jsonedecker Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Anything right below Duo Core is basic these days. The early Duo Cores are starting to step into the basic category. That said... I'm still using my P4 1.8GHz... which I'll fix when I hopefully geta job this comming summer. That actually prooves the point that a P4 3.2 isn't "basic". There are 100's of thousands of gamers in the very same situation as you. Basic means whatever the the low end of the majority has, not where something stacks up against the latest and greatest new toys. It's all about your target market. Of course, maybe the high end is Ubi's new target market for these franchises, who knows. All this really goes beyond the interview, an dI'm just using it as an point of reference since they made that specific comment. -John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Q Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) I bought new pc to play GRAW - athlon 64 3000, gf7600gt, 1,2 GB ram .Dont tell me its not enough to play quick sequel based on same engine Edited February 16, 2007 by Joseph_Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockeystick Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Anything right below Duo Core is basic these days. The early Duo Cores are starting to step into the basic category. That said... I'm still using my P4 1.8GHz... which I'll fix when I hopefully geta job this comming summer. That actually prooves the point that a P4 3.2 isn't "basic". There are 100's of thousands of gamers in the very same situation as you. Basic means whatever the the low end of the majority has, not where something stacks up against the latest and greatest new toys. It's all about your target market. Of course, maybe the high end is Ubi's new target market for these franchises, who knows. All this really goes beyond the interview, an dI'm just using it as an point of reference since they made that specific comment. -John I bought a P4 3.6 GHz two years ago. I would say 3.2 is basic when it comes to gaming computers. If we include computers for work like school computers etc. then the 3.2 would of course not basic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Who is Nouredine Abboud apart from lead, is this a french name have Ubisoft infiltrated the internal corridors of Grin.......???? Not very Swedish sounding eh? Indeedk, I think we have or already lost our Free Spirited/and free posting Dev Team, gone are the days we get the info directly from the horse. The interaction between Dv Team and community was a major break through and yea a good thing. If this has been lost because of Ubisoft internal infiltration it would be a very sad day for us and the dev team too. I hope pressure can be applied to encourage the link to be more active like it was before. Like I said I think its already happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsonedecker Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 It would be very interesting to see what the stats for machines are here on GR.net. I would guess that for the majority of users here, the "basic" setup in that article would be a top end machine and most would not have it. I guess it's opinion, but my point is that it's not compared to what is available for purchase, but what the majority of the people have. So a "basic" system is all relative to what is in people's hands. Check out the Steam stats page for some very interesting stats on what people actually have. Sure it's only Steam customers, but that is a good cross section of the gaming public. Steam Stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vth_F_Smith Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) The interaction between Dv Team and community was a major break through and yea a good thing. If this has been lost because of Ubisoft internal infiltration it would be a very sad day for us and the dev team too.There's no such thing as internal infiltration and please keep the conspiracy theories out of this forum. Remember GRAW 1? The dev team consisted of Grin & Ubi employees. What makes you think it's different this time? In addition, don't you think that Ubi - who has a contract with Grin - is not interessted in observing Grin's progress in order to help them out if it's necessary? A game producer is exactly what the name indicates - a producer. No offense. Edited February 16, 2007 by Vth_F_Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsonedecker Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 It is typical practice to have a publisher's producer in the dev team's offices for a large portion, if not the entire project. It happens all the time. -John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRIN_Wolfsong Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) Anything right below Duo Core is basic these days. The early Duo Cores are starting to step into the basic category. That said... I'm still using my P4 1.8GHz... which I'll fix when I hopefully geta job this comming summer. That actually prooves the point that a P4 3.2 isn't "basic". There are 100's of thousands of gamers in the very same situation as you. Basic means whatever the the low end of the majority has, not where something stacks up against the latest and greatest new toys. It's all about your target market. Of course, maybe the high end is Ubi's new target market for these franchises, who knows. All this really goes beyond the interview, an dI'm just using it as an point of reference since they made that specific comment. -John I bought a P4 3.6 GHz two years ago. I would say 3.2 is basic when it comes to gaming computers. If we include computers for work like school computers etc. then the 3.2 would of course not basic. I see it like this. You got to ask yourself, what would people that don't have much money buy today. That is the