Multiplayer few years ago and now - from FC 1.12b to DCS

[Blooze]

You're bang on Blooze :).

 

That's why I think those of us who do fly as groups should try to look at ways of getting together more. It would return some of that "buzz", and help keep the old girl going until we get the new engine.

 

Past a certain point, you need interaction with other pilots in DCS to keep the game a challenge.

 

Just some ideas - not sure if there would be much of a take up...

 

1. Try some bombing competitions.

2. Try flying as teams in the bigger public server, and (shock) get the fighters to actually cover the ground attack planes. (I know some do this, but...)

3. Have some friendly formation type events, where those of us who take it a little less seriously than the display teams can have a go.

 

I know it's been done before, but not doing it isn't helping the general level of interest I guess.:)

Although it's hard to get something like this organized considering individual schedules and time zones, I will see if I can get one of our mission makers to come up with a mission that would be appropriate to join our groups together for an event. It would probably have to be capped at 10 pilots just to avoid the usual connection pitfalls and TS chaos.

[SkateZilla]

I expect Red Flag Missions left and right when NTTR is released....

[Falcon_S]

...Many vanished because they couldn't see the 'dot' in the sky anymore. noobs. Many vanished because they couldn't use same tactics and started to get owned and couldn't change their game.

 

Such existed, I agree. I do not feel sorry for them but I did not consider them starting this thread

 

From FC2-FC3 I think the Master server sign on has got rid of a lot of guys that were using key hacks or whatever to basically play a pirated version. ...

 

Maybe for loners. I did not consider them starting this thread too. This can not possibly be the reason for the disappearance of entire squadron. For us, the first condition for entering the squadron was activated simulator and associated peripherals. I believe so and the other squadrons too, including those that are missing.

[Buckeye]

I expect Red Flag Missions left and right when NTTR is released....

 

Oh man I hope so, I must have watched that IMAX documentary on it on YouTube probably 10,000 times by now. When I first came to DCS in April/May and heard NTTR was coming sometime in the future, my first thought was "Hell yeah, Red Flag!".

[carrollhead]

Although it's hard to get something like this organized considering individual schedules and time zones, I will see if I can get one of our mission makers to come up with a mission that would be appropriate to join our groups together for an event. It would probably have to be capped at 10 pilots just to avoid the usual connection pitfalls and TS chaos.

 

That would be cool :). I can do the same thing, although it might be a good plan to try and get some ideas for a "mission type" we can both agree on before committing all of the time needed to actually build the mission.

 

As a friendly competition for example, we could just look at there being two target sets and each side needs to kill theirs first. (or with the least amount of bombs etc.). Heck if we put the targets close to each other then there could be an air-to-air element as well (although we'd need to discuss that :))

 

I have a TvT mission using combined arms that might work too - it's basically "capture the flag" using combined arms. The AI drives at a town centre, and the first side to occupy the "flag" and stay there for more than 10 minutes is the winner. It's pretty quick, and works as a mission with 4 players up to 10(ish) - it just goes quicker with more players. We;ve had a fair bit of fun with that one.

 

With a bit of work, I'm sure we could come up with some fun and competetive scenarios. Any other squads wanting to join in would be great. There's been a lot of A2A stuff recently, but I'm a ground pounder - and it would be great to really excercise the A-10 in a scenario where it isn't prey to everything else:joystick:.

 

Also - I like having the idea of fighters in missions, but it would be interesting to see what happens if they're limited to heaters only. Would that make the engagements a bit more accesible to newer players? The dogfighting would be pretty cool. I'm not talking about every mission, just some of them to alter the style of play a bit.

[TAW_Blaze]

Also - I like having the idea of fighters in missions, but it would be interesting to see what happens if they're limited to heaters only. Would that make the engagements a bit more accesible to newer players? The dogfighting would be pretty cool. I'm not talking about every mission, just some of them to alter the style of play a bit.

 

No. Large scale WVR fights require an insane level of coordination and discipline, if you don't have that you're betting on blind luck whether you survive or not. Not to mention the average DCS fighter jock is far worse in close range BFM than BVR.

[carrollhead]

I wasn't necessarily talking about large scale engagements, more like smaller scale squad v squad type stuff.

