Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#2649849 - 01/10/09 01:10 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: FearlessFrog]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
You'll be very correct if the trend is to simply slap more and more processors onto the same chip without increasing GHz.

My bet is that right about the time we see 10 core processors some Big Headed Guy is going to laugh and say it's really dumb to just keep stacking them as discreet processors and parsing software tasks again and again and again.

And this Big Headed Guy is going to find a way to make them work together as One Big Processor, or possibly two, running computations at double or quadruple the speed of what we have now. The software won't know how many cores are running. It'll just see one processor grabbing input and spitting out the answer immediately. Think Windows 9. I'm personally betting that Windows 9 is going to rock; after seven iterations Microsoft always takes a leap forward. DOS 7 shipped as part of Windows 95, so I may be off on whether it's Win9 or Win10 that breaks the seven standard cycle...

wink

I also fully expect multi-core support about version 2.4 of Black Shark.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#2649860 - 01/10/09 01:52 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
FearlessFrog Offline
Senior Member
FearlessFrog  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
I hope that Big Headed Guy comes along too, although Intel won't thank him for his ideas as they'll sell less new stuff. He's gonna have to be quite a brain, as there are all sorts of difficult problems to overcome in processor design and it'll be up there with the 'perpetual motion engine' style of tech break-though :-). Stranger things have happened though.

The 'Haswell' is due in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture) and will be 8 cores and lots of bells and whistles. By then we'll all probably be using solid state drives, USB 3.0 and riding around in hover cars too... :-)

A bit off-topic, but DCS does seem to work nicely on the first beta of Windows 7 x64, mainly because it's a 'Vista with a smaller footprint' type of release. I haven't tested it much though, so usual caveats apply.

#2649895 - 01/10/09 03:10 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: FearlessFrog]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
Well, I was thinking more on the lines of making the OS and applications look at multiple cores as one computing unit rather than distinct ones doing different things.

When we look at the boost in BS (with Vista) when one enables multiple core useage, it may simply be a matter of ED patching to take advantage of as many cores as are present. There may be a point of deminishing returns, though, as one adds core after core.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2649900 - 01/10/09 03:23 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: FearlessFrog]  
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 426
EvilBivol-1 Offline
Member
EvilBivol-1  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 426
LA
Thanks to everyone for posting your counter experiences. Not for the sake of argument, but we appreciate your help in providing a healthy perspective to potential new readers (costumers). Although Silverswift's experience is certainly not unique, the majority of users are quite happy with the product's stability. We've received much positive feedback on both the Russian and English forums on this issue. I understand though - another person's positive experience does little to make it any easier for the guy that's having problems and there's no guarantee that any given install will not have stability issues. People do experience them with DCS, but they are in the minority.

I wanted to also touch on a couple of negative points raised here. Not necessarily to defend them, but to explain. I'd like users to be well informed and understand the 'why'.

First, the issue of the simulation switching engines between GUI and in-game. For those that have not read our FAQ, there are two reasons for this - one by design and one a technological limitation. By design, the idea of shutting down the GUI prior to launching the simulation is to unload the system RAM and CPU to free resources up to run the simulation. This is not insignificant, because Black Shark can eat up (no pun intended) 2 GB of RAM pretty quickly, especially in a heavy mission. If the same mission was kept loaded in the GUI through the ME, it would leave a good chunk less RAM available for the simulation, resulting in earlier and heavier stuttering in-game and possibly crashing the sim altogether. While it may be a pain to watch the sim switch from one engine to another, remember that it is in part this design that has provided the generally good and fluid game performance most users are experiencing.

The second reason is a technological limitation. The GUI is running on a completely new graphics engine from the graphics engine utilized in TFCSE (the game engine). The two are simply not compatible at this time.

For the future, ED has indicated they will likely re-integrate the two engines.

As for the long loading times, I believe the loading times in the Russian release were in fact abnormally long and this was a recorded issue. The English version loading times should be normal and not outside of the ordinary.

The other point raised here was the terrain texturing. Not much for me to explain here, except mention that ED did spend the effort to make the DCS terrain higher resolution and significantly more dense than Lock On. I understand that may not always be enough, but we'll just have to wait for future improvements in this area. For now, there are also some terrain mods out there that you may like.

