Flight Model is implemented so well, it's perceived as bad (updated with DEV feedback!)

  • The-Old

    Posts: 41

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Good post. Is it bad that I hate the mouse job input and would feel better with a joystick. I've tried flying with the follow the mouse off and loved it. The only problem was that I had to keep moving the mouse to turn. I really feel the joystick would fix that problem. Just don't have the money for a hotas setup right now.
  • Dekroma

    Posts: 8

    Posted:
    Posted:
    While I haven't used a Joystiq yet, I have been using an XB1 controller and the response is about exactly what I expected. I'm glad it is difficult to make exact adjustments and I'm glad it punishes people for over-compensation. Having flown a good deal irl and in simulators, over compensation is about the biggest no-no there is. You have to let flying come to you instead of jerking around everywhere. I was hoping that once I decide on my new HOTAS setup, I would be able to tweak some sensitivity settings to switch higher-reso control inputs and sweeping maneuvers.
  • Luche

    Posts: 4

    Posted:
    Edited: by Luche
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Haven't read most of the thread yet, but by God OP makes my blood pressure stabilize.

    The forum, as a whole, may be little more than ignorant, hypocritical children. But this thread exists. For that, the rest of us out here in the real world thank you.
  • RogueOne

    Posts: 1045

    Posted:
    So, I love that so many people agree with the OP, especially people who hadn't originally considered this aspect.

    Here's what I'm curious about in regards to the flight system discussion:

    Is a HOTAS really the best control solution for an actual space craft? I think a HOTAS is actually lacking in axis functions, though I've not tried the truly high-end ones yet to know if they may be better.

    As such, I ended up supporting the Kickstarter for Kings Assembly, mostly because it met my ideas on a unique control solution which seemed capable of meeting the control needs of SC, along with they had a screenshot showing Star Citizen in their profiles, which suggested they have SC in mind as well.

    So wondering if others have seen a potentially better control system than a HOTAS to date, which could possibly be even better considering how the flight system appears to be designed.

    cotp.info
    Vice Admiral | Constellation | M50 | Super Hornet | Cutlass | Avenger| 2x Aurora LN | Aurora MR
  • Doomachine

    Posts: 50

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Yes the accurate thruster modeling is going to cause issues in implementation. when I let go of my stick because my reticle is on a target I want the ship to stop there. not continue to bobble around. Right now the responses are too slow and makes it impossible to play the game. At what point dose game play become more important that accurate physics. I'm sure it will get fixed in some for but the fix may be more complicated because of the way its all modeled.
  • shamEeEe

    Posts: 464

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Haven't read most of the thread yet, but by God OP makes my blood pressure stabilize.

    The forum, as a whole, may be little more than ignorant, hypocritical children. But this thread exists. For that, the rest of us out here in the real world thank you.

    "silent majority" lol
    APMm2nl.png
  • K-Max

    Posts: 230

    Posted:
    Posted:
    The Op has very valid points and explains well why I think the KB+M is Squirrel y after playing with my HOTAS setup.

    CIG should look into configuring KB+M to react to the thruster gimbling effect seen with joysticks.

    They should also restrick the KB+M to the same auto aiming effects instead of allowing them more freedom of targeting.

    Alternate solution enable hats an other HOTAS/Joystick configuations to counter the nimbleness of KB+M. I tried both I prefer HOTAS but seems KB+M has some advantages in some ways.
    K-Max
  • Xecuter

    Posts: 38

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I must admit I was kind of lost when I first tried AC. The flight model is quite unlike anything else I've played. And to be honest, my first impression of the flight model (using HOTAS) wasn't good. But after some deliberate testing of the mechanics in free-flight, I finally understand (not master, that's still in the distant future) the flight model. And now I absolutely love it!

    Playing with comstab and g-safe on/off while looking at the g-force values helped tremendously to understand what was going on. I applaud CIG for taking this approach and I hope they will stick with it. It's not an easy mechanic to understand and I do feel like there's a lack of feedback of whats going on that would help the player better understand the way the model works (engine rumble, alert lights for g-forces, better sense of acceleration/deceleration, etc) but that's almost certainly being worked on.

