Jump to content
chiliwili69

Measuring rig performance: Common Baseline (for IL-2 v3.010)

Recommended Posts

I changed from Ultra to High on the preset.

 

Am running shadows on High  and getting very good performance ( flying in a PWCG campaign). I put them on Ultra for last couple of missions today and still got very respectable performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I assume more than half of the test results were not run at the clock speeds that people reported, unknowingly to them.

 

This is an important factor to know since it might produce wrong fps for the reported OC. I have checked my BIOS and I have not AVX offset settings. I think this is something introduced from Kaby Lake processors but not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My final test results for the chart comparison 2.012:   CPU Passmark 13617 CPU Passmark ST 2863   2017-09-06 16:49:54 - Il-2 Frames: 5213 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 86.883 - Min: 60 - Max: 91

 

Fenris, very very good!!

You reported very well you method to go from Autovoltage to fix voltage, the LLC, the OC and see how the fps were just going up.

Good also to know the 3DMigoto mod shader was affecting the test. 

 

And wow! you really reach a very good fps at 4.9GHz!  Congratulations! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Passmark CPU mark = 13118; ST = 2688 IL-2 v.2012c; 1st post VR test settings (SS=1.7 via SteamVR):  Frames: 5040 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 84.000 - Min: 55 - Max: 91

 

This is quite interesting. Your STMark @ 4.6 is 2688, and my STMark  @4.6 is 2768. But your test shows 84 fps and mine 77 fps.

It might be a bit of the RAM and perhaps the 1080Ti is helping here a bit as well since at 1.7 SS (SteamVR) I am quite close to my SS limit for a 1070.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got to test the Balapan track.

 

However I didn't follow the protocol, but used the settings that appear to be the sweet spot for my machine.

With these settings I don't really need to even disable ASW since it rarely engages most of the time in MP or SP play.

 

settings:

graphics balanced, ingame AAx4, shadows OFF, mirrors OFF, terrain normal, DSR=1 (i.e. disabled), SS=1.0

 

specs:

Alienware Aurora R4 (2012 vintage), i7-3930k OC to 4.3 GHz (with aftermarket liquid cooling, passmark 14238, single thread 2311), GTX 1060 3 GB, 16 GB RAM at 1866 MHz (slightly OCed from original 1600)

 

results:

Frames: 3879 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 64.650 - Min: 43 - Max: 91

 

Now I'm done with fiddling with options and settings, (at least until the next update :)), and I'm not going to splurge on a new machine until next year at the very least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Alienware Aurora R4 (2012 vintage), i7-3930k OC to 4.3 GHz

 

Thank you for posting your results even if they are at different settings. I put them in another tab sheet.

 

The 3930K was a not cheap CPU with good multithread performance but low Single thread. But even though you were able to squeeze it quite well. 

You run SS=1.0, but I think that your 1060 card will allows to go to 1.3 (SteamVR) without affecting fps too much. (Just a thought).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried SS but found that for my system ingame AA offers similar or better results at a fraction of the performance cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nibbio, in collecting test samples, the first rule is that people run with the same settings, otherwise there is no comparison possible. Chiliwili is almost too polite and opens a special tab just for you without saying anything. So let me be the bad dog mentioning this to you.

 

By the way, any form of ingame AA (especially coupled with Sharpen on) will reduce your spotting very considerably. Planes and their envelopes merge into their background. Sharpen's white envelope will decrease the size of the aircraft, making spotting it at range harder, and IDing by shape at medium to close ranges MUCH harder. SS is there to replace AA. If you use SS via Steam, make sure to disable the Advanced SuperSampling Filter, right beneath the SS bar. Just a few good intended hints. 

 

 

Fly safe  :salute:

Edited by 2./JG51_Fenris_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fenris the settings required for the test are rather ambitious and therefore meaningful only for high end machines. I wanted instead to provide a comparison for the increasing number of VR adopters with older PCs.

 

I believe replacing AA with SS to be a mistake, unless one has a high end GPU with power to spare. In my case the GTX 1060 with SS 1.0 is already maxed out (90 to 100% according to MSI afterburner). Moreover I find ingame AA with sharpen works very well in my OR. No problems spotting or IDing aircrafts.

 

On the contrary with SS greater than 1.0 I have either ASW artifacts, or with ASW disabled get stutters and low fps so that even if the single frames may be sharper, the effect in motion is not clear at all, and actually much worse.

 

My intention is to show how one can enjoy IL2 in VR with fluid fps and clear and perfectly useful graphics even with older PCs. All it takes is letting go of the typical simmer obsession for maxing out the eye candy.

