Jump to content
LLv34_Untamo

Finnish VirtualPilots - Dynamic War

Recommended Posts

As you have people complaining about not being able to fly the best fighter in every map,  let me add my vote to having a rolling plane set.  I *like* being able to fly the Mig-3 or I-16 against comparable LW aircraft for a few weeks.    I would however be open to the idea of allowing one BoS transport aircraft for each side, possibly with restricted loadout to make them equal.

 

 If any BoS only pilot stamps their little feet about having to fly a transport and help their side and instead flounces off to play with the other children on WoL then I will applaud having one fewer dick on the Finnish server. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, the issue isn't about wanting to fly the best plane but about being able to fly at all. In anything that isn't, for example, a 111 and 87.

 

And yes, you could of course enforce that. But my guess is that people will probably chose not to fly instead. :)

 

Also I think Sheriff had a good point there on the previous page.

 

17 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Dunno if that was mentioned in the last two pages or something. But before you think of other fancy features and planeset, maybe something against the lags? I know dserver is rubbish, but the desyncs and super lags arent worth moving columns and other stuff.

I really like the server dont get me wrong, but as soon as your server hits 30 players or what it goes down the drain. You know it, I know. Just want to mention it again.

 

Maybe this entire thing should indeed wait for 1.3 and see how that changes things on a more basic level with DServer performance.

Edited by wellenbrecher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wellenbrecher said:

 

Maybe this entire thing should indeed wait for 1.3 and see how that changes things on a more basic level with DServer performance.

3,0 will change nothing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Dunno if that was mentioned in the last two pages or something. But before you think of other fancy features and planeset, maybe something against the lags? I know dserver is rubbish, but the desyncs and super lags arent worth moving columns and other stuff.

I really like the server dont get me wrong, but as soon as your server hits 30 players or what it goes down the drain. You know it, I know. Just want to mention it again.

 

Well, we have cut down the mission file size to 1/10th of the original, and we have not witnessed any drastic improvement in the performance of the server by doing so. So there is no promise in cutting it even further...

 

And let me reiterate: The server CPU is idling, it's basically doing nothing. The server has a 1000/100 optical connection, of which about 10% of the upload bandwith is in use when the server has 50 players.

 

So, we don't know what to do to improve performance. The DServer is just.... crap :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LLv34_Untamo said:

 

Well, we have cut down the mission file size to 1/10th of the original, and we have not witnessed any drastic improvement in the performance of the server by doing so. So there is no promise in cutting it even further...

 

And let me reiterate: The server CPU is idling, it's basically doing nothing. The server has a 1000/100 optical connection, of which about 10% of the upload bandwith is in use when the server has 50 players.

 

So, we don't know what to do to improve performance. The DServer is just.... crap :(


i dont know anything about that. So i dont want to sound ungrateful. But the TAW guys finally solved most problems after only 2 years  of engineering around the problems.
For example ground objects despawn if there is no player close by and spawn back in the state they were. Dunno maybe Kathon has some tips.
I really like your server, but the lags are about to kill any fun if the server gets more popular. And the server deserves to get more popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 If any BoS only pilot stamps their little feet about having to fly a transport and help their side and instead flounces off to play with the other children on WoL then I will applaud having one fewer dick on the Finnish server. 

 

That's a very arrogant approach to the whole matter.

 

---

 

I'm trying to figure out a solution. I know a few friends that only own BoS (it is after all the standard purchase), and I think it would be nice if at least one fighter from BoS was available per side. The issue is that the VVS has the possibility of using a Lagg-3 while the LW, well, that'd be the F-4, and then it's pointless. It would've been nice if the F-2 was in BoS, but alas. These damned restrictive bundles are annoying.

 

As has been stated earlier, it's been nice that this server has struck a good balance between organised and casual game play, but I fear that a very restrictive rolling planeset may ruin that.

 

If I could choose, perhaps it'd be enough with one or two steps instead of the whole eight? I made a sheet with suggestions for a lightly limited rolling planeset:

 

 

 


kRNqR17.png

 

 

 

 


i3nHo64.png

 

Edited by Porky
Fixed typo and moved the 190 further back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this rolling planeset, mc202/p40 is no more just a support to dev team....it was realy fun tonight!

9 minutes ago, Porky said:

 

That's a very arrogant approach to the whole matter.

 

---

 

I'm trying to figure out a solution. I know a few friends that only own BoS (it is after all the standard purchase), and I think it would be nice if at least one fighter from BoS was available per side. The issue is that the VVS has the possibility of using a Lagg-3 while the LW, well, that'd be the F-4, and then it's pointless. It would've been nice if the F-2 was in BoS, but alas. These damned restrictive bundles are annoying.