    By all means CIG, don't lose focus of your vision. ATM, not everyone understands what's going on, but I truly believe you gave us something really special. Just the flight model itself has the potential to elevate SC to a true gaming master piece.

    easy(-ish) to learn, hard to master definitely fits the bill.
    "That's what."
    - She
  • EnigmaticJester

    Posts: 10

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I found the controls very pleasing with a controller. I wasn't struggling to stabilize like with a mouse and keyboard, moving the stick softly to one side didn't jerk the craft like KB+M did in directed mode (since controller is only in interactive mode, and doesn't suck in it), everything feels like it should.

    I don't envy people without a controller, though.
  • AC273

    Posts: 41

    Posted:
    Posted:
    The ships have mass, but in flight they don't seem to have mass. meaning.... they should be more sluggish when changing trajectories. Also, you should be able to be traveling in a direction and flip your ship end for end with thrusters and fire. This is how objects work in space. There is momentum along a vector and centripetal momentum around the CG, and they are independent.
  • DrFuzz

    Posts: 1

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I agree with the OP! Well said!
  • docparallax

    Posts: 5

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Yes, the flight model is really good, but only in ways that are not important to control, feel and gameplay.
    I would argue those are the most important things.

    The easiest way to fix this is to just give the small fighter ships stationary thrusters.
    I understand CIG probably does not want to do this, as we all thought their videos of moving thrusters looked really cool. In this case I think gameplay needs to overrule either realism or eye candy.
  • RS22

    Posts: 34

    Posted:
    Edited: by RS22
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Absolutely agree. The physics are fine, I have some issues with the IFCS automatically throttling down to pull up harder, but the physics are fine.

    As for people complaining about "turrets in space," that's most likely how real space combat would work.
  • Kamikaz1

    Posts: 3006

    Posted:
    Posted:
    +1
    I'm glad I stopped in to read the OP. This could explain why the Hornet maneuvers so poorly compared to the Aurora and 300i which both already have thrusters pointed where they need to fire for maneuvering.
    IXM.jpg
  • HopTzop

    Posts: 173

    Posted:
    Edited: by HopTzop
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I agree with the OP, at first it was a strange control, because I've never played a game that really simulates a space ship. After 15min of playing in free flight and trying to shoot asteroids and get through some small places with my ship I started to feel the ship and how it should be handle. I really love this kind of control because every ship feels different having the small thrusters placed in different locations of the ship.

    This makes it much more fun to play it and you have that feeling when you get to drive a new car that you haven't drove before. You need to get used to the clutch and the way you change gear, dunno if Americans know the feeling because I've seen most of them are using automatic gear, but the European people should know what I'm saying.

    Right now the game control just needs some little tweaks, nothing big and that's normal and I'm sure CIG had this in mind anyway.
    k6FGSha.gif
  • Sissors

    Posts: 555

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Absolutely agree. The physics are fine, I have some issues with the IFCS automatically throttling down to pull up harder, but the physics are fine.

    As for people complaining about "turrets in space," that's most likely how real space combat would work.

    First: Gameplay >>>>>>> Realism.

    Second, real space combat? Really? You just compared SC to real space combat? This is people really should try to get: There is nothing even remotely realistic about SC, don't think it is, it ever would be, or you ever want it to be. If it would be realistic at least everything aiming related would be computer controlled, engagement distances would probably be 100k km+, and for sure your laser weapons would travel with the speed of light...
  • tillwalther

    Posts: 374

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Because CIG implemented perfectly the thruster system, and how it is handled by the IFCS
    There is lag because the maneuvering thrusters, being gimbaled, have to turn to the appropriate direction, and need a little time to pass from zero to full thrust.
    There is overcorrection because the pilot, feeling the delay, pushes harder, requiring even more power from the thrusters - and this extra power then means that when the input is ended, the ship still moves as thrusters need to spool down. Basically, we have a case of pilot induced oscillation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation

    MVP ever.

