Jump to content
FS-Sturmgeist

Soviet damage model

Recommended Posts

Am I nuts or is the soviet damage model unreal??? Speaking of Pe and Yak... numerous cannon hits including mk108 also and aircraft still intact and fighting. 

 

Please help me understand this. German aircraft aren't any where near as durable as soviet, which I understand. But, when ANY aircraft gets so many hits from these types of cannons it shouldn't matter what your flying. 

 

I have a video that is a perfect example of my comment here in which I'll post later. 

 

And the bombs, the bombs... they really should do the damage that they were made for. But I think that's definitely a known issue here. 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has nothing to do with German vs Russian aircraft, cannons just in general are way underpowered and ridiculously inconsistent.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming he's talking about the damage of the 1000 kg and 1800 kg bombs when dropped on PE-2's and Yak's. It used to be the only surefire way to kill one, but now you typically have to hit them twice with Satan to get that effect. 

Seriously though there's definitely been something weird with the 1000 and 1800 kg bombs recently, the damage seems to have been vastly scaled back, but it could be issues with certain targets or servers having odd HP values for their mission targets. Haven't noticed any difference with smaller bombs.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it's Soviet aircraft that are sturdier and not German guns that are weaker?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I *always* feel the opposing plane, no matter what side seems o be made of concrete  and my plane is made from balsa wood dipped in petrol and held together with string.:)

 

I may well be wrong but it might be placebo effect?

 

Dont forget AI dont have issues with poorly calibrated Hotas' or other "real life" PC issues us users may have!

 

I cant comment on the bombs as im more a fighter/rocketeer sort of chap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt plenty of bias at work.

Not least because when you take damage that completely renders you ineffective you know about it, but you do not always know when such damage is done to your opponent. Even if your plane looks visually intact, you could be suffering broken controls, pilot injury and badly damaged engine(s). Such damage is not always visible from the outside, so you may do such damage to the enemy, but not be aware that you have hurt them very badly.

If you mostly fly on one side, then that might give you the impression that the other sides weapons are more effective. It's not the case, you can just see the damage from them first hand whilst the damage from your own weapons is often hidden from you.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

There is no doubt plenty of bias at work.

Not least because when you take damage that completely renders you ineffective you know about it, but you do not always know when such damage is done to your opponent. Even if your plane looks visually intact, you could be suffering broken controls, pilot injury and badly damaged engine(s). Such damage is not always visible from the outside, so you may do such damage to the enemy, but not be aware that you have hurt them very badly.

If you mostly fly on one side, then that might give you the impression that the other sides weapons are more effective. It's not the case, you can just see the damage from them first hand whilst the damage from your own weapons is often hidden from you.


I mean, it IS a fact that the Russian planes with few exceptions are attributed a very notable amount of extra durability, a somewhat crude bonus attributed to an extra wing spar or being made of wood. This is compounded by things like the aforementioned inconsistency of cannon damage, the higher effectiveness of AP rounds in the current simulation of shell explosions, and of course lag and pilot bias as you say - but all planes are not created equal.

Edited by Luftschiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bombs on ground targets such as buildings do not do the damage as they should. I drop a 1k bomb "Direct Hit" and out of the 50 buildings in the blast radius i destroy 5-10 of them and maybe a few vehicles.

 

The other point is using cannons including 108's with hefty hits on wings and fuselage and almost nothing happens. At least nothing that influences the engaged aircraft to crash or be disabled. But let there a single 20mm shout from a Soviet and your engine, wing or flight cerfaces are damaged or non-op. I've also noticed that pilot kills are greater on the axis side too.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after many hours of gameplay, my observation is that VVS planes can absorb tremendous punishment from Mg151. More than P47.

and can fly with badly damaged engines for much longer time, but Im used to it and I dont care anymore. Maybe its historical

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High explosive in general just isn't too great in this game. Try out different guns as the reds on the same blue target and you'll see what I mean. Two 7.62s and a 20mm on the Yak-1 will take forever to down a Bf-109 unless you get lucky, but the Berezins you can put on the MiG-3 are like the hand of god, smiting armoured twin engine aircraft out of the air in short bursts

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mk108 uses a high explosive shell.  VVS were more fond of Armour Piercing mixed with HE.

 

Better penetration with AP rounds but German HE rounds are good at taking out rear control surfaces (Rudder / Elevators).

 

Different ammo and requires different approach to killing.  I seem to be effective in either VVS or German aircraft.  Love the .50Cal as well.

 

What's the problem?

