Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
Rygaard

I will not be silent this time. Just my opinion !

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, polynut said:

Don't get me wrong i am not saying the video tutorials are bad just that they don't show the true potential of the software and they are not organize efficiently in my own opinion. A section with only quick tip to get artists in the production pipeline would help tremendously. I know it is not easy since i have been teaching 3ds max for 7 years in college but there is always place for amelioration.

I don't know if you know the guy from Udemy, Timothy Trankle who currently have free blender+3d coat tutorial here the link : https://www.udemy.com/advanced-3d-prop-modeling-in-blender/

This guy tutorial is simply of of the finest example i saw so far showing 3d coat capabilities in a very elegant way, for those interested hurry up because this is a 500 limit so i got it 5 days ago and they should have some place left.

If I want to learn how to do a complete and high-end character, let's say in 3ds Max or Maya. The last place I would look for it would be Autodesk's own website or forum. They have lots of videos, like we do, but full project series videos are most commonly found on 3rd party sites, like the ones I previously mentioned/posted.

https://gumroad.com/metalman123456123#

Pluralsight also has some "Organized" training. Youtube is a great platform for free training and is in a high traffic area to make it easily accessible, but it doesn't lend itself to the kind of "Organization" you are referring to. That's why you have Quick Start Playlists for the different areas of the application. I'm sorry to hear it doesn't meet your standards.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz7E0meXd2yMj4TKY2h0Rbg/playlists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, polynut said:

Don't get me wrong i am not saying the video tutorials are bad just that they don't show the true potential of the software and they are not organize efficiently in my own opinion. A section with only quick tip to get artists in the production pipeline would help tremendously. I know it is not easy since i have been teaching 3ds max for 7 years in college but there is always place for amelioration.

I don't know if you know the guy from Udemy, Timothy Trankle who currently have free blender+3d coat tutorial here the link : https://www.udemy.com/advanced-3d-prop-modeling-in-blender/

This guy tutorial is simply of of the finest example i saw so far showing 3d coat capabilities in a very elegant way, for those interested hurry up because this is a 500 limit so i got it 5 days ago and they should have some place left.

Here are some additional free resources. It may not wow you, but at least you get your money's worth. :D

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Here are some additional free resources. It may not wow you, but at least you get your money's worth. :D

 

Both are from the guy i mention in former post Timothy Trankle and anyone using 3d coat should get his free course on udemy while it last, the blender modeling section is also amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Andrew knows and understands the importance of unification within 3D-Coat and the benefits it would bring to 3D-Coat.
No one said that Andrew chose a wrong or correct strategy. I love the program and 3D-Coat is my main program!

I think you know that a company to survive in the market needs to always review its concepts, constantly be reinventing itself and mainly to be attentive to consumers. This is vital for a company to continue with its doors open.
This means, in addition to developing what already exists, the company must also choose to add new development strategies. And watch what your competitors are doing.
Regardless of anything, everything has to have a certain investment, strategy and time to be made. These are some of the factors that make a program or company succeed or not.

So, from what I understand, please correct me if I am wrong:
You know Andrew's thoughts, needs and nightmares (including time and investment). In the end, you answer for Andrew and decide what Andrew wants to do or not if you see whether the things are advantages or not in your opinion.

So far what I've read is hard to believe.
Because for you everything is perfect in 3D-Coat and that users can easily reapply with the current 3D-Coat tools any workflow, features and tools that I have demonstrated in Blender. Is that serious?

I do not want to defend ZBrush, but again, you talk about workarounds in ZBrush? Of possible limitations in ZBrush? I do not really understand you, the people who use ZBrush even in this community, will find it strange that you say it all. Does not make sense at all.
So why is ZBrush the standard production program in the industry and considered the best 3D program by most artists and studios?
I think many artists would not agree with you.
But I respect your opinion and your thinking about ZBrush.

You said that it would add complexity to the program if Andrew implemented the quads system (multi-resolution and etc.) and unification of the Rooms, I honestly can not see that and do not agree with you.
The intention would be quite the opposite, it would facilitate a new type of simplified workflow and better communicability between Rooms (depending on how this system was implemented). If it were possible to be implemented, it would only be to add new possibilities to the program and not replace anything that already exists in 3D-Coat.