  • PadaVinson

    Posts: 248

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I agree. I think it's far too soon to tell. we need to play this for at least a month before truly grasping the scope of the differences and if its bad or good.
    www.terrantitans.com
  • dataentity

    Posts: 1015

    Posted:
    Edited: by dataentity
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Ten bucks says it's because your hitting some IFCS safety threshold and as soon as you do the thrusters have to roll around a bit to try to compensate, thus they turn your turn slow down, then they turn back and fire to speed you up again, lather rinse, repeat, ... instant wobble.

    Actually it seem to be present only on certain controller-ship combinations according to the grapevine...

    Easy money...

    Although, maybe not.

    I speculate that it's a bug in how the game and then the IFCS interpret the input from certain devices. Leading the ship to turn too much and then have to throttle down the turn, like you speculated. But given that this doesn't seem to happen on all input devices also makes it a bug.

    So either this should be happening to everyone on every control method and every ship, or nobody.
    Your one stop shop for sardonic hyperbole.
    If the game isn't fun at K/D:0, the game is bad.
    Veteran of the Wobble Wars and the Concept Conflict.
  • LunikNoxa

    Posts: 1314

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Because CIG implemented perfectly the thruster system, and how it is handled by the IFCS
    There is lag because the maneuvering thrusters, being gimbaled, have to turn to the appropriate direction, and need a little time to pass from zero to full thrust.
    There is overcorrection because the pilot, feeling the delay, pushes harder, requiring even more power from the thrusters - and this extra power then means that when the input is ended, the ship still moves as thrusters need to spool down. Basically, we have a case of pilot induced oscillation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation

    MVP ever.

    While the thrusters do need time to gimbal the appropriate direction, they don't need time to hit max thrust. Not in the current model. Check out that M50 Recalled thread. Physics is adding the time delay to reach max thruster output now. They probably do need time for max thrust to actually stop your momentum though, even now. Yay physics!

    Mostly, Alki is right. I know I can't get yaw right due to my poor piloting skills. Of course, it doesn't help that the roll control in DeCoupled yaws in Coupled. I think I like yaw on the twist, but it should stay consistent. (Just add roll to DeCoupled and we're fine... yes, yes, I know they know this.)
    There is no Justice, there is Just Us.
  • Zabulon

    Posts: 5026

    Posted:
    Edited: by Zabulon
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I'm cross posting this dev quote from their physics programmer here, as it's easily missed, and people in this thread might be interested in it:

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2721296/#Comment_2721296
    [hide]

    ( ... ) My final point, we have a powerful system that can support as much or as little realism as we choose to support. Ultimately it's going to be about what the most backers like. We will never make everyone happy, as much as we'd like to. But we definitely will try to make this game what the majority want it to be. We have the systems in place to make Arena Commander a marriage of Kerbal with World of Tanks if that's what the community wants. On the other hand, we could make it Arcade Commander, though that would have saved a lot of us a ton of time and effort. Where we land in that spectrum will depend on the fun factor, because ultimately it is a game, not just a space simulation. And that's why it's great that we have an early prototype in the hands of real players, because it's your definition of fun that matters most.

  • LunikNoxa

    Posts: 1314

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I'm cross posting this dev quote from their physics programmer here, as it's easily missed, and people in this thread might be interested in it:

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2721296/#Comment_2721296

    [hide]

    ( ... ) My final point, we have a powerful system that can support as much or as little realism as we choose to support. Ultimately it's going to be about what the most backers like. We will never make everyone happy, as much as we'd like to. But we definitely will try to make this game what the majority want it to be. We have the systems in place to make Arena Commander a marriage of Kerbal with World of Tanks if that's what the community wants. On the other hand, we could make it Arcade Commander, though that would have saved a lot of us a ton of time and effort. Where we land in that spectrum will depend on the fun factor, because ultimately it is a game, not just a space simulation. And that's why it's great that we have an early prototype in the hands of real players, because it's your definition of fun that matters most.

    Nice, find, Zabulon; I think I skimmed over that one earlier today. I really hope the more "sim" focused wins out, and I would probably be better at the Arcade Commander game. I don't think this game should be about thinking you're the best, or flying like an ace. It should be about thinking ahead and running away most of the time.

