly FS2, Ready For Take Off, Glider Simulator, Condor, DCS World, etc, etc and I enjoy them all for what they offer, but I think I get the most MPG out of FSX-SE. It's a lot of bang for your bucks, particularly if you have a bunch of add-ons for it already and look at all the freeware there is for it too.

A final word on X-Plane: Yes it needs some tweaks and really could do with better built-in weather and ATC and flight planning, but as noted, these can be sorted with add-ons. Personally, I think X-Plane is going to come on in leaps and bounds, and so I wouldn't say 'don't buy it', rather I would look out for it at a discount price (maybe a Steam sale or seasonal offer some such) and enjoy it for what it is in the knowledge that it's going to be one to watch in terms of more payware developers latching onto it. There are some great experiences to be had in XP-11 if you get a few decent add-ons for it, for example, many people bemoan the lack of a really good 757 or 767 for FSX or P3D, but there absolutely are those aircraft to a study sim level already available for X-Plane from developer Flight Factors; and when I say good, I mean they are better than any FSX/P3D Boeing 757 or 767 by a very long way indeed. That's true of the same developer's Boeing 777, and their Airbus A350 too, both of which are every bit as good, and in many cases better than anything you can buy for FSX or P3D.

Not convinced? Check out their 757 product page and see if you can find an FSX/P3D one to match it in terms of 3D modeling, functionality, failures, systems modeling, graphic effects etc:

http://store.x-plane.org/Boeing-757-version-2-Professional-_p_542.html#tab-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eby said:

I tried FSX:SE, bought the download version, and it requires me to have internet connection every time I launch the prog. So without internet, no simming. The support offered by dovetail was so disgraceful I requested a refund (turned down)

It is perfectly possible to run FSX:SE while off-line. I do it nearly every day! If you didn't know this, you should have simply asked... :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run FSX:SE from a desktop shortcut with internet disabled this is a habit I have used for some years it stop`s any auto updater and frees up more resources for FSX:SE, I do not use real weather or multiplayer which would require internet connection, I intend to wait until DTG, P3D , release there next sim to make my choice.

 

Ray Fry.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had thought of switching camps for a really long time. X-Plane will only become a viable option once its ATC, AI and weather are up to FSX' standards right out of the box or can be improved with freeware. FlightGear is the perfect sandbox, but requires a whole lot of time to get into and individual development effort get involved to make it better for everyone (killer Space Shuttle simulation though!). P3D requires a credit card and seems to move away from MSFS compatibility. Aerofly is not much more than eyecandy.

So that leaves FSX with all its known bugs and limitations. With the fixed DirectX 10 mode, the Steam Edition and realistic expectations (no more HD textures and ludicrously detailed models), it's the best flightsimming experience one can get at the moment. The FSXSE and DX10 bundle even clocks in cheaper than an academic license for P3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eby,

Thank you so much for your so much better and informed opinion. I bow to the master and sincerely hope that this is not too verbose.

Jim Young

I derive that information from close to thousands of posts, which advise one and all, to buy this simulator or that simulator.  To avoid another simulator because...,. Your comment, though, IS appreciated.

To all, 

I was/am simply trying to present a balanced opinion ie I was not telling the OP that FSX was better than FSX-SE, P3D, Aerofly or XPlane. Frankly, I am close to overload with those opinions . 

Regards to all

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eby,

I know I shall regret this but I just cannot leave it alone.

I cannot for the life of me find a "whinge" in this post that was originated by me and felt that your comment was unwarranted.

I do have a spare pair of reading glasses that I can send you, but your comprehension paucity is something only you can deal with.

I sincerely hope this ends here and I apologize to you all for a genuine "whinge" and for dragging this thread to its current level.  It was never my intention

Tony Chilcott

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