AuthorTopic: Pixel Art 3.0  (Read 9107 times)

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #10 on: March 31, 2015, 03:09:36 am
So basically we are calling the voxel art pixel art 3.0 because we are hipster? A little lame.

Hrrm. I don't see an improvement over the Chatterbox. Maybe this isn't the right place for this after all.

Offline Indigo

  • Administrator
  • 0011
  • *
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Artist, Indie Game Dev
    • DanFessler
    • DanFessler
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/849.htm
    • DanFessler
    • DanFessler
    • View Profile
    • Portfolio

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #11 on: March 31, 2015, 04:17:13 am
It's definitely interesting what you're developing.  It seems like you're trying to bridge pixel art and voxel modeling by creating an in-between medium (though much more voxel leaning by the looks of it).  Sounds fun.  I think you're just putting way too much effort into trying to sell us on what it is philosophically rather than let that emergently be decided by those who create with it.  You're trying very hard to redefine pixel art - and your definition of it is so far removed from what we understand it as or what we'd find remotely useful as a metaphor.  Even the title of this thread is philosophically provocative rather than focus on the tool itself.  It's clear why you're getting a bit of an abrasive response ;)

My suggestion - Focus on the tool.  Show us what features it has.  Show us cool examples of art it can make.  Let us play with it.  Let it speak for itself on its philosophical importance to the artist.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 05:19:48 am by Indigo »

Offline PixelPiledriver

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 997
  • Karma: +6/-0
  • Yo!
    • View Profile
    • My Blog

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #12 on: March 31, 2015, 07:29:09 am
Quote
An early Save isn't good while I'm still messing with the baseline
File i/o for saving and building classes that are driven by decoupled components should be of high priority.
Data you can't save is nearly useless.
If you build each new tool and feature as a component then adding it to an object won't affect how any of it is stored.

Quote
could no other than produce this video with an excruciatingly bad video capture setup
Quote
with all we've been through and the videos
Well yah the videos don't run at good framerate and are not well showing of the experience of controlling it.
They could be edited down a crapload.
30 mins is way too long for what is shown.
You also barely push the capabilities of it artistically.
Let random people do extra work for you.

Quote
My suggestion - Focus on the tool.  Show us what features it has.  Show us cool examples of art it can make.  Let us play with it.  Let it speak for itself on its philosophical importance to the artist.
Completely.
You're very focused on your own intentions of a creative tool.
When others use it they will have their own.

Quote
And as long as I feel major game-changing features of my list are not done, the intermediate testing, feedback and fixing are not very effective development
You don't have to fix anything.
Just gather feedback over a long period of time.
You can easily setup a google form that automatically collects completed forms.

Check this out:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p6qBCYnsNIODrRpeXxiGF9as8SbFxU-vw5AVvPgP2DU/edit?usp=sharing
Look at all that tasty fucking data for Dig-N-Rig!
Over a years worth!

This feedback helped us improve our game a lot.
Did we consider every single opinion and comment?
Of course not. :P
That would take too much time to read.
Just randomly sifting thru it is good enough.

Sharing versions is also easy.
Try Github.
https://github.com/PixelPiledriver/Game/tree/master/game

It's the perfect repository for people that don't want to mess with repositories.
Just click one button and poof.
Saved, backed up, and everyone can get to it.

Don't be silly RAV.
Let your code roam the open plains of the internet.
Help people like what you make.

I need to take my own advice, and release the tool I've been making as well soon.  :lol:
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 07:52:09 am by PixelPiledriver »
And knowing that it is, we seek what it is... ~ Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Chapter 1

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #13 on: March 31, 2015, 12:13:44 pm
You know I love you PPD. I am thankful for all the good heart you put into things for others. And I admire your competence. As I do of many here. The reason I took a break from updates were not ill-will, that I felt it didn't work out so well for me at the moment is not your fault. Because no matter how skilled and positive you are, you cannot be aware of the very specific circumstances and requirements of this project.