 

As has been stated earlier, it's been nice that this server has struck a good balance between organised and casual game play, but I fear that a very restrictive rolling planeset may ruin that.

 

If I could choose, perhaps it'd be enough with one or two steps instead of the whole eight? I made a sheet with suggestions for a lightly limited rolling planeset:

 

  Hide contents

 


qYA3HS6.png

 

 

  Hide contents

 


0lFLGzw.png

 

No.2 planeset looks good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

As you have people complaining about not being able to fly the best fighter in every map,  let me add my vote to having a rolling plane set.  I *like* being able to fly the Mig-3 or I-16 against comparable LW aircraft for a few weeks.    I would however be open to the idea of allowing one BoS transport aircraft for each side, possibly with restricted loadout to make them equal.

 

 If any BoS only pilot stamps their little feet about having to fly a transport and help their side and instead flounces off to play with the other children on WoL then I will applaud having one fewer dick on the Finnish server. 

 

Excellent, I'm glad that you stumbled in to this without properly reading the thread.

It's not about having access to the 'best' fighter on every map (even though there's only one map on Finnish :ph34r:), it's about preserving the server as it is right now - an ideal balance between TAW and WoL. As Wellen has pointed out, enforcing a limited planeset instantly removes /x/ number of players who own only BoS, or really anything but the complete collection. I'm sure there are folk out there who own, for example, only BoK. Are they to sit out two-three weeks of flight-time because of this? As said previously, I am not strictly against the idea of a rotating planeset but it needs to be made agreeable for all involved parties across all three titles. Porky's No.2 planeset seems an ideal balance.

 

As for that last comment, whew boy... no one has said anything of the sort. I did however provide the anecdote that, for the average player, being forced in to either the 111 or the 87 is a sure-fire way to turn a fledgling interest into a permanent disinterest. This is very different to what you're insinuating in such a crude and boorish manner.

 

 

Edited by Leifr

Share this post


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


i dont know anything about that. So i dont want to sound ungrateful. But the TAW guys finally solved most problems after only 2 years  of engineering around the problems.
For example ground objects despawn if there is no player close by and spawn back in the state they were. Dunno maybe Kathon has some tips.
I really like your server, but the lags are about to kill any fun if the server gets more popular. And the server deserves to get more popular.

We do have the same logic in ground objects despawning when there's no one around. I assume the things that cause the lag are what makes VP and TAW different. That is the in-mission dynamic nature of our server and the moving tanks in the tank base battles. The lag bursts/stutters come from the background java application calling a server input in the mission three times in succession to trigger mission logic (enabling an object to respawn, triggering tank attack etc.). Why three times, wouldn't one be enough? Well no, because dserver is crap with this and we found out that the commands don't always go through. Admittedly, this was when the running mission file size was 10 times bigger. Maybe we should try with just one again now that the size is smaller. However, that would only get rid of the lag bursts/stutters, and I don't think that is what causes planes warping like they many times do. I can only guess it boils down to the "we sync everything" netcode and the amount of (potentially) moving ground objects in the mission.

 

Edit: what kind of approach would you suggest for resolving the tank battles without having the moving tanks?

 

9 hours ago, Porky said:

 

  Hide contents

 


i3nHo64.png

 

 

Interesting, what does the lighter color signify? Limited selection of modifications?

 

Edited by LLv34_Temuri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

3,0 will change nothing here.

Oh? That's a damn shame.

I was under the impression the next patch included improvements to the netcode/DServer. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, doesnt seem so.

 

Also, I dont know what it is but every time I'm around I just got this urge to join this server and fly ... which I truly enjoy. But then lags and rubberbanding kick in and after some time it just becomes a real annoyence. I know people have been pointing this for long and that you are aware of it but damn, if this was not the case then this server has so much potential. Though I dont exactly understand why I-16s are prohibited to use 20 mm cannons ?

 

Anyway, is there a way to check what happened during specific sortie in a better detail then sortie log ? I had yesterday peculiar situation over the airfield where I've pursued and filled with bullets 109 E (it seems it was you Temuri :P ) that eventually at some 300 m did a split-s and crashed into a ground (most likely due to all the damage it sustained), but the thing is that I flew right over the place he crashed and exploded. The moment he exploded (I presume, since he was under my fuselage) my pilot got killed and airplane crashed.  Log doesnt indicate why it happened or even what happened. In a split second I experienced lag and then my pilot and machine were destroyed. Here is the log: http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/log/155127/?tour=19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I had yesterday peculiar situation over the airfield where I've pursued and filled with bullets 109 E (it seems it was you Temuri :P ) that eventually at some 300 m did a split-s and crashed into a ground (most likely due to all the damage it sustained), but the thing is that I flew right over the place he crashed and exploded. The moment he exploded (I presume, since he was under my fuselage) my pilot got killed and airplane crashed.

