Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 8 of 22 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 21 22
#3665048 - 10/18/12 11:54 AM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Chris2525 Offline
Member
Chris2525  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Canada
It seems people just want their modern era aircraft. I get it, but it doesn't make sense to complain about ED permitting third parties to create historic aircraft modules to that end.


Windows 7 Home Premium x64 / Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.9GHz / 8192MB DDR3 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / TM Warthog / Saitek Pro Fight Rudder Pedals / TrackIR5
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3665119 - 10/18/12 02:17 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: Chris2525]  
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
scotsmen54 Offline
Member
scotsmen54  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
Canada
Originally Posted By: Chris2525
It seems people just want their modern era aircraft. I get it, but it doesn't make sense to complain about ED permitting third parties to create historic aircraft modules to that end.


Can't really disagree. However DCS stems from the series Lockon Modern Air Combat. ED continued with this idea of Modern Aircraft and continued it into the FC series and the first two modules of DCS series(KA-50 and A-10). It would appear that this is the intent of ED to continue the idea of Modern Air and now ground forces in the DCS-CA module.


Ubisoft with the IL series is doing the much older aircraft as seen in theirs series of Products.

You are correct in your statement that you can't control what 3rd party developers want to make. I think maybe the problem started with DCS doing the P-51. I think this was the result of a team member doing this and ED was impressed by his work that they Produced the P-51.

This could have given a wrong message to 3rd parties, I don't know, this is only my assumption and nothing to do with any comments from ED.

I think the although I don't speak for the community, that we expected ED to continue with Modern Aircraft. Just my take.

#3665135 - 10/18/12 02:48 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 92
unclemiller Offline
Junior Member
unclemiller  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 92
Kentucky - United States
Bring on the Huey UH-1H. I will be thoroughly disappointed though if I can't turn up my surround sound and here that wonderful, beautiful "chop" that those 2 blades make whilst cutting thru the air. And, yeah, turn on some CCR "Fortunate Son" during all of this.

THANK YOU,

Uncle


Asus Sabertooth Z77 motherboard
Intel i5-3570K OC'd @ 4.1Ghz CPU cooled by Corsair H100i
G-skill 16GB DDR3-1866 memory
EVGA GTX670 2GB FTW video card
Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium sound card
Corsair 800D case
Plextor 128GB SSD
Samsung 250GB SSD
Toshiba 3000GB HDD (2)
Planar PX2710MW monitor
Logitech G510 KB and G500 mouse
Turtle Beach PX21 headset and Sony 5.1 surround speakers
Cougar HOTAS USB w/ TM RCS analog rudders
Warthog HOTAS w/ Saitek Combat rudder pedals

#3665145 - 10/18/12 03:11 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: scotsmen54]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
Originally Posted By: scotsmen54
However DCS stems from the series Lockon Modern Air Combat.


No, it doesn't. DCS is something completely different. You're confusing reuse of some resources with reuse of concepts.

Quote:
You are correct in your statement that you can't control what 3rd party developers want to make. I think maybe the problem started with DCS doing the P-51. I think this was the result of a team member doing this and ED was impressed by his work that they Produced the P-51.

This could have given a wrong message to 3rd parties, I don't know, this is only my assumption and nothing to do with any comments from ED.


What 'problem' and what 'wrong message'? Lots of people were excited to see an old warbird; just because one part of the community isn't getting what they want, doesn't mean another isn't. Plenty of people want to see additional WW2 content.

Quote:
I think the although I don't speak for the community, that we expected ED to continue with Modern Aircraft. Just my take.


As far as I know, DCS: Next will be pretty modern.


--
44th VFW
#3665197 - 10/18/12 05:10 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 179
Derk Offline
Member
Derk  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 179
Hengelo, the Netherlands
Guys, what's the point of all this fighting?