The videos are very nerdcore. first of all they showcase technical accomplishments few can really appreciate. but also, especially the most current was made for you, PPD, because it shows countless little changes, not just the obvious stamping, but really everything from what you got, which I just could hardly all describe fully in words anymore.

Basically, your attitude is pretty much perfect, as far as I'm concerned, a blessing. The over-emphasis of a culture of critique that's otherwise rampant is not always the best work mode. So there needs to be another pillar balancing that out here. There are moments one has to realize that putting a greater measure of trust into someone, and work on a benifit of doubt, to try prove them right, instead of wrong, can be more useful as an alternate mode. I know that at this moment, it is the mindset needed most, and I am convinced that it is deserved.

I have a very good feeling for the truer motivations behind what people say, how that affects their trail of thought and judgement. it is not to hold against them, we're just humans, but since I have such limited resources, I must take care of myself, the care of myself that to everyone else is secondary to their primary motivations, they subconsciously try to coerce me towards, not necessarily for my own best, though not mal-intended either. I have to plan things such, that I know it's for our both best long term, rather than just satisfying short-term.

For example, I knew that the lack of Save would be a problem for you at the time. I warned you, but you assured me otherwise, in honest believe. And I knew that it's not the right moment to spend time doing it just to motivate you delivering art experiments, but agreed to releases under the assumption you would have time and motivation enough anyway; it is nothing I can expect, considering there is no pay in it, it is nothing but generous to have any support at all, and no blame if it doesn't work out; still it affects me, and I have to take precautions to keep development on track as I need. Just as I knew that the intermediate suggestions would probably confuse it, because I know what immediate assumptions the status quo would lead you to. And if there were any benefit in it now, that this is indeed just getting a lot of art done according to the theory laid out here in the assumption it is right for now, and dealing with the tool as is, more than assuming what it should be.

And if that is not done for whatever reason, but argued around it, and what I should do, in the net sum of it I lose time dealing with it more than benefits the project. I have a very strong vision, and I know I'm right. I know that dealing with such a character is frustrating to other people. It must rub everyone the wrong way, especially seeing how much stake you guys naturally claim to your subject. And really, who am I to speak.

I write this not only because of this subject matter specifically, but I believe this different perspective to development is noteworthy for once. I know that for a lot of people a "release early, release often", as well as "critique all, critique hard" and "pile on the feature lists!" attitude is the holy grail, along with glorification of teamwork and crowdsource. And while there is truth to it, this is not always the case in my experience. it depends. there is no golden bullet to development, but contextual judgement of the situation.

However, in the end, even I must admit from your reactions, that it seems not possible to reflect on this more constructively, from what has been shown so far. So as I suspected, it boils down to release and discuss it, or not discuss it. I did hope for a more creative and motivational take on it meanwhile, but it just seems not possible in the reality of what can be expected reasonably.

Part of me thinks it might be the time to make these toyish intermediate releases, if nothing else then just for the sake of trying to inspire some Activity. But I can very much predict every complaint in the current state, instead of concentrating on the art as is, and it's terrible frustrating just to think of it. And maybe even the worst of it, prolly would be spiting me, without any activity, after I would put all that energy into it in good faith, distracting my dream otherwise. Someone does have to take the risks and bite the bullet in the end huh, and it all points towards me. *sigh* decisions, decisions, and not much conviction in it to go by. :-/


« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 01:36:19 pm by RAV »

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #14 on: March 31, 2015, 01:33:35 pm
I write this not only because of this subject matter specifically, but I believe this different perspective to development is noteworthy for once. I know that for a lot of people a "release early, release often", as well as "critique all, critique hard" and "pile on the feature lists!" attitude is the holy grail, along with glorification of teamwork and crowdsource. And while there is truth to it, this is not always the case in my experience. it depends. there is no golden bullet to development, but contextual judgement of the situation.
While this is true, being opensource doesn't mean one unified thing. Brogue, for example, is opensource and has no bugtracker or github location. The author just notes select feedback on the forums and uses it to inform future coding.. It is definitely a game made by someone with a strong, clear vision (probably the most clear vision I've ever seen, pun not intended), as their own personal challenge and not merely to satisfy others / add features.