Why do not you ask all users what they think about the operation and if there is ease of use and understanding of 3D-Coat?
Because what I see most are people with extreme difficulty learning and using the program in a workflow. Even I was one of those people. I almost gave up using 3D-Coat because of that.  Thank God that did not happen! :)

With all due respect, but what does it mean if you have more than a decade of using 3D-Coat?
In my opinion, that does not make you different from all other artists, especially when you judge all the things I've shown and suggested in the video as not bringing any or very little benefit to 3D-Coat. It's hard to believe it! But I respect your opinion... ;) 

If I am completely wrong in everything and no notion, please....other artists appear and comment if what I demonstrated would not benefit all of us.

I've been testing 3D-Coat for a long time before buying a license and at the beginning of my learning in the 3d world (many, many, many years ago) I had to learn and use ZBrush v2 before I knew about 3D-Coat .
So... I guess I have some experience in the things I say. Good season of boxing Modeling or Poly by Poly, is not it true?
My God, true horror movie! :D I suffered a lot this time of learning. :(

The only thing I agree with you are the possible implementations. Because anything that makes 3D-Coat become better I support and sign underneath.
But in my opinion, I'd like Andrew to reflect a little on the things I've shown in the video. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rygaard said:

I think Andrew knows and understands the importance of unification within 3D-Coat and the benefits it would bring to 3D-Coat.
No one said that Andrew chose a wrong or correct strategy. I love the program and 3D-Coat is my main program!

I think you know that a company to survive in the market needs to always review its concepts, constantly be reinventing itself and mainly to be attentive to consumers. This is vital for a company to continue with its doors open.
This means, in addition to developing what already exists, the company must also choose to add new development strategies. And watch what your competitors are doing.
Regardless of anything, everything has to have a certain investment, strategy and time to be made. These are some of the factors that make a program or company succeed or not.

So, from what I understand, please correct me if I am wrong:
You know Andrew's thoughts, needs and nightmares (including time and investment). In the end, you answer for Andrew and decide what Andrew wants to do or not if you see whether the things are advantages or not in your opinion.

So far what I've read is hard to believe.
Because for you everything is perfect in 3D-Coat and that users can easily reapply with the current 3D-Coat tools any workflow, features and tools that I have demonstrated in Blender. Is that serious?

I do not want to defend ZBrush, but again, you talk about workarounds in ZBrush? Of possible limitations in ZBrush? I do not really understand you, the people who use ZBrush even in this community, will find it strange that you say it all. Does not make sense at all.
So why is ZBrush the standard production program in the industry and considered the best 3D program by most artists and studios?
I think many artists would not agree with you.
But I respect your opinion and your thinking about ZBrush.

You said that it would add complexity to the program if Andrew implemented the quads system (multi-resolution and etc.) and unification of the Rooms, I honestly can not see that and do not agree with you.
The intention would be quite the opposite, it would facilitate a new type of simplified workflow and better communicability between Rooms (depending on how this system was implemented). If it were possible to be implemented, it would only be to add new possibilities to the program and not replace anything that already exists in 3D-Coat.

Why do not you ask all users what they think about the operation and if there is ease of use and understanding of 3D-Coat?
Because what I see most are people with extreme difficulty learning and using the program in a workflow. Even I was one of those people. I almost gave up using 3D-Coat because of that.  Thank God that did not happen! :)

With all due respect, but what does it mean if you have more than a decade of using 3D-Coat?
In my opinion, that does not make you different from all other artists, especially when you judge all the things I've shown and suggested in the video as not bringing any or very little benefit to 3D-Coat. It's hard to believe it! But I respect your opinion... ;) 

If I am completely wrong in everything and no notion, please....other artists appear and comment if what I demonstrated would not benefit all of us.