low range specs you have to aim at as a developer. Today it would probobly be a 1.8 or 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo with 1-2 Gb RAM and a GeForce 7600GS, as that is what most companies offers as their low price, low spec option for gaming. And the reason I don't have a better computer... I haven't had the need for it. I use the one at school or work. And I spend it on my girlfriend and DVDs. I could easily get a computer with those specs right now. Edited February 16, 2007 by Wolfsong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Q Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 It would be very interesting to see what the stats for machines are here on GR.net. I would guess that for the majority of users here, the "basic" setup in that article would be a top end machine and most would not have it. I guess it's opinion, but my point is that it's not compared to what is available for purchase, but what the majority of the people have. So a "basic" system is all relative to what is in people's hands. Check out the Steam stats page for some very interesting stats on what people actually have. Sure it's only Steam customers, but that is a good cross section of the gaming public. Steam Stats Could someone start a pool " Do your pc meet "basic" setup ? " 1. Above. 2. Equal. 3. Below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vth_F_Smith Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 It is typical practice to have a publisher's producer in the dev team's offices for a large portion, if not the entire project. It happens all the time. -John Exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRiN_DrHanke Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Just to clarify the part about what is considered a basic rig. It is actually a miss quote on behalf of IGN. The question Mr Bonde answered is what computer he was demoing the game on. Not a comment on the requirements for GRAW2. What Nouredine Abboud is saying is the answer to IGN's question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsonedecker Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Just to clarify the part about what is considered a basic rig. It is actually a miss quote on behalf of IGN. The question Mr Bonde answered is what computer he was demoing the game on. Not a comment on the requirements for GRAW2. What Nouredine Abboud is saying is the answer to IGN's question. Cool, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bota:16 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I would expect since GRAW 2 is on the same engine as GRAW 1 and tweaked as it says, the requirements would be the same and you will also expect better performance over GRAW 1. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathDealer71 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Just to clarify the part about what is considered a basic rig. It is actually a miss quote on behalf of IGN. The question Mr Bonde answered is what computer he was demoing the game on. Not a comment on the requirements for GRAW2. What Nouredine Abboud is saying is the answer to IGN's question. Yes thanks for clearing that up. But no doubt you will need a mid to high end system to play games almost from here on out. Games are becoming more and more demanding and system hogs, although it is funny it seems that we have technology that is coming and soon to come on the market that will require some heavy cash to aquire these products. Most ppl with agp cards and low end AMD Cpu's like the XP series will be forced to upgrade sooner rather then later. Graphics cards are becoming so fast that now the cpu/fsb is becoming the bottle neck of systems. But is is although intersting in reference to the Steams stats, that still close to 50% of players still have a AGP Mobo and agp card. I believe right now you cannot aquire no higher than a x1950pro or 7800gs in agp form card. Games at least for the next few years "should" be optimised enough to allow these player's with older systems to play with at least 30fps minimal. But a new game should always be started with a highly optimised engine that supports Shader models 2.0/3.0 and 4.0, and DX9c and 10, to me that makes sense because you can sell to a wider market of ppl. To end my book I believe games like HL2 acheived this, because I can play the game with a low end system, and yet get the eye candy with the high end systems. Well just my thoughts, Death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASGripen Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 It would be very interesting to see what the stats for machines are here on GR.net. I would guess that for the majority of users here, the "basic" setup in that article would be a top end machine and most would not have it. I guess it's opinion, but my point is that it's not compared to what is available for purchase, but what the majority of the people have. So a "basic" system is all relative to what is in people's hands. Check out the Steam stats page for some very interesting stats on what people actually have. Sure it's only Steam customers, but that is a good cross section of the gaming public. Steam Stats Nice info, a lot of strange (and outdated) hardware floating around. Perhaps a poll could do some of the trick here at gr.net. Just stats on GPU and CPU is giving a rather good picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 We have had some infor on specs here or some where else this game would be much the same but may be more memory to be uped a bit. So I would sau the previous spcs would be near. See below. 