When to release is of course your decision, but I must support the position that you are unlikely to get any significant discussion going until you do so.  People are otherwise in the position of commenting on something that, as you acknowledge, they lack context for.
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #15 on: March 31, 2015, 04:17:24 pm
Consider that releases for you are also additional work for me, unrelated to the actual work as it concerns me.
That additional work is not interesting work. And beyond that, communicating and managing it takes time, too.
So as much as feedback is a favour to me, I'm also performing a service.
There needs to be a good proportion in that. I need to be able to believe in that.

Even preparing these talks is an effort that I deem relevant, more than just rant, yet so far I'm not very encouraged about the start to a more involved public relation.

Thing is I still believe that what material and explanation I released so far, should be sufficient for some interesting discourse.
From the first critiques I must infer that hardly any time and consideration on the material released so far was actually given.
How else would someone criticize things that are not even there, or criticize things I explicitly already addressed. I don't know.
Unless there really is no interest for it, which would make my efforts futile anyway.

Something I'm also irritated about is that my first post would read philosophical. When really, from my perspective it is very practical and reasonable in feature description.
Even more, the reason I would philosophize about it, is that sending you into it without that preparing backround of what and why, is only half the game.
I'm not just talking to you as a coder, but the most experienced user of the tool sharing my observations on it so far.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 04:59:45 pm by RAV »

Offline Indigo

  • Administrator
  • 0011
  • *
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Artist, Indie Game Dev
    • DanFessler
    • DanFessler
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/849.htm
    • DanFessler
    • DanFessler
    • View Profile
    • Portfolio

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #16 on: March 31, 2015, 06:54:56 pm
A hammer without a nail is a useless hunk of metal.  Unless you demonstrate a *need* for the tool, it will have zero significance to any 3rd party.  How do you demonstrate that need?  Show us what practical problem it solves that other programs don't.  Show us the artistic capabilities of that tool to get our imagination flowing. 

A tool should either enable you to be more creative, or work more efficiently (or both).  And that's what this is ultimately, a tool, yet you talk about it as though it's more of a new medium.  Pixel art already exists, and voxel art exists.  The output of this program can be one of those two things, and nothing else.  Calling them one in the same, pixel art 3.0, simply confuses the discussion and ruffles feathers.  What your tool brings to the table at the end of the day is workflow - and that's awesome!  I love tools that improve workflow! But those workflow benefits get lost in the philosophical discussion about the medium, which I find largely irrelevant.

In my mind, the most exciting aspect of this tool that I can see practical benefits for is the idea that pixels and tiles are both first-class citizens.  They are treated equally.  That's a really great concept that other programs lack.  I can imagine the workflow potential that mechanic has.  Aside from that, after reading your posts a few times over, I'm not sure how much benefit I'd get from the other features beyond it just being a fun idea or toy to tinker with.  For me, I see no benefit in visualizing the quad tree.  I do not need to see the mixed resolution grid - much like how I dont need to see a pixel grid as I pixel.  It would get in the way.  To properly paint, you must see things as continuous surfaces.  But that's just my opinion without having used the tool.

---

A little off topic, but I feel it should be mentioned, I think the other problem you're facing in this thread is that of communication.  You are extremely long winded and it takes a large amount of energy to try to extract/interpret the relevant bits from your posts. Your videos are absurdly long, and your posts contain many paragraphs that could be condensed into single sentences and often uses abstract wording without further concrete explanation.  On top of that, you're fairly unreceptive to feedback.  Instead of addressing people's apprehensions with reason and a solid defense of your ideas, you're simply deflecting critique and putting the blame on the reader for not understanding.  The fault is yours for not clearly conveying your points.  And when they are not understood, you should make an effort to make it clearer.  Communication is a two-way street.  If many people are saying the same things, perhaps they have something of merit to consider.  Instead, you're approaching this discussion as something that only you can have the right opinions about because you're the most intimate with the project - yet you seem resistant to letting others get intimate with it.   All of this adds up to a very unproductive discussion, and it's not the fault of others.

