Can anyone tell any difference betweek dx9 and dx10 visuals in bioshock ?

T

turdhat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
161
Can anyone tell any difference betweek dx9 and dx10 visuals in bioshock ? I have tried it under vista and xp and I see nothing missing in xp. In xp however AA works, triple buffering works and it runs like butter with maxed out settings @1280x720, 4xAA 16Xaf. Stayed in the 50-60 fps all the way to the medical pavillion which is as far as I have made it at this point. Am I missing something ?


Running latest nvidia betas for xp and vista. Xp just smokes it in my situation
 
The people who spent tons of $$$ on 1st generation DX10 will say yes :)

Reality takes a backseat to perception (and trying to justify in their mind why they needed a $350-$500 video card over a $150 DX9 card)

-JB
 
jrb531 said:
The people who spent tons of $$$ on 1st generation DX10 will say yes :)

Reality takes a backseat to perception (and trying to justify in their mind why they needed a $350-$500 video card over a $150 DX9 card)

-JB
Click to expand...

You cant say the 8800GTS/X aren't better at DX9 than any previous gen card ;)
 
Simpson5774 said:
You cant say the 8800GTS/X aren't better at DX9 than any previous gen card ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, no doubt.

But the original topic of this thread is quite correct: DX10 is not the guiding, shining savior of the video world it was hyped-up to be. Every time I see side-by-side comparisons, I'm left saying 'meh.'

About the only thing that can astound me about DX10 is how huge the performance hit is for so little improvement. I was under the impression that the HUGE promised efficiency improvement from unified shaders would actually improve performance, but obviously that's not happening. I expected the same performance, with better visuals compared to DX9, but we actually get significantly less performance and slightly better visuals.

I mean, I would be happy if the DX10 renderer had the same visuals, and just better performance...but this is proof enough that I'm asking too much.
 
My 8600 is sad.

Oh well. It was still a good upgrade because on the Dell configurator thing it was either the 8600 or a 7300.
 
jrb531 said:
The people who spent tons of $$$ on 1st generation DX10 will say yes :)

Reality takes a backseat to perception (and trying to justify in their mind why they needed a $350-$500 video card over a $150 DX9 card)

-JB
Click to expand...

Uh, why would you need to justify it when the faster performance alone is plenty?

DX10 in Bioshock does look different, but you need to really know what to look for.

Water interaction (watch when you walk through puddles or shallow water... anything other than ocean) is different. DX9 you see white blobs while DX10 you see actual ripples and proper light bending.

Soft particles - I haven't seen these myself but they're supposed to be in the game. This should eliminate the hard line you see when some particle effect (fire, water, smoke, mist, etc) intersects other world geometry. It should soften it right before it intersects, so you see no harsh line

Shadows - DX10 has "crisper" shadows than DX9, though in many cases these seem to look less realistic.
 
It's kind of like Dx9B and DX9C. Who cares if you are using highest setting possible.

In a few years it would change but now it's for E-Penis. :D
 
defaultluser said:
Oh, no doubt.

But the original topic of this thread is quite correct: DX10 is not the guiding, shining savior of the video world it was hyped-up to be. Every time I see side-by-side comparisons, I'm left saying 'meh.'

About the only thing that can astound me about DX10 is how huge the performance hit is for so little improvement. I was under the impression that the HUGE promised efficiency improvement from unified shaders would actually improve performance, but obviously that's not happening. I expected the same performance, with better visuals compared to DX9, but we actually get significantly less performance and slightly better visuals.

I mean, I would be happy if the DX10 renderer had the same visuals, and just better performance...but this is proof enough that I'm asking too much.
Click to expand...

According to ACES (MS FSX dev) the DX10 render is ~17% faster than DX9 on the same hardware with the same settings on their dev PC's- not the fastest on the block. Of course, that's one title, in one instance. The real world performance remains to be seen, sometime this Fall.
 
Sr7 said:
Uh, why would you need to justify it when the faster performance alone is plenty?

DX10 in Bioshock does look different, but you need to really know what to look for.

Water interaction (watch when you walk through puddles or shallow water... anything other than ocean) is different. DX9 you see white blobs while DX10 you see actual ripples and proper light bending.

Soft particles - I haven't seen these myself but they're supposed to be in the game. This should eliminate the hard line you see when some particle effect (fire, water, smoke, mist, etc) intersects other world geometry. It should soften it right before it intersects, so you see no harsh line

Shadows - DX10 has "crisper" shadows than DX9, though in many cases these seem to look less realistic.
Click to expand...