22nd May 2006 Minimum Requirements: Update Processor: Intel P4 or AMD, 2 GHz Operating System: Windows 2000/XP (only!) Memory: 512 MB RAM Disk Space: 4.5 GB Graphics Card: 128 MB DX9.0c compatible card (GeForce 6200 / Radeon 9600 or higher) *See supported list below Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive : X2 Read Speed DirectX Version: 9.0c Network: High-speed modem with 64 Kbits of data transfer upload rate for a client, 512Kbits of data transfer upload rate for a server on a full game. Recommended Requirements: Processor: Intel P4 or AMD 2.8 GHz Operating System: Windows 2000/XP (only!) Memory: 1024 MB RAM Disk Space: 4.5 GB Graphics Card: 256 MB DX9.0c compatible card *See supported list below Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive : X2 Read Speed DirectX Version: 9.0c Network: High-Speed Modem with 128 Kbits of data transfer upload rate for a client, 512Kbits of data transfer upload rate for a server on a full game. Graphics Cards Supported: ATI Radeon 9600 ATI Radeon 9700 ATI Radeon 9800 ATI Radeon X300 ATI Radeon X600 ATI Radeon X800 ATI Radeon X1600 ATI Radeon X1800 ATI Radeon X1900 nVidia GeForce 6200 nVidia GeForce 6600 nVidia GeForce 6800 nVidia GeForce 7800 Laptop version of these chipsets may work but are not supported. These chipsets are the only ones that will run this game. Additional chipsets may be supported after release. NOTICE: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some DVD-RW and virtual drives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) I'm running an AMD 64 3700+ (san diego with 1MB cache) 2GB PC3200 ATI x1800GTO 256MB SB audigy 4 so not the best rig in the house but it runs GRAW nicely. what kills it for me is, someone with a 600+ ping comes in and jacks the game up so that someone I'm seeing running actually had stopped and killed while they run on my screen in full sprint. I truly hope Grin fixed the game engine. But again I'm optimistic since I've read that GRIN has redone the code from the floor up. This should run GRAW2 better as the game code has been tweaked. I'm hoping... -Papa6 Edited February 16, 2007 by Papa6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawseman Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) Just to clarify the part about what is considered a basic rig. It is actually a miss quote on behalf of IGN. The question Mr Bonde answered is what computer he was demoing the game on. Not a comment on the requirements for GRAW2. What Nouredine Abboud is saying is the answer to IGN's question. Yes thanks for clearing that up. But no doubt you will need a mid to high end system to play games almost from here on out. Games are becoming more and more demanding and system hogs, although it is funny it seems that we have technology that is coming and soon to come on the market that will require some heavy cash to aquire these products. Most ppl with agp cards and low end AMD Cpu's like the XP series will be forced to upgrade sooner rather then later. Graphics cards are becoming so fast that now the cpu/fsb is becoming the bottle neck of systems. But is is although intersting in reference to the Steams stats, that still close to 50% of players still have a AGP Mobo and agp card. I believe right now you cannot aquire no higher than a x1950pro or 7800gs in agp form card. Games at least for the next few years "should" be optimised enough to allow these player's with older systems to play with at least 30fps minimal. But a new game should always be started with a highly optimised engine that supports Shader models 2.0/3.0 and 4.0, and DX9c and 10, to me that makes sense because you can sell to a wider market of ppl. To end my book I believe games like HL2 acheived this, because I can play the game with a low end system, and yet get the eye candy with the high end systems. Well just my thoughts, Death This is true except for the "becoming" part. PC games have always pushed the hardware....that included [GR]. If it didn't, consoles would take over. The sad issue is that even Vista would run slow with that "basic" machine mentioned. You think games are pushing you....Vista is pulling you by the knutz. I've owned a PC since the Commodore64 days, and even then graphics were pushed forward (on the best games anyway). It's all part of the PC gamer's world, and it's never going to change. Now, if we could whip the ATI/NVidia price fixing crap so we can afford to keep gaming. A whole freekin' console costs less than a decent (not even best) video card....w_t_f? Edited February 17, 2007 by Hawseman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimeyAK Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Lots of great info here. Thanks. I do have a few questions though that maybe some other forumers could answer for me. 1. How fast was the demo running on that machine? I'm guessing everything was maxed out more or less. 2. Will the game be optimized for Dual Core? I've had bad experiences with SCDA and other games which said they were, but actually weren't. I think my Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz) should be able to run things nicely. 3. The game will support SLI, right? Again, I've had a bad experience with R6 Vegas and its inability at the moment to run in SLI without changing the .exe filename. Thanks for any help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonelo Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 IGN: Hardware has moved on a lot since the original GRAW, so what new technology improvements feature in the sequel? Lars Bonde: We'd have loved to have used DX10 but unfortunately it wasn't possible to integrate it into the game. If you look at the Xbox 360, which is kind of Direct X 9.5, with unified shaders and other tools, it makes lots of things possible. Oh yeah , no MSAA with DX 10 and not SSAA with DX 9 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creatch Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Wow. All I see is 2 pages about minimum specs. Almost nothing about content. Same with the interview really. Alot of info on specs