I have a few questions I'd love for you to clarify:
  • How will this tool be a more efficient workflow than other existing pixel art tools?
  • What is this tool capable of doing that other tools are not? - or is the innovation in *how* things are done rather than what things are done?
  • How does the visualization of the quad-tree help workflow?
  • Are all brushes confined to perfect squares, or can you have odd shaped brushes like circles?
  • Will you be implementing any sort of palette management features?

---

EDIT:
Just a random thought - the pixel workflow that this tool would embrace is very similar to this experimental piece by Drazelic
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/82913.htm
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 08:31:12 pm by Indigo »

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #17 on: March 31, 2015, 08:05:57 pm
I appreciate your effort in making this worthwhile, resolving the issue and keeping me engaged to my needs, while explaining your view on the situation. Good community care-taking.

Quote
  Pixel art already exists, and voxel art exists.  The output of this program can be one of those two things, and nothing else.  Calling them one in the same, pixel art 3.0, simply confuses the discussion and ruffles feathers.
As I have laid out, this was about describing the bigger transformations in the technical progression of pixel art, as I see it concerning the personal design directives of my work.
It helps explaining what the main purpose of this tool is, compared to how I see the emphasis in earlier era tool development.
Whatever issues people have with that, is with themselves. I have no empathy whatsoever why this is a big deal. it's just funny to me.

Quote
A little off topic, but I feel it should be mentioned, I think the other problem you're facing in this thread is that of communication.  You are extremely long winded and it takes a large amount of energy to try to extract/interpret the relevant bits from your posts. Your videos are absurdly long, and your posts contain many paragraphs that could be condensed into single sentences and often uses abstract wording without further concrete explanation.  On top of that, you're fairly unreceptive to feedback.  Instead of addressing people's apprehensions with reason and a solid defense of your ideas, you're simply deflecting critique and putting the blame on the reader for not understanding.  The fault is yours for not clearly conveying your points, and when they are not understood, you should make an effort to make it clearer.  Communication is a two-way street.  If many people are saying the same things, perhaps they have something of merit to consider.  Instead, you're approaching this discussion as something that only you can have the right opinions about because you're the most intimate with the project - yet you seem resistant to letting others get intimate with it.   All of this adds up to a very unproductive discussion, and it's not the fault of others.
I guess this is how you can see it. From my perspective, I have talked about it so much in the past, engaged the same points so many times, I'm just a bit tired of the attitude where people give reactionary critiques, instead of giving in to a bit self-exploratory imagination from what I say. You call it a two way road. okay. It's been for a long time a one-way road to my disadvantage, where people just wanted to explain to me their notion of pixel art as only truth, and have been absurdly resistant to any other notion. You should know the problem. So yes, it might be, that I'm just worn out on it and simply turn the tables on that now. The issue itself is two-way in fault. not enough effort in engagement from either side, and while I might sound long-winded and obtuse to some, many of the points fielded towards me over the years feel uninspired and tired to me.

Quote
    How will this tool be a more efficient workflow than other existing pixel art tools?
Quote
    What is this tool capable of doing that other tools are not? - or is the innovation in *how* things are done rather than what things are done?
It seems that my introduction is being read as a provocation in terms of declaring a grand revolution, almost threatening.
The leisure appreciation about its funny quirks, refinements, design directives and possibilities get lost, that make it just a simple preposition of design.
Am I super excited about my work and see it as the best thing ever (!!!111). maybe. naturally. that might sometimes sound through playfully.