 

Enjoy the game!

Edited by Nibbio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's for the cheap SOB's like myself:

 

IL-2 BoX version 2.012

Ryzen R5 1600

3.77 GHz

Corsair DDR4 2400 MHz ram

RX 480 8GB, running 1303Mhz

Oculus Rift

 

Passmark: 3991

CPU mark: 13419

Single thread: 2005

 

ULTRA

Frames: 2644 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 44.067 - Min: 34 - Max: 46

HIGH
Frames: 2679 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 44.650 - Min: 40 - Max: 47


BALANCED
Frames: 2693 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 44.883 - Min: 43 - Max: 46

 

 

Not great, but playable.  Ultra settings varied a tiny bit in benchmarks, but the minimum was usually around 40 - I included the 34 minimum because I suspect that will be the case when playing online.  On high I was able to achieve maximums of up to 75, but not frequently enough to include that. 

 

Key thing for Rx480 owners to do is NEVER use the Wattman/Radeon Settings program; in Task Manager make sure you end the Radeon Settings program from background processes - or else it can throttle your video card to 300mhz.

Edited by 19//Tuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran through the steps to ensure all my settings were exactly as detailed in the first post. Here are my results. My system specs are listed below:


Results in-Monitor

2017-09-12 18:08:20 - Il-2
Frames: 10093 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 168.217 - Min: 138 - Max: 220

 

Results in VR (Oculus Rift HMD)

2017-09-12 18:30:16 - Il-2
Frames: 5027 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 83.783 - Min: 57 - Max: 91

My BIOS has no AVX offset and my CPU was running at 4.9GHz.

System Specs:
I7 7700k @4.9GHz, Corsair H115i Water Cooling, 32GB G.Skill TridentZ RGB 3600MHz DDR4 SDRAM, Aorus GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 2 x Samsung 960 Pro M.2 1TB NVMe SSD's, Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Rudder, Oculus Rift CV1, TrackIR 5, Asus ROG PG3480 34" GSync Monitor @3440x1440 - 100Hz, Asus 27" Monitor @1920x1080 - 144Hz, Windows 10 x64

Here are my system CPU PassMark results:

6Cyx6mb.png

 

CPU Single Threaded Score: 2874

Madmatt

Edited by Madmatt
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well Madmatt, thank you for participating! That's certainly some beast of a rig you got there. Please take a look if you can add the CPU Single Thread value as well.

 

 

 

To Nibbio and 19//Tuesday, may I remind you again that a comparison and testing only makes sense if you stick to the same premises like all others. Thank you  :salute:

Edited by 2./JG51_Fenris_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they do have a fair point in that the test is only relevant to the very fastest single thread CPU's on the market while overclocked. It would be best to expand this out to 4 detail settings (low, medium, high, ultra) to get a better picture of where various configurations actually stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they do have a fair point in that the test is only relevant to the very fastest single thread CPU's on the market while overclocked. It would be best to expand this out to 4 detail settings (low, medium, high, ultra) to get a better picture of where various configurations actually stand.

Exactly. However testing on 4 detail settings would produce much more complex results, difficult to interpret and analyze. It would be enough to establish just one alternate bare-bones protocol for lower spec machines.

 

Let's not forget that we may well have further optimizations in the game or access to more graphics options in the next updates and then all this work would become irrelevant.

Edited by Nibbio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read this thread, I wanted as much info as possible; so, to try and help others in my shoes and mindset, I included a bit more information.  I followed the instructions set by chilliwilli, and included both Ultra and Balanced because it's something I would have wanted to see.

 

Fenris, may I remind you that you do not have to use that extra information, and that perhaps somebody who doesn't own a 1080, 1080ti, or 1070, may find it useful. 

 

I will go back and highlight it in red, in case it is causing confusion.

Edited by 19//Tuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will tell you guys for whatever it may be worth, I tried running this at least a couple of times, and my results reflected pretty poorly. But it in no way was representative of the actual performance I get. If I based my decisions on my test results, I would have already upgraded my rig with a 7700k system.

 

I have flown the BoS campaign, Blazing Steppe, Ivan's War, and now about 15 missions into PWCG campaign. And in each one my peformance is excellent, maintaining 90 fps the bulk of the time with occasional dips into the 70's and 60's during heavy combat. Even running with ASW off, very smooth and stutter free. 

 

I am not saying the testing results are baseless, certainly is a good measurement tool for comparisons, but at least for me it was no way representative of the actual performance in VR I get with this sim whilst flying combat.