 

I'm not having a go here - so please don't take it that way :), I feel sometimes that what happens on the big public servers ends up in two sub-games. People doing ground attack, and the a2a engagement going on somewhere else. When one side starts beating the other in a2a then fighters swarm all over the ground atack part of it looking for kills.

 

I don't have a problem with it, but the "feel" of the game is that the A2G part is a sort of sideline. (which for a lot of players it probably is :)). I know a lot of A-10 pilots don't join big servers much because they are easy prey - rightly so, but it doesn't help player numbers. A-10C pilots are pretty much relying on blind luck to survive already. Last night for example, I got jumped by two MiGs on the 104th, I even got a sidewinder off at one of them but ultimately I was always going to be dead meat! It was really good fun playing cat and mouse for a little while though. If I had a fighter near me.....

 

Taking part in smaller inter squad events might be a way to foster better links between us all, generally improve the level at which participants fly, and encourage teamwork when we do join.

 

Anyway, if there was a mission/s with both sides having ground attack objectives and weapons that force the fighter support to fight BFM wouldn't that be a bit of a laugh?

 

A lot of the comments in this thread and elsewhere lament the inability of the sim to support enourmous games like in the old days - so why not make smaller ones, and make the most of what we have now? This isn't meant to be an idea to replace the bigger open servers BTW - just a way to get the various squads out there playing together in a more structured way.

 

...and yes, we will host this stuff (although it would be nice to get as much participation as possible).

Edited June 26, 2014 by carrollhead
scatter brain

[TAW_Blaze]

If it's more than 4v4 it just gets completely chaotic. Even a 2v2 is nigh impossible if you're not familiar with your wingman.

 

I feel sometimes that what happens on the big public servers ends up in two sub-games. People doing ground attack, and the a2a engagement going on somewhere else. When one side starts beating the other in a2a then fighters swarm all over the ground atack part of it looking for kills.

 

That goes a long way.

 

*WARNING* I'll use some heavy words, nothing to break the rules, don't take it personal. The only way to tell what's really going on is using the truth.

 

We've been playing A2A quake pretty much ever since FC3 was out. For most of the guys the only objective is to get a +1 on the scoreboard. They'll do anything and everything to achieve that. For them, not even dying matters.

 

Coordination between fighters is already tough. Most of the jocks don't have nearly enough knowledge or practice to be useful in a fast paced conversation during combat. Not to their discredit, I'm sure many of them simply don't have the time to learn it. That's all fine.

 

Then you get those people that fire up the game with no actual idea about /anything/. Never read the manual, never even thought about reading it once. That is NOT fine at all. These are the guys that will ruin anything for you, even the stuff that you thought could never go wrong. Slam you on the runway, buddy spike you for years, teamkill people repeatedly, and the list goes on. One day I thought this game was somewhat mature, huh.

 

Finally, you combine all of the above with the mud mowers. I'm sure all of them can do their job very well when it comes raining hell to the ground. However most of them simply doesn't know jack'all about dealing with any type of fighter threat. They'll scream for help when there's someone in the next 200 nm vicinity of them. Quite often they'll give you a false alarm because they're being looked at by friendlies, albeit this is not always their fault.

 

Although A2G and A2A is usually on different TS channel so it's pretty hard to communicate already, and the different waypoints don't help this either. Nor the lack of proper systems in the fighters..

 

I don't have a problem with it, but the "feel" of the game is that the A2G part is a sort of sideline. (which for a lot of players it probably is ). I know a lot of A-10 pilots don't join big servers much because they are easy prey - rightly so, but it doesn't help player numbers. A-10C pilots are pretty much relying on blind luck to survive already. Last night for example, I got jumped by two MiGs on the 104th, I even got a sidewinder off at one of them but ultimately I was always going to be dead meat! It was really good fun playing cat and mouse for a little while though. If I had a fighter near me.....

 

Most of the fighters can't even take care of themselves how exactly do you expect them to look after you? :D

 

Yesterday we were doing CAP over Krasnodar with Highway for a few hours but honestly there isn't terribly too much we can do as a 2-ship on a server with more than 8 guys on the other end. We can hold it till we have gas, but that's all. It's not like any of those hogs pulled back when we were on the ground, even though they knew it well ahead of time.

 

Taking part in smaller inter squad events might be a way to foster better links between us all, generally improve the level at which participants fly, and encourage teamwork when we do join.