Among the specializations mentioned, the more interesting question is what kind of workflow behavior does this tool enable in the first place. compared to what? Minecraft? a classic 2d pixel tool? what happens in the intersection? what simple mechanics arising from that merge proof more versatile than expected. For example, what does a dynamic canvas size of 131072 x 131072 x 131072 of arbitrary surface area in one image mean to your organizition of art assets. what kind of creativity does it enable? I'm not only here to spell all these things out, but to set some pointers and directions to pick up on for the curious mindset of excited inquiry. and of course, there is much for you to explore and answers for yourself eventually. but you shouldn't just assume this potential as gimmicky.

Quote
do not need to see the mixed resolution grid - much like how I dont need to see a pixel grid as I pixel.  It would get in the way.  To properly paint, you must see things as continuous surfaces.  But that's just my opinion without having used the tool.
Quote
How does the visualization help workflow?
Most of all mixed resolution is reasoned in geometric processing efficiency; it makes an absurd scaling and detail possible that of course directly impacts your creativity. But to my surprise in using it alot as a visualized grid, it turned out to be very useful artistically actually, in equal parts of fading it in or out. Actually, an adaptive grid is the most or even only worthwhile grid to have displayed at all. it is extremely useful as a means of measurement of space, since counting space units becomes much clearer. it helps immensely checking in on proportions and dimensions in lay out phase. And this solution to measurements is extremely natural to the pixel art as such, to boot.

Quote
    Are all brushes confined to perfect squares, or can you have odd shaped brushes like circles?
possibly, however I noticed that simply using the tile approach is pretty much a self-defined brush already

Quote
    Will you be implementing any sort of palette management features?
Yes, all in good time.


« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 09:14:29 pm by RAV »

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #18 on: April 01, 2015, 03:19:30 am
Consider that releases for you are also additional work for me, unrelated to the actual work as it concerns me.
That's probably why Github is so popular : people get access to code as it is developing, and this frees developers to work on what they think is important rather than administrative stuff (all they have to do after the initial work, is to occasionally 'git push' to keep GitHub up to date with their work).

You basically have a choice between
* the standard-release model, like Brogue, where you make discrete releases, assuming responsibility for getting everything just-so and stable before release
* and the rolling-release model, like Arch Linux, where you may not even have a version number, but may choose to make the occasional discrete release to emphasize the need for upgrading (eg. due to fixing major bugs / security holes, or the need to be up to date with a third party library / service / protocol)

 There are variations, but pretty much all software fits broadly into one of those two slots. You still have to make the initial push to get things understandable for people other than you, no matter what, but there is a choice of how to deal with things after that.


Quote
Something I'm also irritated about is that my first post would read philosophical. When really, from my perspective it is very practical and reasonable in feature description.
Even more, the reason I would philosophize about it, is that sending you into it without that preparing backround of what and why, is only half the game.
I'm not just talking to you as a coder, but the most experienced user of the tool sharing my observations on it so far.
This is good, But not all people share your approach to life. Personally, until something I can interact with and actively observe is available, my interest in anything remains low (aside from any basic aesthetic appreciation I may experience). Philosophical approach is something I consider after I have acquired at least a little experience, unless I have reason to think the tool in question is dangerous. As such, your software currently remains a mere curiosity to me. I do not find it provocative or anything like that, because from my point of view, nothing much has even happened yet.

Or to be more blunt: I, part of your audience AFAICS, don't care about your personal design directives, the same set of principles can be well applied or misapplied by two different people. Until I can personally verify that what you are making is something I consider valuable and reasonably well executed, I have no particular reason to trust that your principles are guiding you well.

There are other things you could do beyond releasing software, to generate more interest. You could make specific, definite statements and demonstrate them visually (through images or -short- video clips). Project pages on Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, et al. have good examples of what this means in practice (albeit often adulterated with flashy graphics). Vagueness repels most thoughtful third parties, IME. And even surprisingly many thoughtless third parties.  Length also repels. As I have learned in public speaking, the longer you talk, the harder it is to hold your audience's attention. Being crisp and concise is very valuable.

Overall, I want to challenge you regarding your approach to generating interest in your project: What you have done so far, I think we can agree, is not producing results satisfactory to you. If generating interest is important, then it follows naturally that you will need to change something substantial in your strategy for generating interest, and hopefully accept that some level of compromise is necessary to grow your project from a pure personal hobby to something that other people can become personally involved with in some way.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 03:24:09 am by Ai »
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel Art 3.0

Reply #19 on: April 01, 2015, 02:22:03 pm
Imagine for a moment: Cyangmou is showing what he's been up to recently working on his game project. So he shows a new character asset, explains the backround it has, why he made it, how it goes, what's it for. Maybe he even comments what he doesn't like about other RPGs, and how he aims to do it different, better, as he believes.

And people are like: "Duuuude, where's the gameplay? lol. Why are you telling me about this story stuff I don't care about. where's the game man? Your thoughts on character design and what you think of RPG mean squat without a game, pal. Release something playable now, or rather work on it until you can release, but don't talk around -- leave interpretation and judgement up to us, the player, about the worth of that!"

And so it goes on, and there's little talk about the content shown as such. How would he feel about that? How would you feel about that? And seeing how people like to be blunt: I am pretty good at my craft. If I wanted to, I could easily crack down on any game project here, painstakingly break it down, over my knee, to show you that somehow it's not good enough, not conclusively presented, and I must doubt its use as far as I can tell, and mention that if you want my interest you should do it differently, I am pretty bored so far; but really, no offence, I'm just trying to help you.



There seems to be a misunderstanding about my motives here. Why am I here? What is this for?
Am I trying to "sell" you on my thing? am I trying to be the next big thing? Is that why I come here?
Who am I? some guy who registered yesterday, advertizes his product, and is gone the next?



My "philosophy" is my motivation for working on it, my inspiration for ideas, my guideline for its design -- it is my explanation of what you see, the very thing I want to do, because I believe in it, and find joy in it, no matter what it means to others. The documentation of my personal progress on it. My dev log. It is intrinsically interwined with everything I do. I felt like sharing my thoughts on the matter for what it is. And see if I am stimulated and amused by discussing with others.

Yet I find, we don't discuss the concrete matter of what I have shown.
My introduction simply was an additional commentary on what the video shows concretely.
And all I am told here is about attitudes, word play and general development approaches, for pages.
To prove to me that I am long-winded, boring and obtusely philosophical.

Okay. I get it. I should try harder then, huh? I should try harder to get some more interesting feedback as it concerns me.
Maybe.  I should help you help me. but best of all, I should just shut up and code and release. you already know what's up.

People here insist on mentioning, that this is boring and probably useless, as far as they can tell.
Yet I look at all of this topic, and find no comment creatively stimulating.
I look at my work, and I like what I see, and know what I should do next.
This is all I have to give at this point. And I assumed it to be interesting for others and a contribution to Pixelation.

People like to convince me that how I develop this is wrong.
Yet I am the one who has to work on this, who faces first hand all the challenges.
I am not going about this the way you like. you are not going about this the way I like.
Now we can put the blame around who is at fault for this, who should adapt to the other.
The majority feedback would like to make me believe I must.
I never cared about majorities. I simply assert, we just don't fit.
I am who I am, I do what I can. I am not beyond reason and change. but I know my limits.
This is how it goes, or there goes nothing. I may be a bit of a complicated character, but I wouldn't think it's that bad.

I like you people. I think you're okay, you know what you're doing, and you're doing good. Must be some reason I've stuck around for so long, huh. So now, that it has come to this, that it has gone down like this. where do we go from here? I honestly don't know anymore. I did what I could. and sometimes that doesn't seem enough. And maybe I should have known better. And that's just how the dice have rolled.


« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 02:58:28 pm by RAV »