.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 71

Thread: N3V: Its time to update the low poly threshold to match the TRS19 marketing hype!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,752
    Blog Entries
    1
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSGSapper View Post
    Scenery Detail and Tree Detail.
    These settings only function if an asset has LOD. That is what LOD does, reduce detail as you move away. If you don't have LOD, these functions do not work, as there is no way for Trainz to reduce detail.

    LOD is not going away any time soon. If anything, it will become more strict as we introduce more graphical features. There are finite hardware resources, and this means that you need to use them efficiently. LOD is a big part of using these resources efficiently.


    LOD is one of the most important parts of making an efficient, and usable, model for Trainz. It is ESSENTIAL to making Trainz perform well.


    As many game companies have found out, trying to please all levels of gamers is a losing proposition and holds back the game in the end. Your attempt to resolve this by producing too many different versions of your platform, all of which you have to support, acts as a drag on the development of the flagship product because scarce programming time must be divided between them. Add into this continued support for older versions and I can't imagine how you are going to remain profitable over the long haul. Your game company, and I know many, is the only one I know out there who does this to the degree you do. It will kill your business in the end if you continue with that "trying to please everyone" strategy.
    We absolutely agree that we can't please everyone. But we do need to ensure that Trainz works on all computers that meet the minimum requirement. LOD is essential to this.

    On this point I disagree almost entirely. The continued development of quality freeware content that supports the degree of realism achieved by the current platform will be the factor that drives customers to you. Without all that quality freeware content, your Trainz platform would have little to offer that sets it apart from your rivals out there who mostly match you in the graphics department - and without the "stuttering" I might add. I know as I own more then one Train simulator product, but I stay with your primarily because of the freeware. It is the freeware content on your DLS that makes your simulation platform so inviting and sets you apart from the others.
    Realism in content comes at a cost, one of those costs is LOD. Again, the are very few games that you buy that will not use LOD in some form or another. It is an essential part of game art. Very little stock art actually comes with LOD, as each games specific requirements are different. So this means that if you are purchasing stock 3D models to convert, you will need to generate LOD yourself.

    There are tools that help with this. The 'optimize' tool in 3DSMax is an example. Same as, in 3DSMax, the 'editable poly' mode allows you to remove edges and vertices from a surface with minimal effect to mapping (unless you change an edge vertex on the mapping), allowing you to fairly quickly reduce polygons for each LOD.

    The simple fact, again, is that LOD is not going away. If anything, if people continue to work around it, we will need to make it more strict. LOD is an ESSENTIAL part of making Trainz perform well, as it is essential to several of the performance options actually functioning.

    Of course the alternative would be to go back to 'progressive mesh' type systems where the game engine just starts removing polygons for you, with limited control over what is removed (if anyone remembers the SAR Centenary Cars in TRS2004, which turned into an odd triangular bar when you were about 50-100m away...). But I'm not sure people would be overly happy with this type of system these days

    Regards
    Zec Murphy

    Customer Support Rep
    N3V Games (Auran)

    *Please do not use Private Messages for support. Support can only be provided via the helpdesk, or via the forums.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Arkansas, Harrison
    Posts
    3,155
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gawpo50 View Post
    Actually I have....3 stream locos with another one on the way which comes in at a whopping 200k polys with 5 levels of LOD and full PBR.

    I have been creating with LOD since T:ANE came out and do not find it anymore difficult than doing without LOD. Why do I use LOD.....simple....performance.

    My system is what I call a mid range setup (AMD Ryzen, 16GB RAM, 1660 GTX) and I have had simple house models built with no LOD at build level 2.5 bring my system to it's knees. My current WIP progress route which will only run in TRS19 and uses PBR almost exclusively where I can in both textures and models gives me acceptable performance with most sliders set to high or ultra od an avg 38 FPS.

    I class myself as one of those avg users you mention and I can say that without LOD being used......my system would stall completely.
    My questions here are not meant to pick on fellow developers, all who I respect, but to see what experience they have with LOD and PBR in a build 4.6 or later TRS19 environment that gives them insights to the problems I have brought up. A few people that have posted here have done no build 4.6 or later TRS19 specific items, nor used PBR. I don't want to call them out by name, as I have worked with some of them before, and respect them.