And I do appreciate all the efforts by the guys doing these! It certainly sheds some good light on what type of hardware VR runs well on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. Here's something interesting. I updated nvidia drivers the other day and geforce experience must have overrode my nvidia settings. I had terrible frame rates and game was unplayable.

 

I discovered it had set multicore cpu to "off" and pre-rendered games to "1".

 

Worth checking after a driver update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well Madmatt, thank you for participating! That's certainly some beast of a rig you got there. Please take a look if you can add the CPU Single Thread value as well.

 

 

 

My Single Threaded Mark Score is 2874. I have also added these scores to my post above. CPU tests run after a fresh reboot and with no other apps running in the background. All tests performed using PerformanceTest 9.0 (Eval).

 

Madmatt

Edited by Madmatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Passmark: 3991 CPU mark: 13419
 

 

Thank you for posting your test results. They are the first with a non-Nvidia card! . It would be interesting to see a Rx-480 with a better single-thread CPU. As you know in your tests the bottle neck is the Ryzen CPU.

 

Please, you didn´t post the "Single Threaded Mark". Instead you posted the Passmark Score (3991, which is just an overal score of everything) that we don´t collect.

Please, read the first post to know where you can get the "Single threaded Mark", in your case it should be a value around 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My intention is to show how one can enjoy IL2 in VR with fluid fps and clear and perfectly useful graphics even with older PCs.

 

You are right. People with older PCs should know that they can get a decent experience in VR, it is just a question of tuning the settings. Running at 45fps with ASW ON is perfectly valid as well. And people should know that.

 

The original purpose of this thread was to create a way to measure performance in a common way. I think we have achieved this objective, the test is just an measurement instrument.

So, we used it to guess what was the limiting factor in every PC and try to some facts to the thoughts we had before. Now, new VR BOS users can use this info to make their own decisions for their rig/settings. The casuistic is:

 

1) People buying a new PC: Put your money more in CPUs with high STMark, with OC capabilities and fast RAM (above 3000). For GPU a 1070 is quite ok.

2) People upgrading their existing PC: Same than above. So don´t waste your money in a 1080Ti if your CPU/RAM is the limiting factor.

3) People not upgrading PC: Adjust your settings to be always above 45fps. Having 45fps/ASW-ON with Ultra or 90fps/ASW-OFF with Low, it is up to you.

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Results in-Monitor 2017-09-09 20:06:16 - Il-2 Frames: 9677 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 161.283 - Min: 122 - Max: 199

 

Thanks for reporting your test results. You have a nice rig. Your tests are using the fastest memory so far (3600MHz). But looking at the performance in monitor I think you should achieve a bit more. There are not too much tests in monitor with 2.012 version, but you are below my max fps  with a much better CPU and GPU. Please, check that your G-sync monitor is deactivated and no other applications are running at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Exactly. However testing on 4 detail settings would produce much more complex results, difficult to interpret and analyze. It would be enough to establish just one alternate bare-bones protocol for lower spec machines.

 

Agree. This test is just a measurement tool. I will leave it as it is now, otherwise it would be too complicated so less participation.

Nevertheless, people with lower specs machines is free to run the test at LOW or BALANCED settings to have a value closer to 90, so then it is useful to make measurements for their own purposes. If they report the test, I will try to upload them in a separated tab since all data gathered could be valuable for similar rigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will tell you guys for whatever it may be worth, I tried running this at least a couple of times, and my results reflected pretty poorly. But it in no way was representative of the actual performance I get. If I based my decisions on my test results, I would have already upgraded my rig with a 7700k system.

 

Right, this is a very fair point. 

But apart from being a common measurement tool, it is a diagnose tool as well, since you obtained a lower than expected performance, it could indicate two things:

 

- The test was done incorrectly

- There is something  wrong in your rig (hardware/software/settings) which is limiting your performance, (at least in the test) 

 

You obtained 15 fps less than expected for your CPU, which is a lot. But you run well in VR (basic reason is that you have a good STMark and your GPU allows a good SS), so it could be that the test was done incorrectly. If you run the test in the monitor following the procedure we will have more data to judge why this difference.

But those campaigns for sure give you more fun than the homework test :biggrin:

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reporting your test results. You have a nice rig. Your tests are using the fastest memory so far (3600MHz). But looking at the performance in monitor I think you should achieve a bit more. There are not too much tests in monitor with 2.012 version, but you are below my max fps  with a much better CPU and GPU. Please, check that your G-sync monitor is deactivated and no other applications are running at the same time.

I've rerun the tests and ensured that my GSync monitor was not limiting my framerate and that there were no background apps running. My results are pretty consistent with my max framerate coming in at 199 nearly every time. It's interesting that my average and min FPS was higher than your 1070 but not the max.