    I appreciate his honesty on the eventual decisions, but I hold out hope that it does not seem like most of the Devs want to go that far towards the "airplane" mode.
    There is no Justice, there is Just Us.
  • SoftKitty

    Posts: 39

    Posted:
    Posted:
    And now CIG knows why thrusters aren't gimbaled on real spacecraft. You want the ship to be able to respond to your input for any situation you might find yourself in.
  • shamEeEe

    Posts: 464

    Posted:
    Edited: by shamEeEe
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    I'm cross posting this dev quote from their physics programmer here, as it's easily missed, and people in this thread might be interested in it:

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2721296/#Comment_2721296

    [hide]

    ( ... ) My final point, we have a powerful system that can support as much or as little realism as we choose to support. Ultimately it's going to be about what the most backers like. We will never make everyone happy, as much as we'd like to. But we definitely will try to make this game what the majority want it to be. We have the systems in place to make Arena Commander a marriage of Kerbal with World of Tanks if that's what the community wants. On the other hand, we could make it Arcade Commander, though that would have saved a lot of us a ton of time and effort. Where we land in that spectrum will depend on the fun factor, because ultimately it is a game, not just a space simulation. And that's why it's great that we have an early prototype in the hands of real players, because it's your definition of fun that matters most.

    Nice, find, Zabulon; I think I skimmed over that one earlier today. I really hope the more "sim" focused wins out, and I would probably be better at the Arcade Commander game. I don't think this game should be about thinking you're the best, or flying like an ace. It should be about thinking ahead and running away most of the time.

    I appreciate his honesty on the eventual decisions, but I hold out hope that it does not seem like most of the Devs want to go that far towards the "airplane" mode.
    Where the hell is the fun in that?

    APMm2nl.png
  • Zabulon

    Posts: 5026

    Posted:
    Edited: by Zabulon
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    And now CIG knows why thrusters aren't gimbaled on real spacecraft. You want the ship to be able to respond to your input for any situation you might find yourself in.

    According to developer Brandon Evans, the visual depiction of the aux thrusters is decoupled from their actual operation, and they're able to fire anywhere within their cone of operation instantaneously, even if they visually aren't in the correct orientation.

  • jpritchett_cig

    Developer

    Posted:
    Edited: by Kajisan
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I wasn't able to make it entirely through this thread, but it was a very interesting debate. I have a few comments.

    1) IFCS models a true control system, which means that it asks thrusters to provide an acceleration based on a velocity feedback control. A real control system has limitations on what acceleration it can support based on the damping of the system. Accelerate too much and you have overshoot and oscillation. Accelerate too little and you have a long settle time. Critical damping provides the optimal acceleration to settle as quickly as possible with zero overshoot. So the acceleration curve is a realistic curve given the type of system we're simulating. And there is no difference in the settle time whether you're accelerating to a constant velocity or decelerating to 0. There is a perceived difference because settling into zero velocity is a much more subtle action than accelerating into a constant velocity. You perceive the effect of slide as you come to a full stop. You don't perceive slide as you settle into a non-zero velocity.

    2) What IFCS asks of thrusters is not always what it gets. This was a primary design consideration for this system. It's easy to create a system that behaves exactly like you want it to behave. The hard part was designing a system that might not get the response that it asks. That's why I modeled it after a feedback control system. Because at every step in the simulation, it responds to the true state of the system rather than what it expects it to be. And there are many reasons why the thrusters won't give IFCS the thrust it requests. An obvious one is damage to thrusters, IFCS or both. Another is a non-optimal mass distribution, since mass distribution changes from the designed norm, especially in the heat of battle. Another is just non-optimal design. You see this in the Hornet. It has vectored thrusters that potentially support multiple control actions. This isn't a bad thing. It gives ships character. The Hornet performs well, even if it does have some hitches. These hitches come out of its intentional thruster design. The most obvious example of it is when strafing left and right. When you start to strafe left, for example, the top thrusters vector to provide the +X thrust. These thrusters are not balanced by other +X thrusters on the bottom of the ship, so they generate roll torque along with +X translational force. In order to compensation for this, IFCS fires pure torque pairs, which are pairs of thrusters that can generate the needed counter-torque without any residual translation, thus bringing the system to equilibrium. The problem is that the very same thrusters engaged in +X thrust are also used to generate the counter-torque, and it takes a moment for the system to find its natural equilibrium. But it is a natural equilibrium, not a pre-determined state, and that's the point of this system. IFCS isn't "smart" so much as it is "adaptive". At its most basic, it isn't attempting to fly for you (though it can do that, and advanced systems will do more). It's merely attempting to use the thrusters it has, without any assumptions about what it has, to achieve the requested action.