    There has never been as sharp a dividing line in Trainz development as there has been going from T:ANE to TRS19. I have developed stuff for Trainz for almost as long as Trainz has been around. Each new iteration has made things more complex and TRS19 is no exception. PBR and parallax has changed almost everything, and Trainz has yet to resolve some of the issues around PBR and parallax that currently still exists (mixing of PBR with non-PBR textures, sharp angles and parallax, etc).

    BTW I do have hard personal experience with multiple LOD in a build 4.6 TRS19 environment. As an example, my experience developing my <kuid2:439337:103187:1> TRS19 SAP Track U.S. 132LB SG Mesh Library-Revised was a nightmare! I have developed track since before TRS2009. Then it was simple and didn't take long. Along came procedural track in T:ANE that upped the development effort required considerably. I thought I was prepared to deal with TRS19 when it came out but the added feature of PBR changed things drastically. It took over two months of six day a week development effort, and long hours, to finally get it right. When it was finally done I had a library totaling 88 meshes to deal with both LOD, track variants and snow. That wasn't the end however. The Moiré effect continued to plague me, because of PBR interaction with ties, and I eventually had to revise everything once again to finally get that issue under control, or at least not as noticeable as it was before, and that took a fair amount of time. As a result this will be the last track I ever develop for Trainz as I don't want to go through that ever again. I do this for fun, and this effort wasn't fun at all. I only did it this time because N3V did not make available a comparable U.S. track with TRS19 when it was released. It is also interesting to note that while I also provided all the Blender source code for all the meshes very few, if any, developers have used it to make their own track types variants. Developing for full build 4.6 PBR standards is not easy for any project of any complexity.

    While we have talked here about TRS19 a lot of the points I have raised would apply to almost any of the high end games out there like Call of Duty, Civilization 6, etc, if you want to enjoy the full glory of all their graphics and effects. Civilization 6, which I thoroughly enjoy, even pushes my system at times when on Ultra or High settings. Those game companies don't hold back those games because folks can't afford the graphics cards to run them at those settings. Trainz, assuming it wants to be the ultimate and most realistic Train Simulation out there, shouldn't either in my opinion. The gaming and simulation industry has always pushed the hardware envelope and I expect that will continue. As a result I have to replace my graphics cards every 2-3 years to keep up with current games and will be replacing my EVGA GeForce GTX 1080, which was bought in 2017, with a new Nvidia RTX 3080 in Jan or Feb of 2021. I am a serious computer gamer and have over 230 Steam games at present so I really push the graphics at times.

    Bob
    Master Sergeant/E8, U.S. Army, Retired (1972-1993)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Arkansas, Harrison
    Posts
    3,155
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwhelan View Post
    I have 1,671 assets on the DLS. There might be one or two that do not have LOD but if they are more than 500 polys it will be in the order of one or two. Many of my assets have been reskinned and the reskins all have LOD where appropriate. As far as I am aware these assets all run in TS19. There was some problems with some assets created for Middleton for laptops but I seem to recall that was a script problem and was resolved by an N3V update. I
    use TS19 to create assets but normally give them a 3.5 version number or TS12 equivalent as I know many users still use TS12 and don't have the funds to upgrade their GPU so they can run TANE.

    Scripts in different versions have always been a problem.

    Yes I am aware of the problems of creating content using PBR but to be honest I'm quite content to stay with Blender 2.79b and the older .im formats. I don't really see there is that much improvement using the PBR side of things and if there is a difference then you probably would need to use PBR on every asset in the screenshot.

    Basically my LODs are take the original finished asset,copy and rename it. Then work my way through the LOD version, I sometimes use two levels, throwing away bits that I think cannot be seen at a distance. Typically I will use the same material on both the asset and the LOD versions. I am aware of N3V's idea of taking a screenshot of an asset then using that as a texture on the LOD but I'm too lazy to do that. I don't see that using a PBR material would mean you couldn't use the same material on the main asset and the LOD versions.