 

Bombs, not sure, but can take out targets with the smaller ones, bridges, convoys, tanks (if I get them on target), etc.... 

Don't have a fully destructive environment to play with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

How do you know it's Soviet aircraft that are sturdier and not German guns that are weaker?

 

The German Nose Cannon/108's were the most feared back then, and this fact coming from fighter pilots that were against the Germans. As like the Spit video being shot with a single round and the amount of damaged it caused. Now imagine, duel 108's with 6 to 10 hits! That shot aircraft should end up looking like a shredded coke can. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

How do you know it's Soviet aircraft that are sturdier and not German guns that are weaker?

 

AFAIK Soviet aircraft with wooden construction, a.k.a. "Stalinwood" , and some sturdier planes (P40?) are modelled with 20% greater resistance to damage. It is mentioned in one of the older update notes.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, FS-Sturmgeist said:

Bombs on ground targets such as buildings do not do the damage as they should. I drop a 1k bomb "Direct Hit" and out of the 50 buildings in the blast radius i destroy 5-10 of them and maybe a few vehicles.

 

You need far more than a 1000kg bomb to fit 50 buildings into it's blast radius.

 

OO4HRL8.png

This chart from the Ordnance Dept. suggests that buildings 17m (54ft) away from a 900KG (2000LB) bomb would not be totally demolished and buildings 36m (118ft) would no show any visible damage.

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

There is no doubt plenty of bias at work.

Not least because when you take damage that completely renders you ineffective you know about it, but you do not always know when such damage is done to your opponent. Even if your plane looks visually intact, you could be suffering broken controls, pilot injury and badly damaged engine(s). Such damage is not always visible from the outside, so you may do such damage to the enemy, but not be aware that you have hurt them very badly.

If you mostly fly on one side, then that might give you the impression that the other sides weapons are more effective. It's not the case, you can just see the damage from them first hand whilst the damage from your own weapons is often hidden from you.

 

This is pretty much it. It's a form of confirmation bias, I believe, where we naturally pay greater attention to when things work against us than when they work in our favour.

 

So we notice when we hit someone and they just keep on trucking on more than when we hit someone and they blow up. The same goes when taking damage. I fly red all the time, and I can attest to the deadliness of german weaponry. I've lost count of when I take a single hail mary hit and end up losing my engine (or my life) from it. Likewise, I've got plenty of instances where I riddled a 109 with cannons or .50 cal hits and they just went on home (even fleeing faster than I could catch them!).

 

That doesn't mean LW aircraft are OP, or VVS ones too weak. It's just bias.

 

Heck, I've taken to flying the P-39 lately, and there's a few times where it felt the 37mm shell did nothing. One time I bounced a 190, hit it with one shell, and the bugger started dogfighting me! He was getting the upper hand too (because 190 vs p-39), but then at some point he just lost control and lawndarted. Turns out even though nothing seemed wrong with him, odds are he was already severely crippled and had been flying on the edge of maintaining control all that time and finally lost it. If he'd just tried to extend he might even have survived... the point is, that one hit DID cripple him, but not in a way that was obvious to me until he finally lost control. I'm sure the same situation happens with the Mk 108.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some oddities in the DM for lots of planes, it isn't just the Soviets. I've seen 109's handle just fine after losing about a third of the wing area. I've seen 110's get generally beaten up and then set on fire, keep on fighting and go on to kill undamaged planes before finally going down. I've personally shot a Yak 1's whole magazine into JU-88's and watched them shrug off every round of it. And I've seen MG rounds remove wings of PE-2's and P-47's. I've had single rounds take out engines on just about every Soviet plane and the same with a P-47. I could go on pointing out the odd things I've seen in the DM but it won't mean much as I've seen just as much or more that seems to fit expectations.

 

As that picture shows the bomb thing is to be expected. Blast waves dissipate fairly rapidly over distance and that wave is the bulk of your damaging potential against buildings and vics; shrapnel and heat can do damage but usually only against squishy people and animals. And one thing that may be modeled, I'm not really sure, in game is the tendency for these high mass bombs dropped from high up or at high speeds tend to bury themselves and the ground is a fantastic force break. Those big bombs make a hell of a racket and kick up lots of dust but it looks much more impressive than the effect on target would indicate; that might be what is at play with German HE rounds as they do have an impressive puff when they hit home. If you want to have good effect on target use the kinds of bombs they did back in the day when hitting urban and industrial targets, mostly 250-500 kg bombs. The biggest bombs were only used when something needed to be hit really, really, hard like a bunker, a war ship, a bridge or a dam. For every job a tool and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People expect way too much. Stop watching so many Hollywood movies :P

I feel like op expects planes to burn, explode or fall apart after few hits. Sometimes you get critical kill sometimes enemy can fly home with heavy damage.