 

I was thinking that another good data point would be to list the GPU Core and Memory speeds as well as the video drivers. For me, I was seeing the 1080Ti running the core at 2050Mhz and the Video Memory at 5951Mhz (11902Mhz) during the track playback. I am running Nvidia drivers 385.41.

 

By the way, I noticed that on your speadsheet you didn't have my Motherboard. I am running an ASUS Maximus IX Hero.

 

Thanks!

 

Madmatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thank you for posting your test results. They are the first with a non-Nvidia card! . It would be interesting to see a Rx-480 with a better single-thread CPU. As you know in your tests the bottle neck is the Ryzen CPU.

 

Please, you didn´t post the "Single Threaded Mark". Instead you posted the Passmark Score (3991, which is just an overal score of everything) that we don´t collect.

Please, read the first post to know where you can get the "Single threaded Mark", in your case it should be a value around 2000.

 

 

Fixed.

 

A much more appropriate approach to fixing this - thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, this is a very fair point.

But apart from being a common measurement tool, it is a diagnose tool as well, since you obtained a lower than expected performance, it could indicate two things:

 

- The test was done incorrectly

- There is something wrong in your rig (hardware/software/settings) which is limiting your performance, (at least in the test)

 

You obtained 15 fps less than expected for your CPU, which is a lot. But you run well in VR (basic reason is that you have a good STMark and your GPU allows a good SS), so it could be that the test was done incorrectly. If you run the test in the monitor following the procedure we will have more data to judge why this difference.

But those campaigns for sure give you more fun than the homework test :biggrin:

I believe dburne might want to check whether there are some injector leftovers in either his SteamVR or IL2 installations, of 3dmigoto VR shader (which is feature rich but costs 15-20 fps) or reshade, if that was ever used. Easy help may be to uninstall IL 2 and SteamVR, clean remains, reinstall, and make sure to redo a clean Nvidia driver installation without taking any settings with you. For VR, the standard nvidia driver settings out of box are definitely the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed.

 

A much more appropriate approach to fixing this - thanks.

Sorry man, didn't want to hurt your feelings. I had also used "please" in my posts, didn't know 3 times were required.

 

I'm a Frank Fritz. =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was thinking that another good data point would be to list the GPU Core and Memory speeds as well as the video drivers. For me, I was seeing the 1080Ti running the core at 2050Mhz and the Video Memory at 5951Mhz (11902Mhz) during the track playback. I am running Nvidia drivers 385.41.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but since most of the test (if not all) are CPU limited we preferred to keep the OC data of the CPU since OC the GPU will not affect the results in most of the cases. Even-though all data is valuable so, if people report GPU OC data , it will be collected in the Notes.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chiliwili69,

 

I went back into my Bios and made a few tweaks but I also double checked my Nvidia driver settings and went ahead and re-ran my monitor only benchmarks and my results were now much more inline with what you were expecting.

 

In-Monitor Benchmark

2017-09-12 18:08:20 - Il-2
Frames: 10093 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 168.217 - Min: 138 - Max: 220
 
I will edit my post above with my new results. And thanks for noticing that my score was lower than expected. That really gave me the motivation to to squeeze out every bit of In-Monitor performance I could. I will rerun the tests in VR as well just to be on safe side.
 
Madmatt
Edited by Madmatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure enough, the changes i made did results in a few extra FPS in VR. New test results below and also edited above to my original posting.

 

Results in VR (Oculus Rift HMD)

2017-09-12 18:30:16 - Il-2
Frames: 5027 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 83.783 - Min: 57 - Max: 91
 
Madmatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Results in VR (Oculus Rift HMD) 2017-09-12 18:30:16 - Il-2 Frames: 5027 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 83.783 - Min: 57 - Max: 91

 

Very glad to see that this test helped you to get some extra free fps in VR and monitor. After all similar rigs should produce similar results, if not, something is wrong (hardware/software/settings)

You are now pretty pretty much aligned with the expected VR performance!