    My background is both software including more than ten years writing assembler language code and hardware so I'm probably more sensitive than many to things that impact performance. Before I retired I worked in federal government and one of the things I did was cost reduction by matching the hardware purchased against the requirements. On the database servers making the memory on the server and selecting the correct hard drives often meant I could get away with a simpler software license which saved the odd $50,000 occasionally.

    Cheerio John
    John:

    First of all I like your stuff and have used many of your items on the routes that I have done. I did a search of the DLS white pages and this is the content item breakout I show for you:

    641 are for TRS2004.
    30 are for TRS2006.
    232 are for Trainz Classic
    152 are for TRS2009
    543 are for TRS2012
    21 are for T:ANE

    BTW I hope you will take the time to update those 1055 pre-TRS2012 items to something more current. It would be a real shame to see them lost at some point.

    PBR does make a difference in the final realism and appearance of things in Trainz. As one example just compare the old 2d ground textures with the new 3D ones to see that for yourself, if you haven't already. The same goes with buildings and structures as well, although parallax textures can cause issues. Developing build 4.6 stuff that uses PBR is very different in many ways then anything we have done before TRS19 came on the scene. Updating an old .im mesh item that uses .onetex materials to simply work with TRS19 isn't necessarily the same thing.

    You are indeed correct that for TRS19 to live up to its hype everything should eventually use PBR texturing in order to look right. As an example; mixing PBR grounds textures with non-PBR ones doesn't work very well and makes things look off.

    Bob
    Last edited by MSGSapper; November 17th, 2020 at 12:05 PM.
    Master Sergeant/E8, U.S. Army, Retired (1972-1993)

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Arkansas, Harrison
    Posts
    3,155
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZecMurphy View Post
    These settings only function if an asset has LOD. That is what LOD does, reduce detail as you move away. If you don't have LOD, these functions do not work, as there is no way for Trainz to reduce detail.

    LOD is not going away any time soon. If anything, it will become more strict as we introduce more graphical features. There are finite hardware resources, and this means that you need to use them efficiently. LOD is a big part of using these resources efficiently.
    LOD is one of the most important parts of making an efficient, and usable, model for Trainz. It is ESSENTIAL to making Trainz perform well.
    Zec:

    We seem to have a major misunderstanding here.

    I am not against the use of multiple LODs. I fully understand why they are used and what they do for performance. Execution can be very difficult at times however with complex models that have a lot of features, especially when you expect each LOD level to be 20% different from the next higher level. I am also fully aware of Blenders capability to remove triangles using the Decimate modifier, but have found in practice that it can sometimes lead to bizarre appearance issues, especially when you are trying for a 20% reduction, based on my having used it a number of times.

    In my OP all I addressed and wanted was updating the LOD error message threshold to something more consistent with current graphic standards. The level of 500, which generates and error if you exceed it, should be raised to something more current and realistic. Alternately go back to making it a warning instead, as it used to be.

    Bob
    Master Sergeant/E8, U.S. Army, Retired (1972-1993)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada, Ontario, Ottawa
    Posts
    14,021
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSGSapper View Post
    John:

    First of all I like your stuff and have used many of your items on the routes that I have done. I did a search of the DLS white pages and this is the content item breakout I show for you:

    641 are for TRS2004.
    30 are for TRS2006.
    232 are for Trainz Classic
    152 are for TRS2009
    543 are for TRS2012
    21 are for T:ANE

    BTW I hope you will take the time to update those 1055 pre-TRS2012 items to something more current. It would be a real shame to see them lost at some point.

    PBR does make a difference in the final realism and appearance of things in Trainz. As one example just compare the old 2d ground textures with the new 3D ones to see that for yourself, if you haven't already. The same goes with buildings and structures as well, although parallax textures can cause issues. Developing build 4.6 stuff that uses PBR is very different in many ways then anything we have done before TRS19 came on the scene. Updating an old .im mesh item that uses .onetex materials to simply work with TRS19 isn't necessarily the same thing.

    You are indeed correct that for TRS19 to live up to its hype everything should eventually use PBR texturing in order to look right. As an example; mixing PBR grounds textures with non-PBR ones doesn't work very well and makes things look off.