Last edited by EvilBivol-1; 01/10/09 04:00 AM.

EB
Belsimtek/TFC Associate
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com
#2649956 - 01/10/09 06:27 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: EvilBivol-1]  
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,536
AV8R Offline
Senior Member
AV8R  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,536
Southern California USA
My experience has been pretty much the same as voiced here thus far, and I say that
from the perspective that Ive installed BS on a WinXP Dual2Core and Vista Quad2Core,
and have flown both in single and multiplayer. I have found that my WinXP Dual2Core
doesnt take full advantage of its techonogy, and the same thing for the Vista Quad2Core.
Im not impressed that a brand new sim isnt making full use of the multicore technology.
Down the road, we will have even more processor cores and working concurrently with
hyperthreading technology. When will this technology be fully used by sims?

I have bought every product from Flanker to BS over the years, and continue to be
positive about this product inspite of its failure to produce what I was looking for
in this release, those being:
- online campaign engine
- multiplayer cockpit and a/c (pilot and CPG for example)
- Allied aircraft and multiple flyable ships
- High object and graphics complexity that works in online

Ill have to admit though, Im getting less apt to continue to buy the product or series
of products over and over waiting for these features. Lack of an online MP dynamic
campaign engine and the net coding that facilitates complex object populated combat
environment is what has been key to why Ive been unsuccessful in bringing my FalconAF
friends over to Lomac and DCS-BS.

One more thing. With the impact of a downturning economy, which will be global, there
will be less descretionary funds for simmers to buy hardware to keep up with ever
demanding software and graphics. My recommendation is that the developers make more use
of the available multicore technology instead of expecting the customer base to upgrade
and then use only a fraction of the available CPU potential, else more and more customers
will be left behind - which of course affects the bottom line.

Until these milestones are achieved, I may pass on paying for the next addon to DCS.
Take this as positive feedback, not complaining. Just the facts as I see them.



AV8R
#2649966 - 01/10/09 07:23 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: AV8R]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 285
LA_Gunz Offline
Member
LA_Gunz  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 285
I agree with most of your points AV8R except for the dynamic campaign point. I've flown F4 forever and it's dynamic campaign isn't all it's cracked up to be. In fact, in the 159th server the missions created by that crew are more interesting and feel more real than many of the dynamic campaign missions I've flown in other sims. A human being makes a better mission and with the trigger system the mission never plays out the same every time. I equate it to playing against AI or humans. Without exception the human player is more challenging.

#2650008 - 01/10/09 01:34 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,364
Freycinet Offline
Veteran
Freycinet  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,364
Originally Posted By: Dart
[...]but when the menu GUI is so completely disconnected from the flight simulation one that it actually shuts down and starts up another application the word "seemless" becomes a joke.


Seamless smile


My Il-2 CoD movie web site: www.flightsimvids.com
#2650016 - 01/10/09 01:58 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: LA_Gunz]  
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,896
bogusheadbox Offline
Opinionated Aussie Bloke
bogusheadbox  Offline
Opinionated Aussie Bloke
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,896
Originally Posted By: LA_Gunz
I agree with most of your points AV8R except for the dynamic campaign point. I've flown F4 forever and it's dynamic campaign isn't all it's cracked up to be. In fact, in the 159th server the missions created by that crew are more interesting and feel more real than many of the dynamic campaign missions I've flown in other sims. A human being makes a better mission and with the trigger system the mission never plays out the same every time. I equate it to playing against AI or humans. Without exception the human player is more challenging.


YOu are correct that AI will never be as good (in reality terms) as humans. However we are not addressing some of the more important features of a dynamic campaign.

Logistical support
Continually moving objects that are not destroyed detected
Damage tracking (reducing capabilites of enemy from destroying bridges, buildings, ammo dumps, airfields)
Multiple fronts and a host of missions to be selected. NOt just a linear mission in a narrow field of play.
Not to mention the fact that if you are in a squad and running a squad mission... At least one person knows exactly what is going to happen and where the objects are, even if you do have randomized events.
Etc Etc.