Belsimtek (not Eagle Dynamics, where did they get involved?) is developing a helicopter that recently entered service with the Georgian armed forces as part of the military rebuild following the 2008 war. Germany and Norway, both represented in DCS World each have Huey's in their airforce as well. Also several south-american countries have hueys in their arsenal. It still fits in a modern day setting, though maybe not by US, or your standards.
The UH-1H is not a state-of-the-art frontline weapons delivery platform like the A-10C or say an F-18. It never was supposed to take on that role either. It's a utility helicopter 1st with limited attack capabilities 2nd and bringing it into the DCS world opens up new simulation possibilities for tose who seek it. There are other 3rd party projects in the works that do bring modern day jet fighters. Belsimtek is fleshing out the world instead of adding to the fighter pool. They do something new and different and get chewed at for it.

Back when i was playing LOMAC i was thinking how cool it would be if i could fly support, a*ss and trash, insertion, extractions, CSAR, whatever, while you fighter pilots are out there on the line making my job possible. All that is now within reach thanks to Belsimtek (not Eagle Dynamics) and some creative mission building. I have been waiting for an in-depth utility helicopter simulation in a combat enviroment for years! Belsimtek team, you are my heroes!

Now this is just my line of thoughts, but if this 3rd party thing takes off, i can see eagle dynamics to focus more and more on the development of new technology and engine advancements and pull out of aircraft developement all together.


Derk
I'm still an airman. I just happen to change diapers for a living!

crap...
#3665225 - 10/18/12 05:56 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: Remon]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 133
ADHS Offline
Member
ADHS  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 133
Australia
Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: ADHS
Originally Posted By: Remon
Again, the Huey is 3rd party, it isn't made by ED.

And why is this so important Remon ?
Off course updates fixes etc will be developers responsibility but ED
has responsibility also to choose responsible 3rd party affiliates.


I really can't follow your logic. How are you deeming Belsimtek an irresponsible affiliate? Have you seen their work? Is the choice of the ship that bad that it automaticaly makes Belsimtek bad? Out of the list of modules ED has commisioned other parties to make, is this the only one you've seen?

And don't tell me you're posting here because you care about the wellfare of the DCS series. I've read enough posts from you to understand that you more likely care about finding more reasons to cry. I haven't seen you commenting on posts about the F-15, F-14, F-18, Mig-21, Harrier and all the other planes they're making, but of course that's not why you're here.

Remon , propably you haven't understand my question. And why is this so important Remon ?
And i haven't blame Belsimtek or any one else 3rd party developer(s)! Where did you get this for me while i ask a question in general?
Will you cut the crap about why i am posting and for any of my previous posts in other matters or threads? Wake up and read carfully.

Last edited by ADHS; 10/18/12 06:12 PM.
#3665253 - 10/18/12 06:32 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 179
Derk Offline
Member
Derk  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 179
Hengelo, the Netherlands
please guys, if it's personal send a PM. Let's keep this on topic and unlocked

thanks


Derk
I'm still an airman. I just happen to change diapers for a living!

crap...
#3665271 - 10/18/12 06:51 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: Derk]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 133
ADHS Offline
Member
ADHS  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 133
Australia
Originally Posted By: Derk
please guys, if it's personal send a PM. Let's keep this on topic and unlocked
thanks

I fully agree with you Derk.
I had to answer because this was personal against me and was in public.

Last edited by ADHS; 10/18/12 06:52 PM.
#3665282 - 10/18/12 07:01 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
If you look at what the Germans for example all did with their UH-1D, it's not such an outdated platform. They were even considering them for CSAR in Afghanistan around 2008.

#3665318 - 10/18/12 07:41 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
scotsmen54 Offline
Member
scotsmen54  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
Canada
GrayGhost:

DCS in my mind is just a continuation of the Lockon idea. DCS was meant to put it into module format, which took a little hick up but we are there now. ED does have last word in what is put into the DCS-World core module and seeing as where this all started it does not seem to lend well to older aircraft. I did not say the Huey. Some are looking for more WWII aircraft to use with and against the P-51. There are a lot of community members that agree that something like the P-51 era is out of place in the DCS series. Most members have been waiting for the next module to be a DCS- fixed wing fighter. I think this shows where the mind set is for most. DCS- World from what we see from the Module is meant for Modern aircraft. DCS-CA is meant for Modern warfare. Terrain and mapping is for Modern warfare. I don't see anything wrong with the Huey, as it fits in. The P-51 does not and any 3rd party should probably not follow this type of aircraft in the present DCS-world Series. Maybe down the road ED will add a theater module that makes since to develop such aircraft but not now. That is how I see it. Probably others see it different. I would say lets just see where ED takes the DCS series of today.