    Bob

    Quite a few of the very old stuff are scenery objects that look exactly the same with a 2004 build number or a TS12 build number so they might as well stay as they are.

    The mesh libraries I intend to leave alone and I suspect I'll do the same with PBR textures. I prefer photo textures anyway. I am well aware of the efforts needed to create content to the new standards. I work with a very loose group creating content and at least one member who was creating coaches has just decided to give up creating content. The demands of TS19 are just too high.

    N3V saying use the whatever command in 3DS doesn't cut it for me. Very few people have the correctly licensed of 3DS available. Blender moving to 2.8+ is another show stopper and a few in our group are still using GMAX and creating content. Part of that is the bit box effect. They have sub components that work in GMAX so just modify them slightly to create a new something or other.

    Cheerio John

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Arkansas, Harrison
    Posts
    3,155
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwhelan View Post
    I work with a very loose group creating content and at least one member who was creating coaches has just decided to give up creating content. The demands of TS19 are just too high.
    John:

    Yes, they are.

    As for me, I'll keep up with TRS19 PBR content development for now, or until N3V takes makes the content creation development process so complex and difficult that it no longer is fun anymore. After all, I am a hobbyist, not a N3V employee doing in-house development. Unfortunately that time may not be far off.

    Bob
    Master Sergeant/E8, U.S. Army, Retired (1972-1993)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia, NSW, Sydney
    Posts
    7,933
    Blog Entries
    3
     

    Default

    I sympathise. The issue of "creeping complexity" has been raised before in these forums. I see it an inevitable consequence of better technology leading to higher user expectations which leads to better technology and so on. It is not just hobby gaming that has become a victim of this cycle but virtually all aspects of information creativity.

    It is becoming harder (and often more expensive) for us amateur hobbyists to keep up.
    Trainz Plus build 111951 and build 114205
    Trainz Simulator 3 (Mobile)

  8. #38

    Default

    Hi Bob, I totally agree with your original post. The 500 poly limit is just too small. You even need to hit this very small poly count for LOD1, which seems ridiculous, or at least I do unless I'm doing it wrong. It should be raised.
    I am now only creating content for 4.6 using PBR, but spend a lot of time trying to get the textures correct. I use Blender 2.90 (well worth moving to from 2.79), GIMP, Substance Painter and Substance Alchemist. Alchemist by the way is an excellent tool for creating normals, height and ambient occlusion maps. Drop the albedo image in to B2M and export. The default settings have given me really good results. Not a cheap product, but given me far better results than Materialize. I tend not use parallax as I don't get the results I expected. All in all it has been a steep learning curve.

    I also agree with John, regarding 3DS. The vast majority of content on the DLS has been developed by the fan base. We can't afford the so called 'Pro Tools' and tend to use the freebies. So give us a break Auran, where would you be without us. We need decent tutorials based around the tools we can afford. It's just not fair on people like Bob who has put so much effort into providing tutorials for us.

    It would be wise to take on board some of the suggested comments and again I'm with Bob on the 500 poly limit. This would seem such an easy fix compared to the broken AI which needs serious work.

    While I'm at it I think it's about time there was a DLS v2 with content from 3.5 upwards, after all you can't create new content for earlier builds because Auran no longer support it. You get errors messages and faulty assets if you try. Maybe the end user could choose which version of the DLS to use. I know you can filter content but the existing DLS is just way too big. Time to archive the older stuff, but that is just my opinion.

    John

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,853
     

    Default

    I'm not an especially big player with content creation with only just over 300 assets on the DLS. I work in TS2012 3.5 and 3.7 and I know very well that when N3V finally shuts down accepting 3.5 assets I will be calling a halt on making anything except for my own personal use. I wonder how many other content creators will be doing exactly the same. That will leave content creation in the hands of an increasingly small number of hobbyists who have the time, resources, brain power and energy to work with and understand the new materials.

    And then there is the question of how many Trainz hobbyists are using assets that use the new materials in TS2019. A good 95% or more of the assets used by the routes in my TS2019 install are 3.7 or older and to tell the truth I prefer it that way. Ultra realism is all very well, but not at the expense of having a railway simulator that actually works reliably at the nuts and bolts level.
    Narcolepsy is not napping.