I assumed that either I had a bomb under me that exploded when I crashed, or that you hit some debris from my plane, but seems the stats say I dropped all four bombs.

 

I-16 will have 20 mm in the next set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually an instant death recorded like that indicates a crash. So maybe you lagged out but it didn't show on our screen? One sided lag induced ramming incidents show up like that as well.

If Temuri had dropped bombs that got you it would count as his kill, here's an example of accidental FF bombing on me, unless he somehow lost "ownership" because you pilot killed him while they were still in the air.

 

 

Also damn, now I am really curious where the hell I picked up the idea that the next patch would improve the DServer... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I pulled up and to the right so there is no chance I'd be hit by any debries - and it would certainly not cause instant pilot kill. Neither did I have a chance to crash since I was 100-200 m over the ground. I dont know, there was a split second stutter followed by mid-air explosion. I'm very carefuly and try not to waste my life, especially after recent changes on the server. But that caught my attention really ;)

 

It's the idea we all dream since ... forever. I care little for singleplayer improvements, but dserver and game performance need some love. The first one urgently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

Edit: what kind of approach would you suggest for resolving the tank battles without having the moving tanks?


Again, i have no clue how to code those things, and if there is real benefit to that, but I imagine something like TAW does BUT while the mission is running.
Maybe like this:
In a tank battle the server calculates how many tanks there are, and how the defence looks and then the server scripts roll some dices. All that with stationary tanks.
After the "battle" is resolved the tanks despawn or what ever you like to do with them.

The players still can attack the defenses and tanks to improve the chances of winning, but the server doesn't need to spend resources on tank AI if that is the problem.
As soon as the dserver gets improved in 2025 you can roll back to moving tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:


Again, i have no clue how to code those things, and if there is real benefit to that, but I imagine something like TAW does BUT while the mission is running.
Maybe like this:
In a tank battle the server calculates how many tanks there are, and how the defence looks and then the server scripts roll some dices. All that with stationary tanks.
After the "battle" is resolved the tanks despawn or what ever you like to do with them.

The players still can attack the defenses and tanks to improve the chances of winning, but the server doesn't need to spend resources on tank AI if that is the problem.
As soon as the dserver gets improved in 2025 you can roll back to moving tanks.

 

Static tank battles wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if it means there's potential for more targets on the map? The chance to attack bridges and (stationary) convoys is conspicuously absent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hei kaverit

 

I live in Hong Kong and have to say that my connection is good. A few stutters, but not as many as a few weeks ago when everything was in Motti. Well done for fixing that!

Chute killing: Well I just don't do that.

Vulching: If there are many enemy above I will not spawn in. But if I'm the enemy above and someone spawns in, I will down him shortly after he takes off, as I will not give him any advantage, since I'm in a FW190 and can't prevail against the Yak1b with equal E.

 

Hyvä päivä

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Leifr said:

 

Static tank battles wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if it means there's potential for more targets on the map? The chance to attack bridges and (stationary) convoys is conspicuously absent.

Hmm those bridges and convoys could perhaps be picked to the mission with the same logic as the depots, i.e. finding the closest one to the tank base. Their condition would need to affect the object respawn interval somehow though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:


Again, i have no clue how to code those things, and if there is real benefit to that, but I imagine something like TAW does BUT while the mission is running.
Maybe like this:
In a tank battle the server calculates how many tanks there are, and how the defence looks and then the server scripts roll some dices. All that with stationary tanks.
After the "battle" is resolved the tanks despawn or what ever you like to do with them.

The players still can attack the defenses and tanks to improve the chances of winning, but the server doesn't need to spend resources on tank AI if that is the problem.
As soon as the dserver gets improved in 2025 you can roll back to moving tanks.

No need to have an idea about how to code, just an idea about the logic :)

 

Idea has been noted and I have a picture in my mind how this would need to be done on mission side. Background java could check periodically how many % is destroyed of each tank base, make an opposed roll (we could pull the logic for this from some tabletop RPG rules) and then get the outcome. If battle is won, all tank base objects are deleted from mission.

 

Just as an experiment on the number of AI running on the mission, I set the active tank battles to two. This brought down the number of AI objects in a mission by 72. Let's see if this has any effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:


Again, i have no clue how to code those things, and if there is real benefit to that, but I imagine something like TAW does BUT while the mission is running.
Maybe like this:
In a tank battle the server calculates how many tanks there are, and how the defence looks and then the server scripts roll some dices. All that with stationary tanks.
After the "battle" is resolved the tanks despawn or what ever you like to do with them.

The players still can attack the defenses and tanks to improve the chances of winning, but the server doesn't need to spend resources on tank AI if that is the problem.
As soon as the dserver gets improved in 2025 you can roll back to moving tanks.

 

I highly object to an approach like this becourse

a lack of moving ground units will reduce the immersion for groundattack pilots like me

 

I will basically be reduced to a pure airwar like Cliffs of Dover.

Which was my main reason for stop flying Cliffs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EAF_Starfire said:

 

I highly object to an approach like this becourse

a lack of moving ground units will reduce the immersion for groundattack pilots like me

 

I will basically be reduced to a pure airwar like Cliffs of Dover.

Which was my main reason for stop flying Cliffs.

 

So you rather have massive lags, stutters and server crashes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DerSheriff said:

So you rather have massive lags, stutters and server crashes?

Yes!

If the choice is between another Clod or stutter I will chose stutter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DerSheriff said:

So you rather have massive lags, stutters and server crashes?

The crashes don't seem to be due to moving objects, rather the remote console that is enabled on the dserver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LLv34_Temuri said:

The crashes don't seem to be due to moving objects, rather the remote console that is enabled on the dserver.

 

Does the java logic use the console?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EAF_Starfire said:

 

Does the java logic use the console?

Yes, the java sends commands to the dserver using the remote console.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EAF_Starfire said:

Yes!

If the choice is between another Clod or stutter I will chose stutter!

 

The main reason why I mainly fly Finish Dynamic Airwar is that most of the other servers only have static ground units (AAA firing does not count as a moving object ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EAF_Starfire said:

 

The main reason why I mainly fly Finish Dynamic Airwar is that most of the other servers only have static ground units (AAA firing does not count as a moving object ;))

 

This and the Tactical element although AA can be a B**ch.  It is fun to overfly tanks on the roll forward to complete an objective.

 

I was surprised last night not to see in the VVS plane set Migs.  Thinking on the inclusion of the Lagg 3 and 109 F4 to help out flyers who don't own BoM, it would sort of be a downer with regards to the plane set but maybe, they are either included in limited numbers or they are only allowed from rear airfields.  The idea being to encourage people to take up the main plane set of the time and those that don't have access to those planes can fly them but it will not be such a case of everyone grabbing them.

 

I like the idea of the plane sets but understand the limitations due to some not having purchased BoM.

 

With the early planeset, would it be possible to limit the Ju88 to just repair and supply work and have the 111 as a bomber?  Just because the VVS doesn't have anything modeled that is similar in capacity and makes it rather easy for Factory and Depot stomping by the Blue side. 

a single Ju88 is enough to take out a depot where as one needs at least 2 or preferably 3 Pe-2's to do the same on the VVS side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK.  I will try again without the insults and without commenting on peoples characters.  Please respond in a similar manner.

 

I feel that having a rolling planeset but allowing fighters from a later era invalidates the whole concept.   The point of a rolling planeset is to allow people to fight in 'less able' aircraft against aircraft they would have encountered at the time.  Allowing people to fly something more advanced makes the rolling planeset pointless. OTOH I do understand that there are a limited number of servers you can fly if you only own one game. Without Finnish it is really just WoL and that gets filled up fast.

 

I see only two alternatives to a "full rolling planeset and bad luck if you don't have a suitable aircraft."

 

1.  Drop the whole idea so people who don't have aircraft from each era can continue to fly at all times.   Downside - The BoM aircraft will see very little usage in this server and some (E7? I-16?) will see almost zero usage when they are up against Spitfires and 109-G4s.  I think this is a shame.

 

2.  Allow later aircraft in a BoM planeset so everyone can continue to fly.  Downside - Pretty similar to Option one.  If you allow BoS fighters then you must also allow BoK fighters and even after the full release the weakest Allied fighter will be a Yak-7 so nobody will fly an E-7 or F2 when they can use a 190 A5  or 109 F4.

 

This is why I suggested that if you are not going to drop the Rolling Planeset entirely the only solution  is to not allow later fighters at all but allow selected later bombers weakened so as not to be better than the BoM bombers,  possibly just as transports.  This does at least allow people to fly.   I belong to a squad that often has 6-8 pilots together so it is awkward when one pilot does not have anything he can fly.