#3665327 - 10/18/12 07:56 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: scotsmen54]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
Originally Posted By: scotsmen54
GrayGhost:

DCS in my mind is just a continuation of the Lockon idea. DCS was meant to put it into module format, which took a little hick up but we are there now. ED does have last word in what is put into the DCS-World core module and seeing as where this all started it does not seem to lend well to older aircraft.


DCS was meant to be exactly what it is being right now: A platform. What DCS is meant to be is up to ED, not your interpretation, with all due respect.

Quote:
I did not say the Huey. Some are looking for more WWII aircraft to use with and against the P-51. There are a lot of community members that agree that something like the P-51 era is out of place in the DCS series.


There is huge amount of community members who want to see more WWII content.

Quote:
Most members have been waiting for the next module to be a DCS- fixed wing fighter. I think this shows where the mind set is for most.


No, it shows where the mind set is for most fast-jet fans. There's a huge number of WWII fans.

Quote:
DCS- World from what we see from the Module is meant for Modern aircraft.


DCSW is meant to be a platform for any vehicle, any time. This was clearly stated by Wags somewhere, IIRC.

Quote:
DCS-CA is meant for Modern warfare. Terrain and mapping is for Modern warfare.


CA can be used with any era vehicles. Terrain, same deal.

Quote:
I don't see anything wrong with the Huey, as it fits in. The P-51 does not and any 3rd party should probably not follow this type of aircraft in the present DCS-world Series.


They most definitely should follow this type of aircraft if it is what they wish to do.

Quote:
Maybe down the road ED will add a theater module that makes since to develop such aircraft but not now. That is how I see it. Probably others see it different. I would say lets just see where ED takes the DCS series of today.


ED already showed exactly where it intends DCSW to go: A platform for any vehicle, any time frame.
As for terrain, I suspect once Nevada/EDGE is out, it will also be 'any terrain'.

Last edited by GrayGhost; 10/18/12 07:56 PM.

--
44th VFW
#3665359 - 10/18/12 08:54 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
scotsmen54 Offline
Member
scotsmen54  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
Canada
GrayGhost:

Well I have my thoughts and you have yours. Nothing wrong with that. Nice chat. smile2

#3665390 - 10/18/12 09:42 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,462
AggressorBLUE Offline
Check out my
AggressorBLUE  Offline
Check out my
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,462
Jerz
GrayGhost is right. DCS isn't a modern combat simulator/platform. It just so happens that the content to date has been focused on modern military flight.

The primary reason DCS has been focused on modern combat is because ED builds sims first for Governments/Organizations (eg, the A-10C systems desktop trainer contract) and consumers second (eg DCS: Warthog). There's not much professional need for a WWII or Vietnam or Korean War sim at this point, hence the to-date lack of content from those eras.

My guess, is that we're seeing a renewed focus on this open architecture being, well, opened more to third parties with intent for consumer sales is due to a slow down in government sim contracts. This means that ED is starting to shift toward being a more consumer-oriented company. Meaning there's now reason to include lots of third party projects to quickly build out the platform, and no real reason to not develop content from different eras.

I'll bet within a year or so, we will start seeing announcements for products that do for DCS what Iron Front: Liberation 1944 did for ARMA II; deliver a title that includes all the relevant content from a given war in one package. At that point, DCS: World will probably be a more powerful content manager (think mod manager on steroids) that shuffle around various products and theaters to avoid issues such as mismatched tech.



Last edited by AggressorBLUE; 10/18/12 09:43 PM.