 

Definitely worth a try but,

 

there's an entry level of knowledge and skill to be useful in a team. Most of the guys out there don't reach that. Again this is mostly not their fault. I remember when I used to be a lone wolf and tried to fly with a wingman we always ended up performing FAR worse.

 

Anyway, if there was a mission/s with both sides having ground attack objectives and weapons that force the fighter support to fight BFM wouldn't that be a bit of a laugh?

 

It could be.

 

A lot of the comments in this thread and elsewhere lament the inability of the sim to support enourmous games like in the old days - so why not make smaller ones, and make the most of what we have now? This isn't meant to be an idea to replace the bigger open servers BTW - just a way to get the various squads out there playing together in a more structured way.

 

I don't know why, it could be fun if it's done well.

 

Anyway enough moaning for today. I hope I didn't offend anyone, because I certainly didn't mean to. I'm glad we have so many people kicking around in the sim, but I'd be even happier if they took it just a little more serious. Especially on public servers. :)

Edited June 26, 2014 by <Blaze>

[Exorcet]

I don't have a problem with it, but the "feel" of the game is that the A2G part is a sort of sideline. (which for a lot of players it probably is :)). I know a lot of A-10 pilots don't join big servers much because they are easy prey - rightly so, but it doesn't help player numbers. A-10C pilots are pretty much relying on blind luck to survive already. Last night for example, I got jumped by two MiGs on the 104th, I even got a sidewinder off at one of them but ultimately I was always going to be dead meat! It was really good fun playing cat and mouse for a little while though. If I had a fighter near me.....

I don't really like the separation between air to air and air to ground in servers. One reason that defending air to ground player is difficult is because they're completely out of the way, so much so that enemy fighters may not even reliably be near them. I'll defend them if they call for help, sometimes I might even CAP near them but often it just feels pointless. It doesn't help that the A-10 and Su-25 don't belong anywhere near contested skies.

 

Back in the FC2 days I was planning to make my first MP mission for public release (ended up losing it when the computer died). First thing I did with that mission was link air to air and air to ground. Red side was pure air to air, and blue side ground attackers would most likely die instantly without fighter support. There are challenges with that when setting up for a completely open server, but for a specific event with prepared players it should be a non issue.

[carrollhead]

Although A2G and A2A is usually on different TS channel so it's pretty hard to communicate already, and the different waypoints don't help this either. Nor the lack of proper systems in the fighters..

 

Quick question for you (and any other FC3 fighter pilots) - How would you feel about using a single waypoint (say WP1 for simplicity) that coincides exactly with the bullseye?

 

If you reference that steerpoint and use the HSI it's pretty simple to work out your own bullseye position, but then pretty hard (at least without practice) to visualise where other bullseye positions are relative to you. It's not impossible though. (Especially if the briefing map has it clearly marked)

 

As you point out - a ground pounder saying "I need help WP1" is pretty meaningless, but a bullseye call (or a raygun/buddy) can be made to mean something to everyone (who bothers to learn!).

 

I realise of course that FC3 would prevent you from being super accurate, since the radar doesn't give you the info - but it does have the ability to sort friendly/enemy.

 

So, if I was being chased in my A-10 and gave that call - would it help you?

 

Obviously it would rely on the mission having a specified waypoint at the bullseye :). A-10s can display it on the HUD anyway.

 

I genuinely don't know what the FC3 fighter squads use, so I'm just curious. :D

[TAW_Blaze]

Quick question for you (and any other FC3 fighter pilots) - How would you feel about using a single waypoint (say WP1 for simplicity) that coincides exactly with the bullseye?

 

As far as 104th missions go, WP1 for fighters is always bullseye. I'm not sure if it's the same for strikers. I can't remember a single hog pilot referencing bullseye when I asked about his position though :)

 

If you reference that steerpoint and use the HSI it's pretty simple to work out your own bullseye position, but then pretty hard (at least without practice) to visualise where other bullseye positions are relative to you. It's not impossible though. (Especially if the briefing map has it clearly marked)

 

As far as our squadron goes that's a standard procedure. I don't really use it to get their exact position but rather a rough estimation of where they are from me. Sometimes I get a bit lost and have to use the kneeboard though.

 

In some cases visual references are just a better option.

 

As you point out - a ground pounder saying "I need help WP1" is pretty meaningless, but a bullseye call (or a raygun/buddy) can be made to mean something to everyone (who bothers to learn!).