Back on the Falcon 4 dynamic campaign. Lets just remember how old it is. Even allied force is mostly the same dynamic campaign. Just think what we could do know and how good it could become !!!

Anyway..........

On a different note there is one thing i think needs to be put into game regarding triggers. In the radio comms menu section, i strongly beleive there should be an option to activate a minimum of five triggers. That will then give the flight the ability to call in ground / air support. Request advancing of troops, or set any other necessity based on "here and now commands" instead of moving into an area or waiting for a vehicle (or all vehicles) to be destroyed to set off a trigger.


Fighterops...

The only TRUE Stealth crowd funded game.

Devs said there was stuff there, but you just couldn't see it.
#2650057 - 01/10/09 03:50 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
Mogster Offline
Hotshot
Mogster  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
England
Originally Posted By: Dart

As to bad frame rates on High Settings, that's actually by design, Silverswift.


I get far better performance on high settings than on medium/low, the scaling doesn't seem to work that well. I've heard that modern gfx cards and drivers are optimised for high res textures and high screen res, this is the only explanation I can find. I don't see that DCS as provided now will run much better on future hardware.

Originally Posted By: Dart

The idea is that the sim at max settings is written for the computer of 2012 rather than 2008 to build forward and prevent being left behind. The IL-2 series did the same thing - none of us could run it on "Perfect" settings when they were enabled in the code (originally it went up to "Excellent" which our poor GF2 cards were useless for other than paused screenshots). But seven years from introduction to now has had the hardware pass up the "build forward" features in the IL-2 series and it's a real gem to behold at screaming frame rates.


I wouldn't mind if the sim looked photo realistc on high settings and nice on medium but medium settings ran much better, this isn't the case though.

Originally Posted By: Dart

The textures are a bit disappointing. When one looks at the ground textures of Storms of War: Battle of Britain one gets what I was really expecting. How hard is a grass texture to do? Not 3D grass like in what we're seeing in Rise of Flight screenies, but a 2D texture that doesn't look like huge fractal pixels painted on the ground. Oddly enough, the paints on rolling hills is the best to be found, which is a saving grace - that's where I live at in my Ka-50.


I was at least hoping for sharp textures to ground level. The blurriness looks bad and isn't really acceptable in a new sim. The textures visible in games like Far Cry 2 and Deadspace are amazing and using a modern gfx card seem to cause very little frame rate impact. It feels like there's at least one level of detail missing in BS DCS, this might have been OK 5 years ago when Lock On was released but I feel like we've been short changed in 2009. ED need to start releasing products that are optimised and make full use of todays hardware.

Originally Posted By: Dart

All said, though, I still really like the simulation and would recommend it to anyone that has an interest in modern vertical envelopment.


Agree 100% smile

Last edited by Mogster; 01/10/09 03:54 PM.

WAS C2D 8500 3.16ghz, 285gtx 1gb, 4gig ram, XP NOW Win7 64, I5 2500K, SSD, 8Gig ram, GTX 570
#2650098 - 01/10/09 04:55 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Silverswift]  
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,223
Silverswift Offline
Member
Silverswift  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,223
Milwaukee WI
Wow. I never expected this kind of response! I read actually every single reply and I appreciate them all. I want to clear up that it is not a fact that I don't like BS, I do. I am however dissapointed with it's apparent instabilty. BTW, my crashes occur when I get shot down, or crash, by attempt to stay in game and watch the action. I'm addition, on my instal of BS, onthe program properties, it defaulted to "minimum.". When I selected "full screen,". I actualy saw 2-4 more FPS.


Quad 9650 *
2 WD 160GB SATA, Raid 0 *
Two GTX 295, in quad *
*all water cooled by Koolance
8GB Corsair DDR3 @1600mhz
ASUS Striker 790i NSE
28" HannsG LCD
Audigy X Fi Fatal1ty Edition
1000kw Enermax PSU
Klipsch 5.1 Ultra
#2650107 - 01/10/09 04:58 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Mogster]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,364
Freycinet Offline
Veteran
Freycinet  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,364
We shouldn't compare to games like Far Cry because they have far fewer calculations going on "under the hood" than BS does. There is only so much that a computer can do simultaneously, we can´t have "Far Cry"-like graphics AND complicated modelling of systems and flight. This is why study sims will never look as good as cartoon-physics games.


My Il-2 CoD movie web site: www.flightsimvids.com
#2650133 - 01/10/09 05:23 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Freycinet]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
Mogster Offline
Hotshot
Mogster  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
England
I agree that BS has more going on CPU wise than Far Cry 2 but BS doesn't seem to be making use of my GPU much at all and that's a waste, it even seems to work better on older cards showing its Lock On heritage.

It may not be everyones cup of tea in here but FC2 is is an amazing feat of gfx engine optimisation. FC2 pumps out these unbelievably life like scenes at a constant 40fps on my (not cutting edge) rig, that's at 1024x1280 and with high levels of AA and AF. My PC CPU core's (both of them....) don't even seem to be breaking sweat, temp wise it does give my GPU a nice workout though. . I'd like to see my GPU fully utelised as FC2 does, I'd especially like to see a flight sim using the Phys X drivers that I have loaded onto my Nvidia card but that's another issue I suspect.

I'm interested to see how AOF (the new WW1 sim) and Oleg's new engine deal with multi core usage and GPU/CPU and Phys X use, hopefully better than BS does.


WAS C2D 8500 3.16ghz, 285gtx 1gb, 4gig ram, XP NOW Win7 64, I5 2500K, SSD, 8Gig ram, GTX 570
#2650134 - 01/10/09 05:25 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Silverswift]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,900
valleyboy Offline
Member
valleyboy  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,900
Aberdare, Wales, UK
I get far better performance on high settings than on medium/low, the scaling doesn't seem to work that well. I've heard that modern gfx cards and drivers are optimised for high res textures and high screen res, this is the only explanation I can find. I don't see that DCS as provided now will run much better on future hardware.

Exactly the same here ! Im not running a new system.. an XP3200 with 1Gb Ram, X1950 graphics, and Windows XP.. and cant make heads nor tails of the graphics setup... out away from the cities I get higher FPS with high textures and scenes than low or medium... but as soon as I go near a city.. forget it, 6fps at best.. but then at low or medium scenes and textures, I get more acceptable FPS near built up areas, but lower FPS out in the hills as such.... And I dont know why :/ plus I have major bugs while setting fog up.... I just get a line of fog.. and the buildings and trees turn grey... do'h!


"The engines are overheating, and so am I!!, we either make a move, or blow up!, So which is it to be?!"
----------------------------------
"It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
#2650335 - 01/10/09 11:31 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Arthonon]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,486
Shepski Offline
Member
Shepski  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,486
Canada
Originally Posted By: Arthonon
Originally Posted By: Dart

The worst graphical sin, IMHO, is the shorelines of rivers. I may be unique in this, but they look to me as if they are floating over the water. The first time I flew over a river I flew into it, as I assumed it was at a lower altitude than the bank, as I was at 50 feet altitude. It's only at around a 15 to 25 degree aspect it that the optical illusion is dangerous. But that's not unusual when one is flying low in a helicopter.


Yes! I was surprised that I hadn't seen more comments about this. I haven't brought it up because I was never in a thread where it fit, I guess.


It's not the shorelines it's the fact the shimmering water, as seen in the sea, is only at sea level in the sim engine... even some rivers and lakes which are above sea level have the water modeled as if it was a sea level so it does seem like visually, the water is much lower than the shore of the surrounding terrain. It's an engine limitation unfortunately.

Folks... running at high visibility will be very hard on your system and will drop framerates considerably. Running high textures and scenes with medium visibility will offer the best visiuals with very accepatble performace. Full shadows are also another stealer of framerates.

#2650338 - 01/10/09 11:39 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Freycinet]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,486
Shepski Offline
Member
Shepski  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,486
Canada
Originally Posted By: Freycinet
We shouldn't compare to games like Far Cry because they have far fewer calculations going on "under the hood" than BS does. There is only so much that a computer can do simultaneously, we can´t have "Far Cry"-like graphics AND complicated modelling of systems and flight. This is why study sims will never look as good as cartoon-physics games.


The best example of your point is multi-million dollar full motion simulators... the processing power is in the systems and flight modeling... not the graphics. Just now are we starting to see better graphics in these sims but nothing close to modern PC simulations.

#2650359 - 01/11/09 12:22 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Silverswift]  
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 545
TangoShadow Offline
Member
TangoShadow  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 545
Hi,

I've got pretty much an identical setup to you (same graphics card even, only I have one, not two) and motherboard is different (Asus P5W DH Deluxe i975X).

I have NO issues with DCS:BS. Things get a bit slow in MP with a lot of stuff going on, but otherwise it is very flyable indeed. Typical FPS are around 30, dropping to 20 on a bad day, and like others here, I only suffer a crash sometimes when changing servers.

I suggest you look at just what you're running on your rig, too. I run a lean system (I really mean that).

--TangoShadow

#2650444 - 01/11/09 05:38 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: TangoShadow]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
Actually, Shepski, the rivers appear to be lower than the banks but are in fact the same elevation. It's an optical illusion that only happens at certain angles, and isn't a show stopper; one learns immediately that it's just that - an optical illusion.

Fly up a river or approach at an altitude above 40 feet and it's not there.

[edit]

duh

Quote:
BTW, my crashes occur when I get shot down, or crash, by attempt to stay in game and watch the action.


I had this exact same problem! Turns out the fix is to go into the Ka-50/bin/stable folder and rename (or delete) the lua-direct_output.dll file. I renamed mine "org_lua-direct_output.dll" and alles clar.

Last edited by Dart; 01/11/09 05:42 AM.

The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2650469 - 01/11/09 08:07 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,770
Axel40 Offline
Member
Axel40  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,770
London
Originally Posted By: Dart






Quote:
BTW, my crashes occur when I get shot down, or crash, by attempt to stay in game and watch the action.


I had this exact same problem! Turns out the fix is to go into the Ka-50/bin/stable folder and rename (or delete) the lua-direct_output.dll file. I renamed mine "org_lua-direct_output.dll" and alles clar.


I was about to post this so I'll just reiterate what Dart is saying and I'm quoting him as I don't want you to miss it.
Delete that file and let us know if it fixes your crash issues..... ..or you could try NOT GETTING SHOT DOWN (but that's a tough one) cheers


"Anti Aircraft fire is...very dangerous."
Eddie Rickenbacker 2009
#2650478 - 01/11/09 08:38 AM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: Axel40]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,486
Shepski Offline
Member
Shepski  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,486
Canada
Yes of course the hard surface of the water is at the correct elevation but, visually the rivers and lakes which use the same textures as the Black Sea appear to be at sea level and not at the actual elevation of the water.

Look at the Black Sea from the same elevation of a particular lake or river and you will see the visual similaity.

This is the actual bug report I did about this issue during testing:

Quote:
On this lake(see coordinates) the water level seems to be well below the surface of the land so the FARP structure I placed has the entire 3D object visible underground and under water.

The second screenshot shows how the surface of the water seems to be way below the surface of the ground at what I'd guess is sea level and not the level of the lake.


image here: http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=21703&d=1227303636



#2650546 - 01/11/09 02:40 PM Re: Well, I'm going to be unpopular here, but...... [Re: TangoShadow]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
Mogster Offline
Hotshot
Mogster  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
England
Originally Posted By: TangoShadow

I have NO issues with DCS:BS. Things get a bit slow in MP with a lot of stuff going on, but otherwise it is very flyable indeed. Typical FPS are around 30, dropping to 20 on a bad day, and like others here, I only suffer a crash sometimes when changing servers.


I get similar performance to you, everythings OK till I uncage the Shkval, that's the real kick in the goolies. Uncage the Shkval and the frame rate drops to 15fps or lower. That's the most serious problem with BS at the moment imo.


WAS C2D 8500 3.16ghz, 285gtx 1gb, 4gig ram, XP NOW Win7 64, I5 2500K, SSD, 8Gig ram, GTX 570
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0