Machines are machines, they should work as expected, not affected by psychological states or any other human aspects.... :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test done now...with very surprising results (usually in game my fps suffers)

 

Anyway

 

2017-09-20 18:06:35 - Il-2
Frames: 5399 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 89.983 - Min: 88 - Max: 91
 
Game version 2012c
My pc is a gaming laptop
MSI GT73VR 7RE with i7-7820hk 2.9GHz overclocked with MSI dragon utility @4.2GHz GTX1070 overclocked with +200MHZ for GPU core and +350 VRAM offset 32GB ddr4 ram 2400MHz (not overclockable with MSI Dragon Center)
My passmark is: 10630 for the CPU and 2424 single thread
Standard passmark is: 10103 and 2085 
so the overclock gives a nice single thread boost
 
Using Intel XTU i managed to take the CPU to 4.3 but i prefer to use the certified dragon center for stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virus, thanks for posting your test results with the first laptop in the list. Quite nice laptop for gaming. (I also have a MSI GS63VR 6RF with a 1060 but just used for work, never tried with BOS).

 

Please, verify that you have the right test procedure settings, exactly as in the procedure. If you have an STMark of 2424 (which is quite good for a laptop), you can not achieve 89.983 avg frame rate.

Most likely something was missing from the test procedure. Please, double check that.

Try to run the monitor procedure, just to be sure it does not give unexpected results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi...i was astonished myself...as usually i run Bos in VR with lower settings then the ones for the test (balanced/low shadows and no super sampling) having nice 90fps and lower only when on the ground (around 70), but i followed the procedure at the letter....anyway trying with a lower MSI dragon profile (sport that is at 3.6GHz instead that Turbo at 4.2GHz) the music changes completely.

Anyway when i can i will try also the monitor procedure...but there i know i can use Ultra and be in 100+ side at any time at 1080p res

Also for me DCS is a big pain as there is no setting in which i can achieve 90fps in any situation (just watching empty sky) but Il2 BOS is much nicer on the hardware in VR then DCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that you run the test with Low settings and not supersampling, I don´t know. Just try to run it again at 4.2GHz in VR using the procedure settings (HIGH, SS=1.7, etc, etc). This can not be.

If you run also the monitor test, be sure to use the right settings for the monitor indicated in the procedure. This will help to know what kind of nuclear reactor is inside you CPU. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Chili - just installed the new drivers from nVidia (385.69) released yesterday, and got some wierd results in my first benchmark test (with my maxed out settings):

 

OC 4.9, old 385.41 drivers:  Frames: 3669 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 61.150 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

 

OC 4.9, new 385.69 drivers:  Frames: 4840 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 80.667 - Min: 62 - Max: 97

 

Not sure what's going screwy - I saw several times on the menu screens where FRAPS was showing over 100 FPS, which doesn't seem to make sense if the Rift is limited to just 90.  I'd love to believe these new numbers, but presumably something is going wrong with the test process or FRAPS or something.

 

Anybody else tried the new drivers yet?  Seeing any unexpected anomalies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

OC 4.9, new 385.69 drivers:  Frames: 4840 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 80.667 - Min: 62 - Max: 97

 

This also happened to me two or three times in the past. If the reported Max fps is higher than 91, the test is not valid. Having certain periods of fps above 91 is the reason for having higher avg.

I was mentioning this in this post:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline/page-3?do=findComment&comment=496714

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Passmark Single Threaded Mark (STMark) is the most influencing factor in the fps you achieve in VR (and monitor), I wanted to analyze how OC influence STMark.

So, I run a series of short tests running only the STMark test (it only takes about 15-20 seconds) in the Passmark Performance Test. I also monitor the temps, but since it is a very short test with just one thread, they  didn´t exceed 80 deg C since it doesn´t load the CPU as much as other stress test tools. Also, I manually put the 2 system fans at 100%, the CPU fan to 100% and Vcore in Manual.

 

The results are:

GHz STMark
4.0 2405
4.4 2646
4.6 2766
4.7 2821
4.8 2883
4.9 2947
5.0  3006
5.1 3066

 

If we plot them we will see, as I was expecting, just a straight line:

post-18865-0-47595900-1506189686_thumb.jpg

 

I also started to determine the lowest stable Vcore voltage for every CPU speed using Prime95 with just 2 threads.

At 4.7 Ghz, the Vcore=1.222 was stable but the temps were around 75 C with some peaks to 83 C.

 

I concluded that, if I want to go beyond 4.6 in a sustained way, my microATX is too small and the two system fans too small, also the power supply box is suctioning hot air. Look pictures:

post-18865-0-78337800-1506189699_thumb.jpg

post-18865-0-01988800-1506189714_thumb.jpg

 

So I ordered a new ATX case (NOX COOLBAY ZX LED) for just 65€ which allows more internal space, better location of power supply, several 120mm system fans and 2 fans in top for water cooling if required.

 

With the new case I will try first my current air CPU cooler (Scythe Katana 4) and will see how far I can go. Then, will decide if a new investment in a better CPU cooling system is needed.

Edited by chiliwili69

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...