I've been testing 3D-Coat for a long time before buying a license and at the beginning of my learning in the 3d world (many, many, many years ago) I had to learn and use ZBrush v2 before I knew about 3D-Coat .
So... I guess I have some experience in the things I say. Good season of boxing Modeling or Poly by Poly, is not it true?
My God, true horror movie! :D I suffered a lot this time of learning. :(

The only thing I agree with you are the possible implementations. Because anything that makes 3D-Coat become better I support and sign underneath.
But in my opinion, I'd like Andrew to reflect a little on the things I've shown in the video. ;)

I don't know everything Andrew plans. Just expressing the little I do know, and that is introducing Quad meshes + SubD levels means more than just adding a new mesh type. He'd have to go through and enable every brush and tool to work with it, and it would add a 3 panel to have to work with. It would take a TON of development time and return very little investment.

Think of it this way. Let's say you have an old (15-25yrs+) vehicle that you'd like to sell. It needs major body work + new paint job. So, you take it around town to get a few estimates to see what it will cost to get that done. The cheapest place will charge $5000 USD. You know that if you were to try and sell it afterwards, you still would not be able to sell it for half that amount. It's a great idea to have the work done, but in terms of dollars and cents, it makes no sense.

The point here is, not every "Great Idea" makes practical sense in ones specific circumstance. For 3DCoat, I'm saying it doesn't make practical sense to me.

I still would like to see Andrew consolidate the Retopo and Paint Meshes, so there are fewer workspaces and mesh types. But, I am not seeing clear advantages of complicating the Sculpt Room with yet another mesh type/platform. Who knows. If he does plan to make Paint Meshes editable in the Sculpt Room, it might change things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Retopo and Paint Meshes can be consolidated, then Paint Meshes should be editable in the Sculpt Room, because there is already "Conform Retopo Mesh" option in some of the tools in the Sculpt Room, so it's just logical. Just because there will be no more Paint Meshes and Retopo Meshes - just one Low-poly Mesh.

The point is what “editable” means. I mean editable with sculpting tools or with low-poly modeling tools.

Anyway, it is very desirable to manipulate high-poly and low-poly together sometimes and, possibly, to allow low-poly to drive high-poly somehow.

Edited by druh0o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

I don't know everything Andrew plans. Just expressing the little I do know, and that is introducing Quad meshes + SubD levels means more than just adding a new mesh type. He'd have to go through and enable every brush and tool to work with it, and it would add a 3 panel to have to work with. It would take a TON of development time and return very little investment.

Think of it this way. Let's say you have an old (15-25yrs+) vehicle that you'd like to sell. It needs major body work + new paint job. So, you take it around town to get a few estimates to see what it will cost to get that done. The cheapest place will charge $5000 USD. You know that if you were to try and sell it afterwards, you still would not be able to sell it for half that amount. It's a great idea to have the work done, but in terms of dollars and cents, it makes no sense.

The point here is, not every "Great Idea" makes practical sense in ones specific circumstance. For 3DCoat, I'm saying it doesn't make practical sense to me.

I still would like to see Andrew consolidate the Retopo and Paint Meshes, so there are fewer workspaces and mesh types. But, I am not seeing clear advantages of complicating the Sculpt Room with yet another mesh type/platform. Who knows. If he does plan to make Paint Meshes editable in the Sculpt Room, it might change things.

I understand what you mean ... ;)

But this whole mess or lack of understanding was because I did not explain my idea or suggestion to you. Sorry for that!

I'd like to say that the implementation codes and changes ... have nothing to do with the Sculp Room. The Sculpt Room would not change anything!

You were talking about the Sculpt Room all this time and I did not.

In my opinion there were 2 ways to implement what I said in the video:
1) It would be radical changes in 3D-Coat.
It would be an option, but a difficult decision and with remote possibilities for Andrew to decide. This remote possibility would only be taken if Andrew's strategy would only generate a great return to 3D-Coat. In my opinion, I find that very difficult because Andrew would need to rewrite 3D-Coat. Because the operation of 3D-Coat is related to different types of Meshes that have been optimized in performing a certain task / room.

2) Workable solution:
The idea I had was not going to mess with the Sculpt Room, much less mess with the current operation of 3D-Coat.
Everything you know about 3D-Coat would be the same ... Implementations, certain changes and a bit of communicability would be more focused on another 3D-Coat Room for these implementations to happen.
As I do not know the functioning or optimization of this Room (in relation to the codes) I do not know if there would be a possibility of these implementations being feasible to be made in this Room.
If it is not possible ... it would be sad because they would be powerful features that we would have inside 3D-Coat, but at least I tried.