 

BTW,   Is there a major issue with allowing people to keep flying early aircraft eg having the Mig-3 and F2 available right to the end for those people who only have BoM? 

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

Interesting, what does the lighter color signify? Limited selection of modifications?

 

It signifies that I'm unsure whether they should be available during that week (it was only a tentative suggestion). I think it opens up some nice options if we're able to limit mods though, so I'll give it a think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Porky said:

 

It signifies that I'm unsure whether they should be available during that week (it was only a tentative suggestion). I think it opens up some nice options if we're able to limit mods though, so I'll give it a think.

We are able to limit mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this? (Perhaps with an additional fifth week with a full planeset):

 

TMyh0lZ.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

We are able to limit mods.

 

Well,..just to cut my own legs off :biggrin:...I have 'heard' that the cannon mod was never used on the Mc202.

 

But they work nicely on AAA.

 

BTW the weakened plane-set incurs another headache.

- Usually a good two man team can eliminate the AAA and most of the equipment in a Tank-base if there are no air opposition.

With he introduction of weaker planes (less cannons, ammo and speed), the aircraft attrition rate have gone up.

Combined this with the personal hangar, the AAA are re-spawning before the elimination of other ground units can start which result in aircraft attrition. In essence it is probably not possible to have any impact on the tank-bases unless you have a 4 man team.

 

This might require some additional investigation....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, EAF_Starfire said:

- Usually a good two man team can eliminate the AAA and most of the equipment in a Tank-base if there are no air opposition.

With he introduction of weaker planes (less cannons, ammo and speed), the aircraft attrition rate have gone up.

Combined this with the personal hangar, the AAA are re-spawning before the elimination of other ground units can start which result in aircraft attrition. In essence it is probably not possible to have any impact on the tank-bases unless you have a 4 man team.

 

This might require some additional investigation....

 

Magic word: "depot" (and/or factory) :) ... Destroy them before attacking the actual target to increase the respawn times.

Yesterday we went ever further than that. We wanted to attack a tank base, so first we closed the nearby depot. Then, we DIDN'T attack the tank base, but the nearby enemy airfield instead and closed it. Then we were clear to operate over the enemy tank base, although I had to go to bed at this point :) ... (And the enemy managed to win a tank battle  in the meantime while we did all that... not a perfect plan I know :) )

Edited by LLv34_Untamo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did consider the Klin factory, but I really wanted to try out the E-7 as a A3/A5 substitute.

I ended up losing several 109E-7 during my "FLAK-dance"

 

"When the FLAK starts playing their music you better dance, and if they don't like your dance they will let you know"!

- Unknown source

 

:biggrin:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a small "feature" in the factory supply. The bit of code only processed airfields that were in the current mission, so the other airfields didn't receive anything. Now all the airfields receive factory supply regardless of them being in the mission or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lag appears when;

-tanks are about to start attack (2 lags on interval of 10sec)

-tanks break trought (2lags in 10sec)

-airfield closed, depot/factory destroyed, airfield captured (again 2 lags in 10sec)

 

Lags don't appear after that or while tanks are moving so i guess only trigger produce lag.

I can live with it since it's not constant lag, we use it as indicator mission was successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AAA and searchlights at depots and factories are no longer counted as objects that have to be destroyed in order to close the depot or factory.

 

Due to this change, we will be adding a couple of searchlights and heavy AAA guns and warehouse etc. blocks to the depots. Possibly during the coming weekend.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

The AAA and searchlights at depots and factories are no longer counted as objects that have to be destroyed in order to close the depot or factory.

 

Due to this change, we will be adding a couple of searchlights and heavy AAA guns and warehouse etc. blocks to the depots. Possibly during the coming weekend.

 

Not sure I follow what you are trying to do.   Is it that you wanted to have more searchlights and AAA without increasing the number of items that have to be destroyed?   Are the new warehouses things we *do* need to destroy to make up for not needing to destroy the AAA?  For example,  if we used to have to destroy 10 buildings and 3 AA to close a depot,  we now need to destroy 15 buildings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s because it’s not logical that searchlights and AAA ”destroyed status” are counted in determining whether a tank base/airfield gets its repair stuffs from the depot/factory. In addition, we want to add some more bombing targets to the depots, and the sorely needed searchlights too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing, before you had to go with at least on plane that have front machine guns/cannons in order to close depot/factory which limited use of bombers.

And wasting bomb on single AA was never an option for me.

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

×
×
  • Create New...