 

Well, I get it it's kind of universal, but what are the chances that the majority of the crowd will actually learn it? Maybe it could work, who knows.

 

So, if I was being chased in my A-10 and gave that call - would it help you?

 

Probably. Generally I need 2 things to be able to help you, first your position, second the threat's direction from you. Sometimes visual references work here aswell.

[104th_Maverick]

I feel sometimes that what happens on the big public servers ends up in two sub-games. People doing ground attack, and the a2a engagement going on somewhere else. When one side starts beating the other in a2a then fighters swarm all over the ground atack part of it looking for kills.

 

 

I'll wade in here!

 

You are pretty much spot on sir, this is a really accurate description of how today's MP missions work out online.

 

I design and maintain most of the missions ran on the 104th server, you may have noticed a certain 'flavor' to most of our missions, this is very much intentional. Although not very realistic we have very good reasons for doing this.

 

'Generally' speaking most of our missions feature and Air to Ground Target Area for both sides which is slightly out of the way of Bullseye on the friendly side.

Its not very realistic, but its like this way for lots of reasons that history has backed up and shown to be the correct choices.

 

The main reason we do this if for Server popularity.... we design our missions and run our server for the many...not the few, so all our decisions are based on what is best for 'most' people not a select few who like ultra-realism. Our 'formala' produces consistent good results in terms of server popularity because of the way our missions are designed. Most of the time our server starts to fill with A2G clients... the 'aim' is to keep them alive long enough so more clients join in because they see the server has some players in it... this has a knock on effect, as the server gets populated more people will join because clients flying A2A want someone to shoot at. So if the choice is between our server with 15 clients already in it and another one with only 8 clients flying... most people will choose the highest client number.

 

Having the Target Area's away from BZ allows our A2G clients to get involved in the mission without 'too much' pressure for the A2A clients on the other side.

 

All our missions have to run well with just 5 or 6 clients, or the max allowed of 27.

If we were to place the Target Area's closer to BZ or in enemy territory, A2G clients would get massacred when the client numbers are low in the server and they have no A2A cover, so we place them out of the way to allow the server to populate, rather than having all the A2G guys rage quit to fly somewhere else.

 

I don't really like the separation between air to air and air to ground in servers. One reason that defending air to ground player is difficult is because they're completely out of the way, so much so that enemy fighters may not even reliably be near them.

 

As I said above the reason we do this is to allow the server to get populated.

 

Eg... If there are less than 10 clients in our server all of them A2G and one fighter joins Red and shoots them all down... they will leave.... however, if we place them out of the way and make it more difficult for the Red/Blue fighter to find them.... it gives the server and clients more time to allow for other clients to join in and jump in an Air to Air aircraft and deal with the threats to the A2G guys.

Although not very realistic, it does work very well indeed and getting the server populated after a restart or mission rotation, as 'generally' speaking our server 'starts' to fill up with A2G clients first... then A2A.

 

Quick question for you (and any other FC3 fighter pilots) - How would you feel about using a single waypoint (say WP1 for simplicity) that coincides exactly with the bullseye?

 

As Blaze correctly pointed out ALL our missions have WP1 for ALL fighters exactly on Bullseye.

Some of them also have BZ as the LAST WP for A2G clients, however we decided to not do this with every mission as some of the newer clients started flying straight to BZ expecting to find a TA but got an Amraam in the face instead!

 

If you do not know where you are from BZ in any of our missions the best thing to do as quickly as you can is give your BRA (Bearing Range & Altitude) from where you took off (WP0 or WP1).

 

So if I'm on CAP and you say you need support 350 from Kutaisi, 25nm low... I will know exactly where to look for you!

 

There are challenges with that when setting up for a completely open server, but for a specific event with prepared players it should be a non issue.

 

There are indeed... considerable challenges! Making missions for planned events with co-ordinated clients on TeamSpeak is fantastic fun as the mission maker can go nuts with the realism and not worry about people complaining about the mission being 'too hard'.

 

But not a lot of people appreciate just how much of a pain in the ass it is to make missions for more than 20 clients to take part in on a open public server.

Many compromises have to be made to the 'original' idea of the mission for it to be able to work effectively.

 

Anyone can make a large scale mission, however consistently pumping out large scale MP missions that people want to fly again and again is not easy work, you have to take many....many different situations into account.