I will send you an image and maybe you could tell me if this idea could be implemented (since you have more experience with 3D-Coat), can it be? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, druh0o said:

If Retopo and Paint Meshes can be consolidated, then Paint Meshes should be editable in the Sculpt Room, because there is already "Conform Retopo Mesh" option in some of the tools in the Sculpt Room, so it's just logical. Just because there will be no more Paint Meshes and Retopo Meshes - just one Low-poly Mesh.

The point is what “editable” means. I mean editable with sculpting tools or with low-poly modeling tools.

Anyway, it is very desirable to manipulate high-poly and low-poly together sometimes and, possibly, to allow low-poly to drive high-poly somehow.

I think that would be very doable for Andrew. It's something I have thought about asking him, because it would allow the Pose tool to be much more useful, if one could use vertex/edge/poly selections of low poly mesh to be used as an FFD cage.

Conform Retopo Mesh might also be enabled for brushes as well, because it could operate the same way REMOVE STRETCHING does, in that it performs the operation once they user mouses-up (stops stroke). There is a bit of a performance penalty in more dense meshes, but REMOVE STRETCHING is barely noticeable on lower to mid resolution meshses.

Merging/Consolidating Paint and Retopo Meshes would allow Paint Meshes then to be modified this way. With both large scale tools and with brushes. There actually is a current implementation of Subpatch levels in the Paint Room. It's in the VIEW Menu > Adjust Tessellation. If Andrew could merge that panel the Surfaces Panel, it could be highly useful for Quad Mesh Sub-D work, on Paint Objects. 

We also need to have PPP mode store depth data like Micro Vertex does, so we can more easily create Blendshapes/Morph Targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know if this would be possible, but my idea is this:

Even though I do not know about the 3D-Coat codes, but observing the operation of the program in relation to all the Rooms.
I started to do some tests between all the Rooms and I noticed something that was forgotten and for many users here would be a Room that could be taken from the 3D-Coat because it would not have much use. In the beginning, I would agree with everyone here, but when I went to test in my Mesh and in practice I noticed that the Tweak Room would be the key and the way to everything.

-> Let me explain now, because things will become interesting and I think it has logic:

The Tweak Room has similar features to the Sculpt Room, correct?
However, when you compare the quality of the tools and the brushes system the Tweak Room is completely non-existent and low quality compared to the Sculpt Room.

The Tweak Room is connected and in "real time" directly to the Paint Room, UV Room and a certain communicability with the Retopo Room.

So my idea and suggestion is for the Tweak Room to be a new type of Room with a quads / tris / ngons mesh (if possible). In the Tweak Room could make the implementations that I demonstrated in the video.
This means that virtually all 3D-Coat would be connected and all the tools and features of the program would be in favor of the artist.

1) The mesh in the Tweak Room could be sculpted with the Multi-Resolution system similar to Blender.
This would only be an adaptation of Sculpt Room codes for the Tweak Room. The codes are already ready, the only thing logically is that we would not have LiveClays brushes and Brush Remove Stretching option. This means that the brushes and alphas system would be adapted and improved from the Sculpt Room to the Tweak Room.
Of course the Tweak Room would accept other models that could be made and not just the sculpting work by the multi-resolution system.

2) The Mesh of the Tweak Room could be painted normally by the methods Per Pixel Painting, Microvertex Painting, Ptex Painting and Vertex Painting (polypainting) in the Paint Room. That would be possible because codes are already made to work that way. The working nature of the Tweak Room is directly connected to the Paint Room.

3) The mesh of the Tweak Room could be manipulated and altered by all the tools and features of the Retopo Room in the same way that I demonstrated in the video with Blender.
Currently, there is only the Retopo Room update mesh for Per Pixel Paiting in the Paint Room.
But I would like to suggest just a few changes in the code so that the Retopo Room mesh becomes more communicable in relation to Microvertex Painting, Ptex Painting, and etc ... This means a complete communication and real-time interaction of the Retopo Room for the Tweak Room.

- Another important thing between the Retopo Room and the Tweak Room would be the following:
If the artist changed the Mesh in the Retopo Room through Cuts, Extrudes and other tools, as soon as the user returned to the Tweak Room something similar could happen with what happens in Blender. This means that any visual problem in the mesh, the artist could solve this problem with the Smooth Brush and the problem would be solved. Everything would work perfectly without any break in the work.

- In the Retopo Room could be implemented the system of Vertex Groups with influence of weights in the vertices. This would give us a more powerful system than the Polygroups that exists in ZBrush. Vertex Groups would be vital to many implementations within 3D-Coat, including as part of the Modifiers operation (I'll comment on the modifiers below).

4) The mesh in the Tweak Room would be connected to the UV Room as it always was.
And I also think with the UV tools from the Retopo Room. This is because if the user changes the Mesh in the Retopo Room you can count on the UV tools of the Retopo Room to fix problems with the UV in a very similar way that I did in Blender.
Unwrap process in the whole Mesh again or only in the parts that had changes to the realization of the Unwrap process. This meant that users did not lose UVs at any time in relation to mesh changes and nothing would break down at work.

5) What about the Sculpt Room in this story?
The Sculpt Room and all the system we know of 3D-Coat would be intact, unchanged!

When users finished sculpting something in the Sculpt Room, they could send that mesh to the Tweak Room through the following processes:
(1) Autopo or Instant Mesh.
(2) Normal process of Bake: Microvertex Painting or PerPixel Painting or Ptex Painting.
(3) The user could also send the decimated Mesh directly to the Tweak Room in order to preserve the details already sculpted, but with a Mesh structure with fewer polygons.

6) Creating Meshes in Tweak Room:
- The creation of meshes to be worked on in the Tweak Room could be the same known to all of us and that already exists in the 3d-coat as: Primitives and all the other functionalities that could generate a mesh structure in 3d-coat.

- The Tweak Room could have a system similar to what I demonstrated in the blender that was the Metaballs (non-destructive) and the Skining Modifier which is a modifier that generates a mesh in quads or certain triangles depending on the position of the vertices. That's all I'm saying is just an inspiration for implementations. That means that unique and better things could be created and improved through those features that already exist.

7) Manipulation of non destructive Meshes (Modifiers) in the Tweak Room:
In the Tweak Room could be implemented the non destructive Modifiers system that I demonstrated in the video. It would be something very similar to Blender that the user could add the Amount and any Modifier in any order in the list. The order of the modifiers would be important because this would influence the final appearance of the Mesh.

Note: Even the Multi-Resolution system could be a modifier, I think this would mean more freedom and possibilities in 3D-Coat's Tweak Room.

A key thing with regard to Modifiers is that they can accept the use of Vertex Groups with influence of vertex weights. This would provide the influence of deformation of the mesh on only specific parts of the mesh.

8 ) Importing Meshes in Tweak Room:
The Tweak Room could also import meshes through the Import Tool just as it does in the Retopo and Sculpt Room.

In the end, we would have all the 3d-Coat practically connected between all the Rooms.
The Tweak Room would simply be the key and bridge to the unified system of the entire program, where you would have the freedom to have a Multi-Resolution process in the same Mesh and Modifiers, which could be manipulated and altered in the Retopo Room, opening and manipulating of Uvs da Mesh and painting by Per Pixel Painting, Microvertex Painting, Ptex Painting or Vertex Painting methods.
Everything would be connected.


Instead of having different tasks running apart as if they were different programs within 3d-Coat, we would have all the programs or Rooms working together as a single program.
What already works in 3D-Coat, would remain the same, nothing would change.
And if you want to work with 3D-Coat the way you've always worked on the program, no problem because nothing would be changed.

What do you all think of this idea? Could this be possible?

999936642_thesolution.thumb.jpg.ff6a66de7430939a6ad13cd6035315e8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick preview of what would be more or less the new Tweak Room of the idea that I explained above in the topic.

-> This Tweak Room would be a new type of Sculpt Room, but turned to Mesh in quads / tris / ngons (if possible) that would be connected to the Paint Room, UV Room, Retopo Room and Sculpt Room meshes migration.


In this new Tweak Room, you can see the implementations of Multi-Resolution, Modifiers and Vertex Groups with influence of vertex weights.
I made an exact copy of Blender because that would just be an inspiration for unique things and that could even be better.

new_tweak_room.thumb.jpg.d41e290f74686634adc88cd3741ca4df.jpg

NOTE:
I think this post, depending on things, will be the last one I'll say and give my opinion about this idea.
As a friend already mentioned here it looks like the Tweak Room will be removed and the Mesh that is in the Paint Room will be changed by certain tools in the Sculpt Room.
Therefore, I think the idea of the new Tweak Room with all the suggestions I have spoken and explained
could not be made since the Tweak Room will be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 

Thanks for your suggestions but I think it is unlikely to add more lines of code to the existing one, the general idea is to simplify the number of lines of code, not to add more. What do you propose about the Tweak room, why should the solution for the development team copy existing software ?

Remember this post ?

For new feature requests we must think what can we do to make the best solution for this problem.

Copycat the solution of others is not the way for the development of an original and unique software like 3dcoat is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Carlosan said:

Hi 

Thanks for your suggestions but I think it is unlikely to add more lines of code to the existing one, the general idea is to simplify the number of lines of code, not to add more. What do you propose about the Tweak room, why should the solution for the development team copy existing software ? 

Remember this post ?

For new feature requests we must think what can we do to make the best solution for this problem.

Copycat the solution of others is not the way for the development of an original and unique software like 3dcoat is.

No Carlosan, I did not say that it should be the solution for 3D-Coat to copy another program.
I just used a program to demonstrate things that could be applied within 3D-Coat in a way that was improved and unique. Just a source of inspiration.

Because if you stop to think, most of the features in a 3d program already exist in various programs. If it were to think that way, there would be no other sculpture or 3D program, after all such functions already exist in ZBrush or another 3D program.

So, would not need any developers to do another program. Just as many tools that already exist do not have to exist in a certain program that does not yet have these tools.
How would things be? Would there be no competing programs?

So 3D-Coat would not need Sculpt Layers, NoiseMaker (it does not yet exist in 3D-Coat but is constantly requested here by users and exists in ZBrush), most of the tools and features that exist in Paint Room were inspired from where? Maybe Photoshop?
These few examples that I told you about are exclusive and unique creations of 3D-Coat?
I think not!
I, you and all the users know that they were inspirations from other programs, do you agree?
And being inspirations, they could be developed in a unique and different way within 3D-Coat.

But of course 3D-Coat has features and tools that have been created that are unique to 3D-Coat and have served as inspirations for other competing programs to develop.

A simple example is a car tire. The tire already exists, right?
So, do you think companies will even create a tire from scratch or will they improve the tire that already exists?
Will they create a different tire?
And even if they create a different tire, this new creation will be inspired from where?

The features and tools presented by me through Blender are just ways to explain something that could be simple, efficient and with complete user control in your work within 3D-Coat. If you think what I've shown is useless and you would not benefit from it, that's okay, that's your opinion.

I submitted a suggestion from the Tweak Room which is a Room that most 3D-Coat users ask to be removed from 3D-Coat and I also did not understand the reason for the existence of this Room within 3D-Coat. But before suggesting, I did my homework and when I went to seriously test the Tweak Room, I realized that the Tweak Room would be a possible solution with great potential for what I demonstrated in Blender, enabling us to almost complete unification of Rooms within 3D-Coat without a significant code change or anything else.
So we would be able to have the features and tools that I've demonstrated in the video as inspirational sources for even better and unique things within 3D-Coat. In my opinion, it would be fantastic.

I confess that I am not a developer, but I think with all of this 3D-Coat could win the migration of many artists who use competing programs because these artists are accustomed to an easier and more fluent and unified workflow with a single mesh.

Now if you think that everything in 3D-Coat should be Andrew's own creation and developers, fine by me. I think Andrew is going to have a lot of difficulties this way, as I've already said practically everything is already created today.

Do not get me wrong in the things I will say, but honestly, I do not understand your questions or maybe "criticism" for me, but you have every right to speak and I respect.
I particularly will not expose myself in this way.
I thought I was helping, but from what I see, no.
I'll suggest some things to Andrew when possible via email... but I've figured out how things work.

Sorry for anything.

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

×