 

But for the bombs, they are already too strong in the game. 500kg can completely destroy few building. You think 1000/1800kg bomb will annihilate everything in 50m radius? Every building will work as a shield. It's not atomic bomb lol. Here is video 500kg bomb test.

 

 

 

Even that 1 building did not collapse when bomb exploded near it. You would have to drop it inside with few seconds fuse to get a "kill". In game these 2 building would disappear. I assume wooden buildings in russia would actually get destroyed by it. Still there are big building made of brick like a factories and few gets killed with one bomb. Should not be possible. So no, bombs are not too weak, they even feel to strong.

 

These super heavy bombs were not made to bomb bunch of building but for one specific strong target. 1000kg were good for battleships, huge bridges, fortresses etc. 

Actually here is 1000kg one

 

 

Let's Be honest here, bombs in box should be weaker than they are already. Thinking about making them even stronger is ridiculous. This is exactly the problem, people take 1000/1800kg bombs and expect to get 20-30 destroyed buildings, you should get 2 and be happy. There is a reason why bombers had tons of smaller bombs with hope it will fall inside a building. If it was so easy everyone would just drop 1000kg bomb in middle of the city/factory and destroy everything around.

Edited by InProgress
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve always felt that the bombs are too powerful.  But I’ve never had one land on me, so I’m just guessing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least as far as MP missions are concerned (and actually any custom-made mission, SP or MP), almost all static objects (and - I think - ground vehicles too - at least trains) can have their "HP" modified by the mission builder. The mission builder can even make something impervious to damage until a condition or event triggers that property to change!

 

They can be devious, mission builders... 😈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, /SF/Disarray said:

The biggest bombs were only used when something needed to be hit really, really, hard like a bunker, a war ship, a bridge or a dam. 

No they were used for bombing towns, too, to break big blocks.

 

1 hour ago, InProgress said:

You would have to drop it inside with few seconds fuse to get a "kill".

With the speed they impact the house and their weight, 1-2 seconds are enough. I read somewhere, germans dropped larger bombs, than 500kg, without delay, as they tended to break appart, when hitting something hard and therefore lose effectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well is a Dm problem in general. Is a shame that devs released a couple of paths with some tweaks on the Dm and they really did not solve the problem. It is not about sobiet planes, is about undermodeled HE rounds and overpowered Ap rounds. Ap rounds just seem to destroy everything they find on the way while He cant kill a pilot with a hit just on the side of the cockpit. 

They said that Ap was going to have less effect hitting non vital parts of the plane but i made my test and you still can dewing a plane with hits on non structural parts of the wing so....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FS-Sturmgeist said:

 

The German Nose Cannon/108's were the most feared back then, and this fact coming from fighter pilots that were against the Germans. As like the Spit video being shot with a single round and the amount of damaged it caused. Now imagine, duel 108's with 6 to 10 hits! That shot aircraft should end up looking like a shredded coke can. 

 

Yes, that is precisely my point. Again, how do you know it's the russian DM that is suspicious? Perhaps German guns are too weak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

is about undermodeled HE rounds

 

that pretty much sums it up. You‘ll miraculously only rarely kill a pilot with german HE, it‘s mostly the MG that gets him. 20mm are somewhat underpowered i feel.hope some day it‘ll be adjusted.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =FC=SteelFalcon said:

that pretty much sums it up. You‘ll miraculously only rarely kill a pilot with german HE, it‘s mostly the MG that gets him. 20mm are somewhat underpowered i feel.hope some day it‘ll be adjusted.

 

The He-111's 20mm kills the pilot in one shot every time in online ground tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all russian guns (like 99%) we use in IL2 Contain Explosive or incindiary Filler in their AP Rounds.
Where as in contrast all the German AP is only Solid Lead Slugs.
so for the VVS injuring pilot or causing major damage with non direct impact is much more possible.
Ammo choices for Shvaks
shvak_cannon_filler.jpg

and yeah @[DBS]Browning the He-111 20mm (is a modified MG/FF Firing Special HE low velocity rounds.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

plenty of bias - as in people biased towards complaining. Heck in the What's Next thread I was surprised nobody said that someone would complain would be what's next.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

People expect way too much. Stop watching so many Hollywood movies :P

I feel like op expects planes to burn, explode or fall apart after few hits. Sometimes you get critical kill sometimes enemy can fly home with heavy damage.