and either the single player missions or TvT stuff. Nothing about Co-op at all. Well I guess once again the real Co-op player will be left out in the cold as with GR:AW. A map editor while a good thing helps the TvT community more than the Co-op community as is does nothing to ease the use of editing missions which at this point are darn near impossable even for the seasoned IGOR user from [GR]. As a hardcore Co-op player for years and mission modder I had high hopes for the series but was left with a bitter taste in my mouth with all the broken promises for GR:AW. I see nothing all that differant for GR:AW2 really. But that is todays economics rearing it's ugly head. Kind of simple really, you don't make money on a game that lasts 6 years as with [GR] which is partially UBI's fault for if they had continued to make map packs and alike the money would have kept rolling in. Instead we get GR:AW and now GR:AW 2 within a short time. Not an addition to GR:AW but another stand alone game. It's all about turning over games for the console market these days and not the PC user. As with UBI / Redstorm / GRIN or EA or the other thousands of names out there. The money is in consoles which turn over in a few months rather than lasting 6 years. Do the math. Turn out say just 2 games a year @ $60 plus a pop. Multiply that buy 6. Now look at [GR] one game 6 years. Its all about the money here, not the fans. We were told over and over again for GR:AW that Co-op was comming and for all us fans to relax. Never showed. Now are we expected to rely on the same promises ? not likely. Fool me once shame on you, but I'm not falling for it again. Too bad really as the graphics are great the sounds awsome, the maps very cool and the effects stunning. But the content is just plain lacking for the Co-op player which means only one thing. GR is dead for PC. Sad really. I morn it's passing and move on to other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strapt Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 A GeForce 7900GTX, 3.2 GHz P4, with 1.5GB of RAM is pretty basic? oops sorry, I just asked the same question in another post. Glad i'm not the only one who feels that way. I'm sorry, but that is nowhere near basic. A few months ago a relative of mine got a top spec PC from Dell and it is pretty much the same as that apart from the Dell PC having a worse vid card and 2GB RAM instead of 1.5GB. Well, if that's what they're calling basic, whats top end then and how many people actually have a "top end" machine? Anything right below Duo Core is basic these days. The early Duo Cores are starting to step into the basic category. That said... I'm still using my P4 1.8GHz... which I'll fix when I hopefully geta job this comming summer. That actually prooves the point that a P4 3.2 isn't "basic". There are 100's of thousands of gamers in the very same situation as you. Basic means whatever the the low end of the majority has, not where something stacks up against the latest and greatest new toys. It's all about your target market. Of course, maybe the high end is Ubi's new target market for these franchises, who knows. All this really goes beyond the interview, an dI'm just using it as an point of reference since they made that specific comment. -John I bought a P4 3.6 GHz two years ago. I would say 3.2 is basic when it comes to gaming computers. If we include computers for work like school computers etc. then the 3.2 would of course not basic. I see it like this. You got to ask yourself, what would people that don't have much money buy today. That is the low range specs you have to aim at as a developer. Today it would probobly be a 1.8 or 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo with 1-2 Gb RAM and a GeForce 7600GS, as that is what most companies offers as their low price, low spec option for gaming. And the reason I don't have a better computer... I haven't had the need for it. I use the one at school or work. And I spend it on my girlfriend and DVDs. I could easily get a computer with those specs right now. Are you in America? Cos In the UK a top spec PC costs an arm and a leg. And as for installing GRAW on a PC at work.... we'd get the diciplined if we installed tetris or something tiny. How are you going to hide a 3GB game? PS I have one of those low end core duo PCs you were talking about. Is it worth paying £50 jsut for an identical stick of RAM just so the "dual core" will work. Or wont I notice a difference? thanks in advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Wow. All I see is 2 pages about minimum specs. Almost nothing about content. Same with the interview really. Alot of info on specs and either the single player missions or TvT stuff. Nothing about Co-op at all. Well I guess once again the real Co-op player will be left out in the cold as with GR:AW. A map editor while a good thing helps the TvT community more than the Co-op community as is does nothing to ease the use of editing missions which at this point are darn near impossable even for the seasoned IGOR user from [GR]. As a hardcore Co-op player for years and mission modder I had high hopes for the series but was left with a bitter taste in my mouth with all the broken promises for GR:AW. I see nothing all that differant for GR:AW2 really. But that is todays economics rearing it's ugly head. Kind of simple really, you don't make money on a game that lasts 6 years as with [GR] which is partially UBI's fault for if they had continued to make map packs and alike the money would have kept rolling in. Instead we get GR:AW and now GR:AW 2 within a short time. Not an addition to GR:AW but another stand alone game. It's all about turning over games for the console market these days and not the PC user. As with UBI / Redstorm / GRIN or EA or the other thousands of names out there. The