    3) The current state of control is not what it will be. Over the past week, I have been refining the response to controller inputs to make the game easier to control without sacrificing realism. I personally cannot play the game as it was released. We had to release it to get the ball rolling, but I'm working on the fix to a lot of these issues as we speak. In fact, I should be working on that instead of reading and responding to this thread.

    4) I happen to agree that the amount of thrust we support, and thus the amount of acceleration, is too high. I would love to see more inertia in these ships. The system supports that, it's just a question of what the designers decide. But be warned that the stopping time and perceived slide when turning will be higher with less acceleration.

    5) "Main thruster keeps thrusting animation even though you already reached maximum and your cockpit controlls reports no energy waste. (apparently to make it look cool)
    -that, i dont like..."

    That's not actually true. It isn't thrusting, it's just in a hot state, ready to thrust. When it's thrusting, you see a very different effect. It's like a jet engine that's on, running hot, but not yet thrusting. Maybe we can improve the effect, but that's what we were going for.

    6) As for the complaint that there is no mouse mode to point the nose toward the reticle position, there certainly could be, it just hasn't been implemented. IFCS can accurately point the ship's nose at any point in space with optimal thrust.

    7) To address the point of the OP, it's not actually the vectoring of the thrusters that you're feeling, but instead a combination of the feedback control response, thruster response time and max thrust available, which, btw, fluctuates based on available power. This is highly tunable and will depend on the quality and even health of the systems involved, so different ships will have very different control response.

    JP
  • Shatth

    Posts: 19

    Posted:
    Posted:
    +1 Thank you a ton. Too many people are complaining about the Flight Model, I'm glad someone aside from me actually likes it.
  • LunikNoxa

    Posts: 1314

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    I'm cross posting this dev quote from their physics programmer here, as it's easily missed, and people in this thread might be interested in it:

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2721296/#Comment_2721296

    [hide]

    ( ... ) My final point, we have a powerful system that can support as much or as little realism as we choose to support. Ultimately it's going to be about what the most backers like. We will never make everyone happy, as much as we'd like to. But we definitely will try to make this game what the majority want it to be. We have the systems in place to make Arena Commander a marriage of Kerbal with World of Tanks if that's what the community wants. On the other hand, we could make it Arcade Commander, though that would have saved a lot of us a ton of time and effort. Where we land in that spectrum will depend on the fun factor, because ultimately it is a game, not just a space simulation. And that's why it's great that we have an early prototype in the hands of real players, because it's your definition of fun that matters most.

    Nice, find, Zabulon; I think I skimmed over that one earlier today. I really hope the more "sim" focused wins out, and I would probably be better at the Arcade Commander game. I don't think this game should be about thinking you're the best, or flying like an ace. It should be about thinking ahead and running away most of the time.

    I appreciate his honesty on the eventual decisions, but I hold out hope that it does not seem like most of the Devs want to go that far towards the "airplane" mode.
    Where the hell is the fun in that?

    I'm talking Persistent Universe here. If I want to dogfight, I'll load Arena Commander. If I want to look at stars and experience the lore of the universe these guys are building, I'll do that. And if someone is hostile towards me and I don't have an obvious advantage? I'll run. I won't use a PvE slider, but I will run from hostile engagements. That way even PvP players will get a realistic experience of player combat.
    There is no Justice, there is Just Us.
  • Dante80

    Posts: 1874

    Posted:
    Edited: by Dante80
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    I wasn't able to make it entirely through this thread, but it was a very interesting debate. I have a few comments.