 

As I mentioned earlier the Mission has to work as well as it does with 5-6 clients as it does for 27, this is not easy to achieve and means sacrificing many aspects related to realism because it just wont work online with a server full of public users.

 

We think we have found a good compromise between server stability and popularity and semi realistic scenarios that people enjoy flying on. Of coarse we cannot please everyone and the missions could be changed to make them more realistic, sadly however this would see a drop off in the number of clients flying in our server and that is not how we roll!

 

Anyway, if there was a mission/s with both sides having ground attack objectives and weapons that force the fighter support to fight BFM wouldn't that be a bit of a laugh?

 

 

Sadly not. Believe me we have tried.

 

The problem with this is the old classic... remember... the mission has to work as well with just 5-6 clients as it does with 27.

 

A mission like the one described above would only work if the server was already full.... most people were on TeamSpeak... and the server rotated to this mission.

 

Getting missions like this to populate from an empty start is a nightmare, because as soon as a Air to Air client joins in, he shots everyone down (remember traditionally our server always starts with A2G clients). So all the people who first joined rage quit because they cannot even get to the Target Area without being killed as there is no CAP on their side.

 

You are also putting a lot of faith into total strangers that they will help you and not everyone likes to work as a team.

Again as Blaze correctly pointed out, most A2A guys just want to shoot someone in the face, they are not over the Moon about flying for a hour or so protecting another aircraft with a slim chance of the glory of shooting someone down... there is way to much Ego in this sim sadly!

 

As I said we have tried missions like this sir and they don't work very well. Yes we get the hardcore guys who stay in but most rage quit when they get shot down and the server numbers never really get going... and that's not what we are about.

 

We'd rather have a full server running compromised reality than a half full server running realistic missions.... we like all other Squadrons pay for our server to be hosted, paying for an empty server is not rock and roll!

 

 

And finally.....

 

Keep an eye out for our missions like Operation Sun Shield and the new Operation Abel Archer (coming soon) which has the Target Area's placed closer to Bullseye, although still on the friendly side, it will get you closer to the enemy and you will have more chance at Cat and Mouse sorties!

Edited June 27, 2014 by [Maverick]

[Exorcet]

;2102399']Eg... If there are less than 10 clients in our server all of them A2G and one fighter joins Red and shoots them all down... they will leave....

Just for the record, the last time this happened I was climbing vertical in an A-10 on a lone MiG-29 looking for a stealth AIM-9 kill. Unfortunately I ended up being spotted somehow. But yes, even if I was having fun I do remember some people not liking the guy in the MiG.

 

however, if we place them out of the way and make it more difficult for the Red/Blue fighter to find them.... it gives the server and clients more time to allow for other clients to join in and jump in an Air to Air aircraft and deal with the threats to the A2G guys.

I've thought about this issue too. If I ran a server I'd have "waiting room" missions which are basically like those that exist now. You'd wait for the server to reach a certain level of players and then switch to a different mission. This way, you would only start a mission when you had the required number of players. You'd have to worry about then dropping below that number, but that might be solvable in part with some clever trigger use.

 

I had spent quite a lot of time trying to build a MP mission for FC2 only to see it lost to computer failure. I should try to get it together again and see if any server wants to host it. Does the 104th only use internally made missions? I'd assume you do being that you guys are a big group and it would probably be annoying to have people asking if you could host their mission all the time.

 

And finally.....

 

Keep an eye out for our missions like Operation Sun Shield and the new Operation Abel Archer (coming soon) which has the Target Area's placed closer to Bullseye, although still on the friendly side, it will get you closer to the enemy and you will have more chance at Cat and Mouse sorties!

Will do.

[Supersheep]

Interesting read here.

 

Playing DCS feels like living in an echo chamber to me. Every group is distinctly individual, and (in most communities) at some point, you've seen it all - for various reasons, this is not a singularly deterministic path. That might also be a reason why cooperations between groups are so rare. I've seen multiple such cooperations, but they were mostly one-sided and of limited use to the majority of the people involved, or short-lived. Which is sad, because they established a window out of the echo chambers. Which also brings up the question as to why this self-reinforcing structure exists, but if we knew that we wouldn't be discussing here I guess. At least this thread proves that it exists...

 

Edit Clarification: "Seen it all", in this context, does not refer to the sim.