money is in consoles which turn over in a few months rather than lasting 6 years. Do the math. Turn out say just 2 games a year @ $60 plus a pop. Multiply that buy 6. Now look at [GR] one game 6 years. Its all about the money here, not the fans. We were told over and over again for GR:AW that Co-op was comming and for all us fans to relax. Never showed. Now are we expected to rely on the same promises ? not likely. Fool me once shame on you, but I'm not falling for it again. Too bad really as the graphics are great the sounds awsome, the maps very cool and the effects stunning. But the content is just plain lacking for the Co-op player which means only one thing. GR is dead for PC. Sad really. I morn it's passing and move on to other things. If indeed a new angle on coop was in this version it would have been well advertised with the other parts that have made into this new game. Zero comment on coop play can only mean one thing again it has been left out. Any one not sure about coop.............Tornamnets/Alpha Squad/+SD This link will show you how many people play coop online. http://alpha.websmart.ro/forums/index.php?...amp;topic=150.0 It lists a lot but not all coop teams around the world. Please remember this is 9 man coop not 4. Some one said here a while ago that tech restrictions prevent this type of coop BS seven years ago it was done, and is still being done every nite. Forget the bells and whistles just give us a decent game. That includes Coop. Ubisoft a nine man squad will earn you more money than a 4 man squad. And it will keep earning money as teams grow, jees do you need a drawing or what. I get so ###### off haveing to go back to GR1 just to get a decent coop game come on Ubi get it sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creatch Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) If indeed a new angle on coop was in this version it would have been well advertised with the other parts that have made into this new game. Zero comment on coop play can only mean one thing again it has been left out. Any one not sure about coop.............Tornamnets/Alpha Squad/+SD This link will show you how many people play coop online. http://alpha.websmart.ro/forums/index.php?...amp;topic=150.0 It lists a lot but not all coop teams around the world. Please remember this is 9 man coop not 4. Some one said here a while ago that tech restrictions prevent this type of coop BS seven years ago it was done, and is still being done every nite. Forget the bells and whistles just give us a decent game. That includes Coop. Ubisoft a nine man squad will earn you more money than a 4 man squad. And it will keep earning money as teams grow, jees do you need a drawing or what. I get so ###### off haveing to go back to GR1 just to get a decent coop game come on Ubi get it sorted. On any givin night we have at least 9 playing missions on the Alpha server. Weekends I have seen regular play of up to 18 playing missions. We were told over 9 would never happen but thanks to the modding community we can now do teams of up to 27 playing the same mission. Not a mear 4 playing a mission but up to 27. I tried to keep some interest in this game for the Co-op community but my efforts have be repeatedly thwarted by UBI in their total lack of respect for the Co-op community and the lack of forsight of another game continueing for years instead of months. The BF2 series has lasted for a long time and continues to make money as they keep making exspantion packs and newer versions. This series started over 5 years ago and still has a huge following. I have seen nothing but declining numbers playing GR:AW even in the TvT arena. Too many hacks, too many conection problems. Sometimes you can't even find a server you know is running. As I have said all the bells and whistles are great, cutting edge stuff which is to be appladed. But the content is seriously lacking. And as I have said trying to make Co-op missions for GR:AW is darn near impossable. Very limited options as to what you can do. Only single objectives. You can't change tango reactions depending on what happens. All of which were easy to do with IGOR. I have made missions with up to 6 differant senerios depending on what the players do and where they go, With GR:AW this is not even an option. I dare UBI or GRIN to prove me wrong here. Add some serious content and an easier mission editor and you will have another huge hit as you did with [GR]. But prove that the economics are more important and you will see your numbers falling from the map faster than tangos in a Fire fight. Please make me look silly, make me a laughing stock for the community and I will do everything in my power to get the Co-op community behind this game and another huge hit will be yours. I beg you. PLEASE ! Edited February 17, 2007 by Creatch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRIN_Wolfsong Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) Of course it can be done. But then the min specs will rise a lot, and you're all already complaining about how much hardware you have to have to run the game... It was done 7 years ago, sure. But we've been over how much simpler everything was back then in other topics. You can't say it has been done if it hasn't been done within the last year with the same polycount, texture resolution, physics level, joint numbers, map size and animation detail. It makes no sense at all otherwise. Try to solve the problem and present the technical solution... Once you've tried you'll find that it's not as easy as the community thinks it is. Once again. Sure it would be nice. But if only 4 players are allowed then the community will have to adapt for it or simply move on to another game without complaining about it. Edited February 17, 2007 by Wolfsong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.