    1) IFCS models a true control system, which means that it asks thrusters to provide an acceleration based on a velocity feedback control. A real control system has limitations on what acceleration it can support based on the damping of the system. Accelerate too much and you have overshoot and oscillation. Accelerate too little and you have a long settle time. Critical damping provides the optimal acceleration to settle as quickly as possible with zero overshoot. So the acceleration curve is a realistic curve given the type of system we're simulating. And there is no difference in the settle time whether you're accelerating to a constant velocity or decelerating to 0. There is a perceived difference because settling into zero velocity is a much more subtle action than accelerating into a constant velocity. You perceive the effect of slide as you come to a full stop. You don't perceive slide as you settle into a non-zero velocity.

    2) What IFCS asks of thrusters is not always what it gets. This was a primary design consideration for this system. It's easy to create a system that behaves exactly like you want it to behave. The hard part was designing a system that might not get the response that it asks. That's why I modeled it after a feedback control system. Because at every step in the simulation, it responds to the true state of the system rather than what it expects it to be. And there are many reasons why the thrusters won't give IFCS the thrust it requests. An obvious one is damage to thrusters, IFCS or both. Another is a non-optimal mass distribution, since mass distribution changes from the designed norm, especially in the heat of battle. Another is just non-optimal design. You see this in the Hornet. It has vectored thrusters that potentially support multiple control actions. This isn't a bad thing. It gives ships character. The Hornet performs well, even if it does have some hitches. These hitches come out of its intentional thruster design. The most obvious example of it is when strafing left and right. When you start to strafe left, for example, the top thrusters vector to provide the +X thrust. These thrusters are not balanced by other +X thrusters on the bottom of the ship, so they generate roll torque along with +X translational force. In order to compensation for this, IFCS fires pure torque pairs, which are pairs of thrusters that can generate the needed counter-torque without any residual translation, thus bringing the system to equilibrium. The problem is that the very same thrusters engaged in +X thrust are also used to generate the counter-torque, and it takes a moment for the system to find its natural equilibrium. But it is a natural equilibrium, not a pre-determined state, and that's the point of this system. IFCS isn't "smart" so much as it is "adaptive". At its most basic, it isn't attempting to fly for you (though it can do that, and advanced systems will do more). It's merely attempting to use the thrusters it has, without any assumptions about what it has, to achieve the requested action.

    3) The current state of control is not what it will be. Over the past week, I have been refining the response to controller inputs to make the game easier to control without sacrificing realism. I personally cannot play the game as it was released. We had to release it to get the ball rolling, but I'm working on the fix to a lot of these issues as we speak. In fact, I should be working on that instead of reading and responding to this thread.

    4) I happen to agree that the amount of thrust we support, and thus the amount of acceleration, is too high. I would love to see more inertia in these ships. The system supports that, it's just a question of what the designers decide. But be warned that the stopping time and perceived slide when turning will be higher with less acceleration.


    5) "Main thruster keeps thrusting animation even though you already reached maximum and your cockpit controlls reports no energy waste. (apparently to make it look cool)
    -that, i dont like..."

    That's not actually true. It isn't thrusting, it's just in a hot state, ready to thrust. When it's thrusting, you see a very different effect. It's like a jet engine that's on, running hot, but not yet thrusting. Maybe we can improve the effect, but that's what we were going for.

    6) As for the complaint that there is no mouse mode to point the nose toward the reticle position, there certainly could be, it just hasn't been implemented. IFCS can accurately point the ship's nose at any point in space with optimal thrust.

    7) To address the point of the OP, it's not actually the vectoring of the thrusters that you're feeling, but instead a combination of the feedback control response, thruster response time and max thrust available, which, btw, fluctuates based on available power. This is highly tunable and will depend on the quality and even health of the systems involved, so different ships will have very different control response.

    JP

    Thanks a lot for the feedback man...now, BACK TO WORK...:P

    Also please don't make 6 happen. Pointing in space with a mouse is very bad for gameplay!

  • mac-murphy

    Posts: 1239

    Posted:
    Edited: by mac-murphy
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Thanks for your extended reaction Zyrain!

    Can somebody sticky his post please?
    e2A6yoX.png
Sign In or Register to comment.