 

@Blaze: Did you hear from Highway or Raven lately? Cheers :)

Edited June 27, 2014 by Supersheep

[104th_Maverick]

Does the 104th only use internally made missions?

 

Yes sir, we have done since our first days. This way we alone are responsible for its success or failure and are not relying on an outsider for our server to be successful.

 

It also enables us to keep a tight control over the 'type' of missions we run, as I mentioned above most of our missions have the same kind of 'flavor' to them. This is because we have found this is the formula that works for us and delivers good results eg.. a full server daily!

 

probably be annoying to have people asking if you could host their mission all the time.

 

We do get this a lot, its not so annoying more flattering. Because our server is so popular we get lots of people who want that exposure for their mission.

 

There a lot of really talented mission makers out there, the trouble is like I mentioned above, our missions have to be popular across the board and with low and high client numbers.

 

So some of the people we get approaching us about this don't appreciate just how important this is... yes 'some' people want very complicated and realistic MP missions.... but 'most' people are happy with a compromise that promotes stability and high client numbers.

 

Once DCS MP becomes more stable with regards to more complex things happening in missions we will integrate these, the reason most of our missions border along the 'simple' set up is because that is what is stable with more than 20 clients.

[Blooze]

Interesting read here.

 

Playing DCS feels like living in an echo chamber to me. Every group is distinctly individual, and (in most communities) at some point, you've seen it all - for various reasons, this is not a singularly deterministic path. That might also be a reason why cooperations between groups are so rare. I've seen multiple such cooperations, but they were mostly one-sided and of limited use to the majority of the people involved, or short-lived. Which is sad, because they established a window out of the echo chambers. Which also brings up the question as to why this self-reinforcing structure exists, but if we knew that we wouldn't be discussing here I guess. At least this thread proves that it exists...

 

Edit Clarification: "Seen it all", in this context, does not refer to the sim.

 

@Blaze: Did you hear from Highway or Raven lately? Cheers :)

 

Which also brings up the question as to why this self-reinforcing structure exists, but if we knew that we wouldn't be discussing here I guess. At least this thread proves that it exists...

 

For me the answer is simple. Everything I do or have ever done has been a selfish act regardless of how I may have tried to delude myself into thinking it was for the benefit of others.

[TAW_Blaze]

Interesting read here.

 

Playing DCS feels like living in an echo chamber to me. Every group is distinctly individual, and (in most communities) at some point, you've seen it all - for various reasons, this is not a singularly deterministic path. That might also be a reason why cooperations between groups are so rare. I've seen multiple such cooperations, but they were mostly one-sided and of limited use to the majority of the people involved, or short-lived. Which is sad, because they established a window out of the echo chambers. Which also brings up the question as to why this self-reinforcing structure exists, but if we knew that we wouldn't be discussing here I guess. At least this thread proves that it exists...

 

Edit Clarification: "Seen it all", in this context, does not refer to the sim.

 

@Blaze: Did you hear from Highway or Raven lately? Cheers :)

 

Everyone is busy as hell, they barely get the time to fly with their own squadron, let alone organize some damned event where they need to find a comfortable time for a group of different people. Also the game doesn't really work out too well just yet, still need a lot of improvement. I think they'd be happy to cooperate as soon as you can do some sort of large scale event with reasonable stability. For the moment most of the people just hibernated and wait for better times. We've got something going on this weekend, wonder how that works out.

 

Haven't talked to Raven for a while, I fly with Highway every other day. :)

[Supersheep]

For the moment most of the people just hibernated and wait for better times

Well said, and describes myself quite well, too.

 

 

Greetings to Highway :thumbup:

[carrollhead]

<Blaze> and [Maverick] - thanks for your replies.

 

I also agree wholeheartedly with your reasons for using the missions you do - there should be no need to justify being the most popular server at the moment. However, the reason there are lots of smaller passworded ones is simply that other people sometimes want to play a different style of game.

 

It would be good I think, if there was room for more events in the style of "Op Joint Warrior" though surely?

 

Again, I'm not against trying to do it myself - but I'd rather focus on trying to do something that people in the community want instead of what I think they want.

 

I may well be wasting my time, but I'd like to think not (and have already got a game or two sorted with Ragtag - Thanks Blooze). I see this thread a good place to start talking about it :)

 

@Super - how's it going?

Edited June 27, 2014 by carrollhead
fail