  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada, Ontario, Ottawa
    Posts
    14,021
     

    Default

    Of course the interesting thing is 4k UHD monitors are now available for around $300. The RTX 2070 and above can handle them, today it might be necessary to select the content carefully but if N3Vdon't support it then someone else will. I hate to even think what that means for content creation.

    Cheerio John

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canada, Ontario, Ottawa
    Posts
    14,021
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KotangaGirl View Post
    I'm not an especially big player with content creation with only just over 300 assets on the DLS. I work in TS2012 3.5 and 3.7 and I know very well that when N3V finally shuts down accepting 3.5 assets I will be calling a halt on making anything except for my own personal use. I wonder how many other content creators will be doing exactly the same. That will leave content creation in the hands of an increasingly small number of hobbyists who have the time, resources, brain power and energy to work with and understand the new materials.

    And then there is the question of how many Trainz hobbyists are using assets that use the new materials in TS2019. A good 95% or more of the assets used by the routes in my TS2019 install are 3.7 or older and to tell the truth I prefer it that way. Ultra realism is all very well, but not at the expense of having a railway simulator that actually works reliably at the nuts and bolts level.

    And that is an interesting point, imagination goes a long way. TANE is the last DRM free version of Trainz and I certainly feel more comfortable creating in something that is DRM free.

    Cheerio John

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle NSW Australia
    Posts
    7,007
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnarran View Post
    The 500 poly limit is just too small. You even need to hit this very small poly count for LOD1, which seems ridiculous, or at least I do unless I'm doing it wrong.

    John
    If you only need LOD0 and LOD1 to comfortably get down to <500 triangles, then that's not ridiculous. If you cannot do it all in one step like that, then you need to create an LOD2, LOD3, etc. with each step dropping the tri-count by at least 20% until you do get to less than 500. Did you not realise that?

    Also, I can't see how using PBR textures makes this any more arduous than it already is with older material formats. As long as you can retain the UV mapping scheme from the LOD0 mesh and stick with the same textures for all meshes LOD1, 2, 3 etc, what is the problem? Maybe there is something I don't yet understand regarding PBR that makes the creation of lower detailed meshes more difficult, but I can't see how adopting, say, a 2000 tri final limit instead of 500 would make things that much easier. Someone, please educate me.
    T:ANE SP4 (105946), TRS19 SP3 (111951), Max 2009/2012, PhotoShop CS3
    Win10, i7 5820K, 3.3GHz, 32GB ram, GTX 980Ti, 2x512GB SSDs

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Arkansas, Harrison
    Posts
    3,155
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dinorius_Redundicus View Post
    Also, I can't see how using PBR textures makes this any more arduous than it already is with older material formats. As long as you can retain the UV mapping scheme from the LOD0 mesh and stick with the same textures for all meshes LOD1, 2, 3 etc, what is the problem? Maybe there is something I don't yet understand regarding PBR that makes the creation of lower detailed meshes more difficult, but I can't see how adopting, say, a 2000 tri final limit instead of 500 would make things that much easier. Someone, please educate me.
    I am not sure I can do this justice, but I will try. If you are using PBR materials that are non-parallax based then you probably won't encounter any issues for the most part that I am aware of, or have experienced. Non-parallax PBR materials act in a manner fairly similar to .onetex materials, although not as flexible, especially with texture atlases.

    On the other hand if you are using parallax (ie; height map in the normal file) in your texture you are going to have deformation appear in the structure. I ran into this issue several times and now for most part do not use parallax for structures, or only for parts of them. This became a big issue with track for me. Unlike .onetex materials you have to provide for users turning off the Ultra shader setting which turns off parallax. In essence the model will look different based on if you have the Ultra shader turned on or off. Try looking at my track with the Ultra Shader on and off and you will see how things look.

    As an example this caused me major problems with the ballast interacting with the ties in regards to the track forcing me to revisit the project and do major revisions to it once I was aware of the problem, which was new to me at the time. When parallax was turned off everything shifted height wise and the ties disappeared below the ballast. I had to readjust everything to work around that.