My Rig:i5-3570k @ 4.2 GHZ W/ Corsair Hydro H110 Cooler / Asus Sabertooth Z77 Mobo / GTX 1070/ 16 Gigs DDR3 RAM / A Few SSDs, and a Bunch of HDDs / All held together by: Corsair C70 Case

Other Assets Deployed:
HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog SN#22621/CH Throttle Quad/MFG Crosswind Pedals SN#0004 smile
TrackIR TIR 5 w/ TrackClip Pro biggrin
Simpit: Obutto R3VOLUTION


#3665407 - 10/18/12 09:55 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: scotsmen54]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Chris2525 Offline
Member
Chris2525  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Canada
Originally Posted By: scotsmen54
DCS in my mind is just a continuation of the Lockon idea....There are a lot of community members that agree that something like the P-51 era is out of place in the DCS series.


Well i'm afriad your idea of what DCS is is off base. The P-51 release should be a good indication that the direction DCS is taking is that of a broad spectrum of historical periods.

Originally Posted By: scotsmen54
Most members have been waiting for the next module to be a DCS- fixed wing fighter.


And it will be. In the mean time, 3rd party developers are offing aircraft from all sorts of eras. This doesn't interfere with ED's development of modern era aircraft. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't want to buy classic era modules, you don't have to, just as you don't have to buy classic aircraft for FSX or XPlane if you don't want to.

Originally Posted By: scotsmen54
DCS- World from what we see from the Module is meant for Modern aircraft. DCS-CA is meant for Modern warfare. Terrain and mapping is for Modern warfare.


....until a 3rd party developer develops a historic terrain.

Originally Posted By: scotsmen54
The P-51 does not and any 3rd party should probably not follow this type of aircraft in the present DCS-world Series.


No offense, but just because you're not interested in historic aircraft, vehicles or terrain doesn't mean other aren't, or that developers shouldn't be allowed to develop them. I for one would be glad to see a Vietnam terrain, and more Vietnam era modules come out for DCS. And if i weren't, i'd have simply not to purchase them.

ED opening up the sim to developers to create modules for any era does not hinder the development of modern era content. Following FC3, ED's next releases are likely going to be a modern nevada terrain and a modern fixed wing fast mover. Someone else making a huey that can be used with DCSW doesn't change that. As well, there's a swathe of 3rd party modern aircraft in development. One or two parties choosing to develop historic aircraft does not impede your gameplay experience in those areas, it just offers people with a wider set of interests something to play with. I really don't get the criticism.


Last edited by Chris2525; 10/18/12 10:02 PM.

Windows 7 Home Premium x64 / Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.9GHz / 8192MB DDR3 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / TM Warthog / Saitek Pro Fight Rudder Pedals / TrackIR5
#3665409 - 10/18/12 09:58 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Chris2525 Offline
Member
Chris2525  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Canada
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost

There is huge amount of community members who want to see more WWII content.


I'm one of them.


Windows 7 Home Premium x64 / Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.9GHz / 8192MB DDR3 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / TM Warthog / Saitek Pro Fight Rudder Pedals / TrackIR5
#3665418 - 10/18/12 10:06 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,000
bonchie Offline
Member
bonchie  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,000
I think the one issue with the huge variation in eras and types of aircraft is how you make it all work in one game.

If I wanted to just fly different kinds of planes I'd go do that in FSX. I want to fly but I want to be immersed in a war as well. I want missions and more importantly campaigns. I want career achievements and story lines. I think a lot of others do as well.

Heck, I want what DCS world promises to be. Controlling vehicles, maybe even soldiers at some point, controlling AWACS, others flying the planes, etc.

So it's not that I or others are against a P-51. I just don't want to see DCS become a military FSX and it lose the game and immersive battlefield part of it. It's also why the Nevada terrain doesn't appeal to me. I want a new war zone with campaigns built in it. A training area outside Las Vegas just doesn't appeal.

Hopefully DCS is cooking up something fresh to go a long with their next major fixed wing release.

Last edited by bonchie; 10/18/12 10:07 PM.
#3665427 - 10/18/12 10:22 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: bonchie]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Chris2525 Offline
Member
Chris2525  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,666
Canada
Originally Posted By: bonchie
I think the one issue with the huge variation in eras and types of aircraft is how you make it all work in one game.


You don't. Some missions will be in modern era, some will be vietnam, others will be WW2. There's no requirement for any of these to be playing in the same mission.