 

But for the bombs, they are already too strong in the game. 500kg can completely destroy few building. You think 1000/1800kg bomb will annihilate everything in 50m radius? Every building will work as a shield. It's not atomic bomb lol. Here is video 500kg bomb test.

 

 

 

Even that 1 building did not collapse when bomb exploded near it. You would have to drop it inside with few seconds fuse to get a "kill". In game these 2 building would disappear. I assume wooden buildings in russia would actually get destroyed by it. Still there are big building made of brick like a factories and few gets killed with one bomb. Should not be possible. So no, bombs are not too weak, they even feel to strong.

 

These super heavy bombs were not made to bomb bunch of building but for one specific strong target. 1000kg were good for battleships, huge bridges, fortresses etc. 

Actually here is 1000kg one

 

 

Let's Be honest here, bombs in box should be weaker than they are already. Thinking about making them even stronger is ridiculous. This is exactly the problem, people take 1000/1800kg bombs and expect to get 20-30 destroyed buildings, you should get 2 and be happy. There is a reason why bombers had tons of smaller bombs with hope it will fall inside a building. If it was so easy everyone would just drop 1000kg bomb in middle of the city/factory and destroy everything around.

I remember watching this, exciting and terrifying at the same time...

i also remember them mentioning they use to use different chemicals in the bombs for different types of buildings to destroy...

ones with blunt force, some for fires, and others that would more or less decay the building structure furthermore so it would become unstable and beyond repair... 

 

i don’t know how to explain it... I just remember watching lol

I just know that the bombs we use detonate in the ground, not above it with proximity sensors... would be a huge difference...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be mandatory that InsertOnlyEverFlyGermanPilot has to have flown the Russian fighter planes for a month before making these types of threads :coffee:

 

That said, the PE2 does seem to be ridiculously robust and can soak up 20mm cannon like most other 2 engine planes in my experience.

 

The other day I put 22x 20mm LA5 rounds into a 110 and it still landed safely. Or 40x 20mm hits into a HE111 in slicing attacks over 4 minutes to have it do a suicide attack and have the AI take the credit. It was doomed but seriously...

 

It is my assumption that cumulative damage is not calculated so if I damage a part over and over again it will not cause a structural failure because it was not "the" wing spa.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jolly_Roger said:

It should be mandatory that InsertOnlyEverFlyGermanPilot has to have flown the Russian fighter planes for a month before making these types of threads :coffee:

 

That said, the PE2 does seem to be ridiculously robust and can soak up 20mm cannon like most other 2 engine planes in my experience.

 

The other day I put 22x 20mm LA5 rounds into a 110 and it still landed safely. Or 40x 20mm hits into a HE111 in slicing attacks over 4 minutes to have it do a suicide attack and have the AI take the credit. It was doomed but seriously...

 

It is my assumption that cumulative damage is not calculated so if I damage a part over and over again it will not cause a structural failure because it was not "the" wing spa.

 

 

 

I completely agree with your first point: but cumulative damage is modeled. 

 

Cumulative damage - each hit calculated independently and the results added up. Once the damage of successive hits is accumulated up to pre-set threshold, a specific damage effect takes place. A single part may have one threshold or a number of them, the last being total failure. This is how BoX works in general.

 

Compound damage - where the damage of a round hitting a previously damaged area is altered - either up or down - compared to the damage inflicted by the same type of shell if the area was undamaged. I am not sure if BoX has this: it is very hard to test. An example might be that a fuel tank is deemed more likely to burn when hit if it is already leaking than if it is not.

 

It is pointless to draw inferences from single examples, especially online; the developers themselves have said that all DM testing should be done offline. We have all shot down enemy aircraft in a single pass too - even Soviet ones!

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The Pe-2 simply has the Strongest Wings ingame. It would though, because it is a heavy twin Engine Dive Bomber.

 

Stats say I put 42 rounds into a pe-2 last night.  I was using the FW with wing cannons, so no idea how many of those were 20mm shells.  I was quite amazed when he kept flying!  😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jolly_Roger said:

Or 40x 20mm hits into a HE111 in slicing attacks over 4 minutes to have it do a suicide attack and have the AI take the credit.

 

Think I'd need to see the vid of that 😉 The He111 falls apart when harsh looks and moderate language are directed its way.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

Stats say I put 42 rounds into a pe-2 last night.  I was using the FW with wing cannons, so no idea how many of those were 20mm shells.  I was quite amazed when he kept flying!  😄

 

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between number of shells/bullet hits and lines of damage in the stat.  I think you can hit a guy with one single shell, and the sortie log might show several "damaged" lines in it, because it can damage more than one thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between number of shells/bullet hits and lines of damage in the stat.  I think you can hit a guy with one single shell, and the sortie log might show several "damaged" lines in it, because it can damage more than one thing.

 

I was just going by the bullet count.  There were fewer than 42 "damaged" lines, even including the turret slapping that I received in the process.

 

The attack wasn't great, as it was tail-on.  I was trying to get the dude before he finished off the last of our warehouses.  I'm pretty sure if I had gotten those 42 at a slashing angle he wouldn't have managed to fly off.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't build missions there is a lot you prob do not know about damage modelling in the game.

 

A lot of the stuff I know is from experimenting as much is not documented. (some great community stuff , very little developer docs tho)

We are always experimenting to work out how things are done, much is left undocumented.

 

I can tell you that mission builders can make bombs very effective or very ineffective depending on how they set the health of buildings(this impacts splash damage from large bombs too). I can also confirm that some buildings (or a sub-parts of a object)  do not show visible damage , (they can not be destroyed). When and how a target is destroyed has a lot to do with how a mission is built (what triggers and counters are used to say when a target is destroyed, so its not a cut and dry damage system and to how targets are destroyed in missions). There is also limits on what a mission builder can do.

 

So based on this you are going to get very inconsistent results , depending on how the mission is built.

Also:

Player/AI controllable planes/vehicles  vs static planes/vehicles have very different damage models. Static planes/vehicles have a health set by mission builder, same as say a building, its a binary  destroyed or not destroyed. Player controllable planes/vehicles have damage model set by developers and not changeable by mission builders, and much more sophisticated , its not a binary  DM like static objects). 

 

Internals parts of a player/AI controllable plane/vehicle can be damaged without much visible damage being shown. So visible damage is not a reliable  guide to internal component damage.. Generally AP rounds cause this type of damage the most.

 

Also some buildings are not a single entity , they are a single object made of multiple parts (up to around 50 parts on large objects like a large factory) , each part has a binary damage model, but the mission builder can only work with it as a single entity.

 

Because different mission builders have different knowledge of game mechanics , online and offline missions very considerably in how things are destroyed in a game.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good reference to compare gun ammunition from ww2 planes that I use, covers the majority major ammo types/size/ for ww2 (over the period) and give some comparisons of firepower, showing how it increased during the war time period.

 

The pictures of the various cartridges are also interesting.

 

http://quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reading Rudel's book. He was shot a lot but he managed to get back. He recalled that his ju87 was hit 8 times by 3,7cm guns and multiple times by 20mm ones. So I guess it's a nice view on this subject. Sometimes you are lucky and take a lot of punishment. I assume it was AP bullets, HE would probably rip this plane to pieces. But still impressive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I am reading Rudel's book. He was shot a lot but he managed to get back. He recalled that his ju87 was hit 8 times by 3,7cm guns and multiple times by 20mm ones. So I guess it's a nice view on this subject. Sometimes you are lucky and take a lot of punishment. I assume it was AP bullets, HE would probably rip this plane to pieces. But still impressive.

 

If he was hit by 3.7cm guns surely that would have been from 61-K AA (which we have in the game) which would have been firing HE.  IIRC he also got shot down on many occasions as well. Someone mentioned that the German AA crews used AP against low flying Il-2s - which I can well believe - but I doubt that this was general practice for Soviet crews as well.

 

The US tests on the P-47 estimated that a single hit from this 3.7cm HE shell would down the aircraft eventually about 34% of the time from a low, forwards position for the gun. ( In the game it was 90% prior to the last DM change, presumably even higher now that wings have been weakened again).    Meanwhile a 20mm HE shell had a probability of 0.12: in game it was 0.29

 

Generally speaking, HE shells in the game are much more effective than in RL, according to the only closely documented contemporary study that we have. People notice some strange occasions such as hits right next to the pilot's head that appear to have no effect,  but should realize that with damage decided by a hit box and RNG system, individual hit results will not always give results that accurately reflect the precise location of the hit.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

If he was hit by 3.7cm guns surely that would have been from 61-K AA

In that case he was shot by aircobra. It was first and last time when he was shot down by fighter. It was always AAA that shot him down.

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...