    With multiple LODs you are going to be altering the structure and removing things while most likely the texture files will remain the same. Of course you can resolve this, but that would mean having multiple textures files correctly sized to the LOD mesh. Parallax almost makes the texture a structural element rather then just a covering. In PBR you will have 3 files for every texture, instead of the single diffuse file many are used to using. Also PBR with parallax doesn't work very well with texture atlases, especially if glass is in that texture. There are a lot quirks with PBR and I am still finding myself, after good deal of experience with it, still having to find work arounds to get things to look right from time to time. Another issue is when sharp angles are used with parallax, but that is fodder for a thread all on its own.

    Again I am not an expert on this by any means. I am just relating my own experiences in using it to you.

    As for adjusting the 500 limit, that is just to account for all the graphics technology capability changes that have occurred since that number was first imposed. That 500 poly threshold comes from many years ago, yet even integrated graphics can handle that with hardly a thought these days. Remember that 500 poly threshold message used to be a warning in Trainz at one time and not an error, and that was in a time where graphics cards were far less capable then they are today. I don't mind that they changed it from a warning to an error but they should have accounted for general graphics technology changes when they did it and upped the threshold.

    Bob
    Master Sergeant/E8, U.S. Army, Retired (1972-1993)

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Canberra, ACT. Australia
    Posts
    8,998
    Blog Entries
    30
     

    Default

    Chris (windwalkr) once said in TrainzDev that draw calls were more important than poly counts. Ideally, an asset should have just one draw call at the lowest poly LOD. Try doing that for a loco with umpteen attachments.

    I'm somewhat curious that Trainz validation doesn't complain about excessive use of different materials. I'm sure that will come some day.

    The 500 poly count limit doesn't bother me much since many assets look like bugs at that distance in Preview Asset. I notice it more when the surveyor/driver view goes to map view and especially if the final material doesn't have the same shading as earlier LODs. Making a boxy final LOD model is a bit painful.

    PBR is getting much easier to understand although the tools such as the Substance series can be a challenge. I rarely use parallax although if Substance bakes it in the parameter file I will use it.

    And, finally, if asset count on the DLS is some kind of expertise measure then I must be really dumb. What interests me is investigating these technologies and trying to pass on what I have learned.

    Paul


  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle NSW Australia
    Posts
    7,007
     

    Default

    @ Bob

    Yep, I well remember when you had to totally revise and re-issue your procedural track(s) due to the PBR problem and felt sorry for you, but also very impressed that you didn't give up on fixing it.

    I know what you're referring to regarding parallax paralysis. When TS19 first emerged, I made a simple test object (cylindrical log) just to see if I had the necessary software and knowledge to work with FBX/trainzmesh and PBR textures. My first attempt did produce an object that worked in Trainz, but its PBR textures with parallax were sliding all over the place, depending on view angle. The solution was to reduce the "strength" of the heightmap to such an extent that it may as well not have been there. A regular m.tbumptex version of the same model was as good looking as the repaired PBR, but saved a fair bit of filesize in the textures. So I put PBR on the shelf and have not yet returned to it. One of these days Alice, one of these days....

    As for the 500 limit, I guess we will just have to respectfully disagree on the need to relax it. LOD is here to stay. The big gaming houses deal exclusively in PBR models, but the other day in Assassin's Creed, I saw a Spartan soldier's shield morph from a circle to a hexagon at 20 metres distance, so I know they are still saddled with strict LOD's, just like us. Whether the final threshold is 500 tri's or something more, is immaterial in my view. We will still need to make LOD meshes. I don't see any need to make different sized textures for multiple LOD's though. The automatic process of mip-mapping takes care of that. It certainly does in T:ANE. Is there something about PBR textures in TS19 that forces you to do that manually?


    .
    Last edited by Dinorius_Redundicus; November 18th, 2020 at 03:08 AM.
    T:ANE SP4 (105946), TRS19 SP3 (111951), Max 2009/2012, PhotoShop CS3
    Win10, i7 5820K, 3.3GHz, 32GB ram, GTX 980Ti, 2x512GB SSDs

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •