Adjustable gun convergence, Ammo type

[bongodriver]

The advent of VR is taking us into true 3d and depth perception, custom convergence becomes fairly relevant then.

[NeilWillis]

Well, I have VR, and I defy anyone to visually judge distance. You can tell if stuff is closer, you can use a sight to approximate distance, but I would be highly amazed if anyone could say yep, that's 150 yards, that's 200 yards, that's 300. Then add in to the mix a bandit jinking around the sky, and then do it again.

 

I really cannot see how convergence will change anything apart from perceptions.

[Holbeach]

You don't need bullets to harmonize guns, it was done inside a hangar by sighting.

 

Officers were allowed to choose their own range, some aces went down to 50 yds.

 

It can be done and was done. It is completely realistic.

 

Constructing a Harmonisation Diagram

Select a position on a wall or hangar door with a level strip adjoining it sufficient to permit an aircraft to be positioned 50 yards away and at right angles to it. Using a door has the advantage that it can be moved to bring vertical sighting line into line with the plumb bobs on the aircraft.

The aircraft must be set up on trestles until it is just clear of the ground and horizontal for and aft laterally. (responsibility of Flight Mechanic A.)

Drop plumb lines from the propeller spinner and from the tail of the aircraft (on twin engined aircraft from a central point og the nose or front leg of the tricycle undercarriage). By sighting in the line of these two plumb lines the position of a vertical sighting line can be obtained on the door or wall.

Adjust the innermost gun of each wing, using an Inclinometer (or Abney level) so that it is at the angle given in the harmonisation instructions in Vol. I of the aircraft handbook, e.g. Hurricane , 2 degrees up, Whirlwind and Beaufighter horizontal.

The horizontal sighting line can now be obtained by sighting through the barrels of these two innermost guns with a gun aligning instrument, and marking the two points obtained on the door or wall. A straight line drawn through these two points will become the horizontal sighting line. Where only one gun is used as a datum gun, the barrel should be sighted through the point marked on the door or walland a line drawn through the mark at right angles to the vertical sighting line so forming the horizontal sighting line.

The complete diagram can now be constructed from the dimensions given. This is a Works Department responsibility, although the selection of the vertical and horizontal sighting lines must be done by the unit armament personnel.

The dimensions of the discs and sighting lines areas follows:-

Vertical and horizontal sighting lines white 1 in. wide.

Gun sighting discs to be coloured as stipulated in the diagram and to be 12 in. in diameter for 20 mm. guns, 10 in. for .5 in. guns and 9 in. for .303 in.guns.

Gunsight disc to be 12 in. in diameter with cross wires, all bands to be 1 in.wide and black in colour.

Cine camera discto be 8 in.in diameter with cross wires, all bands to be 1 in. wide and black in colour.

Owing to the difficulty of moving heavy aircraft, harmonisation stands must be used when harmonising twin-engined aircraft.

An Example of Harmonisation Diagram for Spitfire Vc

Gun sight 2' 11" above horizontal sighting line on vertical sighting line

Camera Gun 2.5" below horizontal sighting line, 15.5" to left of vertical sighting line

Inner guns on horizontal sighting line, 5'5" left and right of vertical sighting line

Onter guns 8" above horizontal sighting line, 6'7" left and right of vertical sighting line

Port and Starboard inner guns to be aligned 1 degree up to datum

Harmonising a Fighter Aircraft

Set the aircraft up on front and rear trestles at a distance of 50 yrds. from the wall door or stand (measured from both wheel hubs). The aircraft should be just clear of the ground and horizontal fore and aft laterally.

Drop plumb lines from the spinner (or centre of the nose) and tail of the aircraft and adjust the door or harmonisation stand so that the plumb lines are in line with the vertical sighting line.

Using the Inclinometer (or Abney level) adjust the innermost gun of each wing so that it is at the angle given in the harmonisation instructions in the relevant aircraft handbook Vol. I.

If a wall diagram is being used adjust the position of the aircraft maintaining the aircraft datum horizontal until the inner gun or guns are sighted on the correct discs on the wall diagram. If a stand is used, adjust the stand vertically, maintaining it level until the correct discs are sighted on the inner guns or gun.

Adjust the remaining guns so that they are sighted in the centre of their appropriate discs. Lock the guns with locking wire and recheck.

Adjust the gun sight so that the centre dot of the graticule appears in the centre of the gun-sighting disc. Check the alignment after clamping.

Adjust the cine camera gun using the harmonisation unit until it is harmonised on the appropriate disc, it should then be locked and rechecked.

[Sokol1_br]

.. but I would be highly amazed if anyone could say yep, that's 150 yards, that's 200 yards, that's 300. Then add in to the mix a bandit jinking around the sky, and then do it again.

 

You are used to WWII dogfight online?

 

If the guy in this video don't know what is you guns convergence (he use custom sets) and dont caution in fire in this range their shooting are not effective as in the video. Mk.II has only .303 and 14 seconds of fire.

 

 

You can say that this game is "arcade" and etc. but I assure you that shooting there is not easy as may looks.

 

"Spray and pray" don't help there.

 

If the guy don't learn evaluate distances, angle off, he are only "spray and pray".

 

There we are in a 2D world but the rules for shooting don't differ much from real life shooting.

[Talisman_VR]

Do you know what chapter of the book it's in? I have a different publication and P. 155 is him talking about getting promoted to wing commander.

 

Hi Flare,

 

Chapter 10. Canadian Wing.

 

His point is that the far more lethal method of obtaining a kill is spot convergence, rather than the standard procedure to give a fairly large 'shotgun' pattern at the best firing range.

It shows that standard procedure was just that, a starting point and that standard procedure was not always the normal on a squadron. Just because something was standard does not mean that it was so all the time. Lets face it, when people are really good at something (sport, engineering, finance, military prowess, designing a cutting edge flight sim, etc,) they are rarely using standard procedure. A good shot, which many people are in DCS, will be far more lethal using spot convergence. By not being able to utilise spot convergence when it is practical and better to do so, we are not releasing the full potential of the aircraft that have guns mounted in the wings. In fact, they are being held back. In real life spot convergence was used, but we sadly only have a fairly large shotgun set up available as if this could not be change, when in fact it could and was.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Enduro14]

Adjusting every single gun is historically correct and therefore as this is a simulator it should be incorporated, as should belt bullet order.

Also German aircraft sometimes used divergence with their nose guns.

 

Original Lock On planes never needed gun adjustment, but since the introduction of the Mustang it is now a necessity.

 

..

 

Exactly!!

[Enduro14]

Ok, imagine that you have this opportunity in the game, that, as you think, is closer to the reality. Are you ready to wait for about several hours till your new settings will be available in the game each time you want to experiment?

 

I mean that in reality this process was not like to move a slider in options menu... :-)

 

Yes but YO-YO same could be said about the silly aircraft repair mechanic in game. Where as this adjustments would add much to the marksmaship to the Airmanship..

[Dunravin]

 

There is also the point that it would make absolutely no difference one way or the other and I would wager that if ED just put a slider into the options that did absolutely nothing, most of you wouldn't even be able to tell. Maybe that's the solution here?

 

How much do you want to wager?

 

I dipped into the config and tightened up the convergence a little. It makes for a devastating difference...

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2319994/

[philstyle]

The following are myths, not supported by historical evidence:

1. That all pilots were forced to comply with a standard convergence pattern

2. That divergence from the standard pattern was ONLY allowed for "aces"..

 

RAF Fighter Command Pilot: The Western Front 1939–42, By Mark Barber, pg 55

"As early as spring 1939, No. 1 Squadron had conducted their own experiments with harmonizing their guns to converge on a point only 230m in front of their aircraft"

 

The Battle of Britain: Five Months That Changed History; May-October 1940, By James Holland,

"In may (1940) Fighter Command was setting the harmonization range at 400 years. By July, 250 yards had become the prescribed distance. Pete Brothers had his guns harmonized even closer than that, even though, strictly speaking it was against RAF rules. He was not alone; many of the experienced pilots did the same... Tim Neil soon reset his guns at 150 yards"

The Story of the Spitfire: An Operational and Combat History ,By Ken Delve

spitfire II, 145 Squadron at Catterick - "As a rule these harmonization patters were planned for an impact grouping at 250 yards or 300 yards, creating a circle 3 feet in diameter. Different harmonization patters were used for special purposes. Minor variations were allowed to individual pilots who requested it"

 

Spitfire: The Illustrated Biography: By Jonathan Glancey

"The pilots who fought over France and survived had, however, learned a few useful tips on how to take on the Messerschmitts. The trick was to get the fitters back at base to "harmonize" the Browning machine-guns so that their combined fire met their target in one concentrated burst just 250 yards ahead of the wings, instead of the official 400 yards"

Their Finest Hour: Stories of the Men who Won the Battle of Britain, By Nick Thomas

615 Squadron, May 1940 in France, "Following their first combat, many piltos re-adjusted the harmonization of their machine guns from the recommended 350 yards to 200 yards"

 

I can pull out example, after example of this. From France in 1940 right the way through te war, across different squadrons and aircraft types. Ranges vary 150, 200, 250, 300 yards were all sued by different pilots and units at different times.

Edited January 14, 2017 by philstyle

[Decibel dB]

Because it is not realistic obviously

 

I enjoy a good chuckle, and clearly there is a strange set of notions held by some of us.

 

I'm sure every crew chief had a set of trestles, and of course a gun range parked by every dispersal bay for just such a request. Ammunition was always set aside for these harmonization sessions too - no doubt!

 

I'm also sure that every pilot was issued his very own Spitfire/Hurricane/109 etc so he could get it just right.

 

I also believe in fairies, just like most guys - naturally!

 

On the other hand...

 

The odd one or two pilots may have had personal machines, and I dare say a few of the few actually took the time and trouble to change the convergence of their guns - but I suspect that was very exceptional, and as such it isn't exactly relevant. Unless your name is Ginger Lacey, Douglas Bader, George Beurling or Johnny Johnson, I can't see it mattering much.

 

There is also the point that it would make absolutely no difference one way or the other and I would wager that if ED just put a slider into the options that did absolutely nothing, most of you wouldn't even be able to tell. Maybe that's the solution here?

 

The following are myths, not supported by historical evidence:

1. That all pilots were forced to comply with a standard convergence pattern

2. That divergence from the standard pattern was ONLY allowed for "aces"..

 

RAF Fighter Command Pilot: The Western Front 1939–42, By Mark Barber, pg 55

"As early as spring 1939, No. 1 Squadron had conducted their own experiments with harmonizing their guns to converge on a point only 230m in front of their aircraft"

 

The Battle of Britain: Five Months That Changed History; May-October 1940, By James Holland,

"In may (1940) Fighter Command was setting the harmonization range at 400 years. By July, 250 yards had become the prescribed distance. Pete Brothers had his guns harmonized even closer than that, even though, strictly speaking it was against RAF rules. He was not alone; many of the experienced pilots did the same... Tim Neil soon reset his guns at 150 yards"

The Story of the Spitfire: An Operational and Combat History ,By Ken Delve

spitfire II, 145 Squadron at Catterick - "As a rule these harmonization patters were planned for an impact grouping at 250 yards or 300 yards, creating a circle 3 feet in diameter. Different harmonization patters were used for special purposes. Minor variations were allowed to individual pilots who requested it"

 

Spitfire: The Illustrated Biography: By Jonathan Glancey

"The pilots who fought over France and survived had, however, learned a few useful tips on how to take on the Messerschmitts. The trick was to get the fitters back at base to "harmonize" the Browning machine-guns so that their combined fire met their target in one concentrated burst just 250 yards ahead of the wings, instead of the official 400 yards"

Their Finest Hour: Stories of the Men who Won the Battle of Britain, By Nick Thomas

615 Squadron, May 1940 in France, "Following their first combat, many piltos re-adjusted the harmonization of their machine guns from the recommended 350 yards to 200 yards"

 

I can pull out example, after example of this. From France in 1940 right the way through te war, across different squadrons and aircraft types. Ranges vary 150, 200, 250, 300 yards were all sued by different pilots and units at different times.

 

Thank you Phil. I don't know where that "it's not historical" come from. There is not a single book on Spitfire Ace/Squadron/BoB Pilots that doesn't talk about working on gun harmonization and loadout that I've read.

[some1]

Thank you Phil. I don't know where that "it's not historical" come from. There is not a single book on Spitfire Ace/Squadron/BoB Pilots that doesn't talk about working on gun harmonization and loadout that I've read.

 

It's the internet, don't expect people to read books before arguing on the forum. :music_whistling:

 

Yo-Yo mentioned another aspect, that it could take a few hours to change convergence in real life as opposed to one click in the sim. But so does changing payload, equipment options or repairing an aircraft after landing. And we can already do that in DCS in no time.

[philstyle]

Yo-Yo mentioned another aspect, that it could take a few hours to change convergence in real life as opposed to one click in the sim. But so does changing payload, equipment options or repairing an aircraft after landing. And we can already do that in DCS in no time.

 

Quite right.

I radio-ed the ground crew to add some ordnance to the F86 and, hey! Presto! it was there within seconds. :thumbup:

[ViFF]

+1 for allowing changes in convergance on both the spit and the mustang.

 

Will settle for presets instead of slider.

 

S!

[Solty]

+1 for allowing changes in convergance on both the spit and the mustang.

 

Will settle for presets instead of slider.

 

S!

 

I would be OK with presets if they include non-shotgun ones.I really dislike how from 6 o'clock my shots seem to fly around the target. Although I think it would make the creation process for ED more teadious and longer.

 

I myself always flew with 250m concentrated fire. Sometimes our current Mustang pattern feels needlessly far out, which makes close range shooting a pain and you want to get as close as possible with HMGs because they rely on kinetic energy.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Solty

[Krupi]

I have read quite a few books and not a single one mentions adjusting the convergence.

 

Like I have stated before and since some of you clearly can't read, I am 100% against sliders they are open to abuse and don't come up with "but that is realistic" it is nonsense.

 

Now provided you can produce a document that state's a set convergence then I think it is fair to ask ED for that convergence to be added.

 

A slider system though is garbage.

[philstyle]

I have read quite a few books and not a single one mentions adjusting the convergence..

 

See the list posted above. Have you read any of them?.. beasue they ALL mention it.

 

I am 100% against sliders they are open to abuse and don't come up with "but that is realistic" it is nonsense.

 

How does one "abuse" a slider?

Doesn't it depend on how the slider is built in the first place?

Even the most agile systems - Cliffs of Dvoer for example, have maximum and minimum limits to the "slider" - so even then the player is forced to operate within a specific envelope.

And what's more, you have the ballistics of the bullets themselves which constrain the effectiveness of any setting. A setting of 5,000m, for example would be pointless due to it being well out of range of the weapons, and the angle required to tilt the guns up that high anyways would mean that the chamber of the weapon would be sticking out beneath the wing!

 

So in effect, any "slider" is just a series of acceptable pre-defined settings

(i.e. 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400 etc..) in any case, with varying degrees of resolution (50m intervals, 25m intervals, 5m intervals etc...).

 

Now provided you can produce a document that state's a set convergence then I think it is fair to ask ED for that convergence to be added.

 

There's penty of material out there on this .. but it depends on what kind of material you would accept under your definition of "document".

Edited January 18, 2017 by philstyle

[philstyle]

Examples of US Official "boresight" pattern posters, issued to airmen.

One is for the F6F, andother for the P47. They show different patterns that were available.

 

F6f: http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/1943PatternBoresighting/Fig8_Rotated.jpg

P47:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/P-47_gun_harmonization_-_two_types.jpg/220px-P-47_gun_harmonization_-_two_types.jpg

 

There were a series of similar posters issued to RAF fighter units in May/ June of 1942 which showed a pattern for the 8-gun fighters. I just can't find any copies of these... yet....

[Solty]

See the list posted above. Have you read any of them?.. beasue they ALL mention it.

 

 

 

How does one "abuse" a slider?

Doesn't it depend on how the slider is built in the first place?

Even the most agile systems - Cliffs of Dvoer for example, have maximum and minimum limits to the "slider" - so even then the player is forced to operate within a specific envelope.

And what's more, you have the ballistics of the bullets themselves which constrain the effectiveness of any setting. A setting of 5,000m, for example would be pointless due to it being well out of range of the weapons, and the angle required to tilt the guns up that high anyways would mean that the chamber of the weapon would be sticking out beneath the wing!

 

So in effect, any "slider" is just a series of acceptable pre-defined settings

(i.e. 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400 etc..) in any case, with varying degrees of resolution (50m intervals, 25m intervals, 5m intervals etc...).

 

 

 

There's penty of material out there on this .. but it depends on what kind of material you would accept under your definition of "document".

 

Exactly.

[philstyle]

OK.. some more interesting things have popped up....

 

There is, apaprently an RAF document called "H.Q.F.C. , A.S.I. Part I,Section B, Leaflet 6 A" which might be BoB-period which has some officially stated position on weapons pattern. There is no sign of this on the internet though, and it would require a physical search of the Archives.

 

As far as I can tell, the "official" insutrctions on weapon-harmonization go something like this:

 

Sep 1938 - harmonised to a point 350 yards ahead --- 'concentrated pattern' by the Gun Sub-Committee of the Air Fighting Committee

1939 - Various squadrons experiment with harmonised to a large box pattern 400 yards ahead --- 'horizontal harmonization' / a large circular pattern 200 and 400 yards ahead --- 'circular harmonization'

Jan 1940 - A number of units switch to concentrated patterns

23rd of February 1940 - Dowding issued orders that all Hurricane and Spitfire Squadrons in Fighter Command should adopt the concentrated pattern, harmonising the guns to a point at 250 yards.

March 17th 1942 - Sholto Douglas initiates a new 250 Yard spread pattern . . which seems to have not been fiddled with until the end of the war - at least officially. Apparently Sholto Douglas had wide-spread acceptance for this pattern at meeting in Jan or Feb 1942... (I am unable to find minuites of this meeting)

 

Now, despite all the "official" statements, TWO other issues are apaprent:

1. That, at least during the Battle for France, and BoB individual pilots often acted against orders and set their own convergence patterns.

2. That the early Canon-armed spitfires were unaable to converge the Canons at ranges less than 300 Yards anyways, due to wing issues. This was later overcome. But I do not know which Mark of Spitfire this was overcome with.... Possibly the Vb...

 

So the issue is complex. Certainly it seems that as the war went on, the convergence patterns became more and more standardised towards the 250/ 300 Yard mark with either a "concentrated point" requirement or a small-ish "spread" pattern. . .

 

Very interesting stuff... if you're a geek... :music_whistling:

Edited January 18, 2017 by philstyle

[Yo-Yo]

OK.. some more interesting things have popped up....

 

There is, apaprently an RAF document called "H.Q.F.C. , A.S.I. Part I,Section B, Leaflet 6 A" which might be BoB-period which has some officially stated position on weapons pattern. There is no sign of this on the internet though, and it would require a physical search of the Archives.

 

As far as I can tell, the "official" insutrctions on weapon-harmonization go something like this:

 

Sep 1938 - harmonised to a point 350 yards ahead --- 'concentrated pattern' by the Gun Sub-Committee of the Air Fighting Committee

1939 - Various squadrons experiment with harmonised to a large box pattern 400 yards ahead --- 'horizontal harmonization' / a large circular pattern 200 and 400 yards ahead --- 'circular harmonization'

Jan 1940 - A number of units switch to concentrated patterns

23rd of February 1940 - Dowding issued orders that all Hurricane and Spitfire Squadrons in Fighter Command should adopt the concentrated pattern, harmonising the guns to a point at 250 yards.

March 17th 1942 - Sholto Douglas initiates a new 250 Yard spread pattern . . which seems to have not been fiddled with until the end of the war - at least officially. Apparently Sholto Douglas had wide-spread acceptance for this pattern at meeting in Jan or Feb 1942... (I am unable to find minuites of this meeting)

 

Now, despite all the "official" statements, TWO other issues are apaprent:

1. That, at least during the Battle for France, and BoB individual pilots often acted against orders and set their own convergence patterns.

2. That the early Canon-armed spitfires were unaable to converge the Canons at ranges less than 300 Yards anyways, due to wing issues. This was later overcome. But I do not know which Mark of Spitfire this was overcome with.... Possibly the Vb...

 

So the issue is complex. Certainly it seems that as the war went on, the convergence patterns became more and more standardised towards the 250/ 300 Yard mark with either a "concentrated point" requirement or a small-ish "spread" pattern. . .

 

Very interesting stuff... if you're a geek... :music_whistling:

 

Very interesting... the drawings we have show 300 yards point-concentrated pattern. In the previously posted here historical references I can not remember 300 yds.

For 2x20mm and 2x.505 wing the physical limits are shown, and the outboard cannon could be converged only within 220-420 yds range.

The distinctive feature of English way of harmonisation was "lasergun" form of bullet paths, though German and American engineers plotted the ballistic trajectories, so the ballistic and optical patterns were different.

 

Another thing is that neither American nor German harmonisation methodics did not use single-point harmonisation, so the "slider" to change the harmonisation has no sense at all.

 

Generally, the American pattern harmonisation is not an object for one-parameter adjustment at all because it needs a special calculation tool to see what happens with the pattern as you change the settings.

[Davee]

Very interesting... the drawings we have show 300 yards point-concentrated pattern. In the previously posted here historical references I can not remember 300 yds.

For 2x20mm and 2x.505 wing the physical limits are shown, and the outboard cannon could be converged only within 220-420 yds range.

The distinctive feature of English way of harmonisation was "lasergun" form of bullet paths, though German and American engineers plotted the ballistic trajectories, so the ballistic and optical patterns were different.

 

Another thing is that neither American nor German harmonisation methodics did not use single-point harmonisation, so the "slider" to change the harmonisation has no sense at all.

 

Generally, the American pattern harmonisation is not an object for one-parameter adjustment at all because it needs a special calculation tool to see what happens with the pattern as you change the settings.

 

You've probably already viewed this site but if not Anthony Williams has collected considerable information on WWII aircraft arms.

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/BoB.htm

[Destroyer37]

I know it likely won't happen but one can hope. If it does happen I hope it's across all applicable module's.

[Solty]

Very interesting... the drawings we have show 300 yards point-concentrated pattern. In the previously posted here historical references I can not remember 300 yds.

For 2x20mm and 2x.505 wing the physical limits are shown, and the outboard cannon could be converged only within 220-420 yds range.

The distinctive feature of English way of harmonisation was "lasergun" form of bullet paths, though German and American engineers plotted the ballistic trajectories, so the ballistic and optical patterns were different.

 

Another thing is that neither American nor German harmonisation methodics did not use single-point harmonisation, so the "slider" to change the harmonisation has no sense at all.

 

Generally, the American pattern harmonisation is not an object for one-parameter adjustment at all because it needs a special calculation tool to see what happens with the pattern as you change the settings.

Two video proofs.

1.

P-51 guncamera footage of the tracerless ammo.

This doesn't look like a "shotgun pattern"

https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=25m27s

https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=20m18s

 

First link seems to be P47 the second P-51.

 

These videos and many others are proofs of different patterns, ammo loadouts. Some airplanes have no tracers, others have every 10th a tracer, other have tracers bunched together and rest tracerless, sometimes both sides simultaneously and sometimes burst per wing.

 

Many pilots had guns harmonised for 250 yards. There is even a video of a Tuskegee pilot saying that many of his friends changed their convergence while he himself didn't bother with it. If Red Tails could change it, others couldn't?

 

Just because something is one book, doest mean the other didn't exist in another.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Solty

[SoW Reddog]

I find it very odd that despite acknowledging that individual guns *could* technically be adjusted individually, there is a move to say such a thing is "unrealistic" and "ahistorical". Well guess what? We are playing a game. At the moment we are playing with an ahistorical unrepresentative planeset. On a modern map. With no fear of death. The anachronisms are everywhere.

 

Ok, so the guns were set by doctrine. Jolly good. Who's? Spit IX was used by a number of air forces. They didn't all just use the same belting and convergence.

 

There were probably other doctrinal rules too, like not flying with the cockpit open, or not doing barrel roles over airfields. Why the hell aren't they represented and enforced?

 

I totally do not understand the developer stance on this. Seems like they've made a line in the sand and refuse to vary their approach regardless. And what everyone else is so bloody worried about I don't know, the damage model right now doesn't seem to give twould hoots what you get hit by..... Give server operators the ability to tie specific ammo loads or round availability and you add another layer of complexity and option to the mission makers arsenal.

[Decibel dB]

I was going to give more reference that prove the practice, but many already provide plenty and adding more won't help a thing. Not realizing that fact would be dogmatic or opinionated

Edited January 19, 2017 by Decibel dB