Originally Posted By: bonchie
If I wanted to just fly different kinds of planes I'd go do that in FSX. I want to fly but I want to be immersed in a war as well.


How does having the option of playing a combat sim in different eras with according terrain, aircraft and vehicles hinder your ability to be immersed in war?

People need to wrap their heads around the fact that there's no intention to have F-15s, Huey hogs and P-51s all playing in the same mission.

Last edited by Chris2525; 10/18/12 10:23 PM.

Windows 7 Home Premium x64 / Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.9GHz / 8192MB DDR3 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / TM Warthog / Saitek Pro Fight Rudder Pedals / TrackIR5
#3665443 - 10/18/12 10:40 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: citizen guod]  
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,674
EinsteinEP Offline
Just a Noob
EinsteinEP  Offline
Just a Noob
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,674
Tucson, AZ
If a mission designer wants to create a mission that has only aircraft from a certain region/era, he/she is welcome to do so. Just because P-51Ds CAN be available doesn't mean they HAVE to be in every single mission.


Shoot to Kill.
Play to Have Fun.
#3665475 - 10/18/12 11:56 PM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: bonchie]  
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
scotsmen54 Offline
Member
scotsmen54  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 176
Canada
Originally Posted By: bonchie
I think the one issue with the huge variation in eras and types of aircraft is how you make it all work in one game.

If I wanted to just fly different kinds of planes I'd go do that in FSX. I want to fly but I want to be immersed in a war as well. I want missions and more importantly campaigns. I want career achievements and story lines. I think a lot of others do as well.

Heck, I want what DCS world promises to be. Controlling vehicles, maybe even soldiers at some point, controlling AWACS, others flying the planes, etc.

So it's not that I or others are against a P-51. I just don't want to see DCS become a military FSX and it lose the game and immersive battlefield part of it. It's also why the Nevada terrain doesn't appeal to me. I want a new war zone with campaigns built in it. A training area outside Las Vegas just doesn't appeal.

Hopefully DCS is cooking up something fresh to go a long with their next major fixed wing release.



Exactly. It seems that people are missing some points. How big do you think DCS-World will be? How are you going to manipulate all that data. Can it be done, probably, will it take an enormous amount of time and effort, most likely. I want to play this simulation some time in this Century. The Bigger it gets the more errors and code to fix. Fix one may break another. If this is the way it will go, it is a massive undertaking to say the least. How long are people willing to wait is the question. If you leave AFM up to each 3rd party developer, who knows how each will work with the main Module. What about MP? ED is holding on to AFM so this may or may not be problematic for 3rd party developers who do their own. Much to consider. Not CRITIQUING, asking questions, seeing what forum members are saying, not just me. All want the same, its how to get there. Brainstorming,asking questions and input surely can't be a negative impression to leave here. No harm intended. Hopefully non taken.

#3665487 - 10/19/12 12:22 AM Re: Announcement: DCS: UH-1H Huey [Re: ADHS]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Remon Offline
Member
Remon  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,342
Greece
Originally Posted By: ADHS

And i haven't blame Belsimtek or any one else 3rd party developer(s)! Where did you get this for me while i ask a question in general?
Will you cut the crap about why i am posting and for any of my previous posts in other matters or threads? Wake up and read carfully.


Are you having a laugh? If not, ok, I'll remind you what you said, again, so it won't be too difficult to see.

"And why is this so important Remon ?
Off course updates fixes etc will be developers responsibility but ED
has responsibility also to choose responsible 3rd party affiliates"

Do you really want me to point out where you said that Belsimtek is irresponsible? It's your writings there, "but ED has responsibiltty also to choose responsible 3rd party affiliates". Right there, there's where you say that Belsimtek is irresponsible, or else you wouldn't write that? Do you want me to use a larger font? "but ED has responsibiltty also to choose responsible 3rd party affiliates".

Do you really want me to explain how your phrasing makes it seem like you don't think this would be EDs because Belsimtek is an irresponsible 3rd party affiliate? That's the whole gist of the conversation, you don't understand how it's important that the module is beeing developed by a 3rd party, and that ED should choose better their affiliates.

Page 8 of 22 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 21 22

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