Does a $340 8800 perform twice as fast as a $170 x1950XT? No

Once you reach 60fps sustained on an LCD then does it really matter? No

I still proclaim that the 8800's and 2900's are the utter ripoff's of the century. Sure they are faster in DX9 but that was not why people were paying a ton of cash for them. DX10 so far is a bust and maybe someday games will learn how to work with them better (took almost 2 years for DX9) but by then we will be on 2nd and 3rd gen DX10 cards and those who paid a ton of cash for these 1st gen cards will be replacing them.

It must really grate people to learn how much of a bust DX10 really is but it's their own fault. If you to not learn from the past you are bought to repeat past errors. Does anyone here remember the last Nvidia cards released before games were actually out to use them?

FX FX FX FX FX!

There were going to be the best cards on the planet. Cost a ton of cash and ran the then standard DX8 games faster than any other DX8 only card.

Problem? Well turns out that they were the very worst DX9 cards ever produced. Did people learn from this? Did people learn that you wait until realy games come out and not rely on ad BS and hype?

Some did... most did not. Smart people wait for 2nd or 3rd gen tech,

Example:

DX9

1st gen: ATI 9700/9800, Nvidia 5800/5900
2nd gen: ATI x800.x850, Nvidia 6800
3rd gen: ATI x1900,x1950, Nvidia 7900/7950

Each generation got better!

So do we learn to wait? Nope :)

What makes it even worse is that there are few is any games that actually need use DX10 and the ones so far seem to be "slower" so smark people are taking a pass at 1st gen DX10.

Of course I'm now pissing off those who jumped the gun but don't be mad at me... be mad at yourselves for spending all that cash needlessly.

Even if you want to say "well they run DX9 code really fast" is not enough because a 7950 or x1950 would have been enough to hope anyone over until 2nd gen DX10 came out.

-JB
 
Sure dx10 cards are expensive and I can't afford it doesn't mean they don't rock for dx10 games or current games. So far 8800 series seem to do the task. Not best of frame rates but still pull solid 40-70fps in desired resolutions.

Of course there's going to be something better but 9700pro was one of those cards still play dx9 games quite well much like 8800gtx will play dx10 games.
 
jrb531 said:
Even if you want to say "well they run DX9 code really fast" is not enough because a 7950 or x1950 would have been enough to hold (fixed) anyone over until 2nd gen DX10 came out.

-JB
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. The 7950 or 1950 perform quite well and are more than enough in modern games, especially in SLi or Crossfire and will easily tide people over until a better DX10 generation is available. However, the people who bought the 8 series card just didn't know at the time DX10 wasn't going to have much of an impact on current gaming.

The only people that really don't have an excuse are the people who bought a 2900, having already seen the less than stellar impact first gen DX10 provides mostly on the development front.

At the same time, money to some people with this hobby isn't really a big deal. They'll spend the money 'just to have the latest' even if it doesn't have a particularly huge impact on performance.
 
What is it with the 8800 haters?

Really, some people did buy them just for good DirectX 9 performance and really, that's ok! That's why I got mine. I got a 24" monitor and my 7800 was rather lacking when it came to dealing with a display that big. The 8800 does a pretty good job, rare the thing I find that I can't run at 1920x1200 at a good frame rate. However even then, I often have to sacrifice anti-aliasing. I could go for more power, supposing I could afford it.

I'm happy with it because it is far and away the fastest card for the games I actually run, especially at the time when I got it. You can argue about the DX10 support all you like, what it comes down to is the thing is just smoking fast at DX9. Maybe it seems excessive if you have a small monitor, and indeed back when I was running a 1280x960 CRT I didn't find the 7800 lacked for much, but when you get a high resolution screen, it's good stuff.

So don't be hating just because you are jealous that come people have a toy you don't. I'll agree it is silly to buy it for DX10 support since there's all of nothing that needs it, but it turns out when you benchmark it on the games actually out there right now in DX9 mode, it is fast as hell and that right there is plenty of reason for many to want it.
 
Sycraft said:
What is it with the 8800 haters?

Really, some people did buy them just for good DirectX 9 performance and really, that's ok! That's why I got mine. I got a 24" monitor and my 7800 was rather lacking when it came to dealing with a display that big. The 8800 does a pretty good job, rare the thing I find that I can't run at 1920x1200 at a good frame rate. However even then, I often have to sacrifice anti-aliasing. I could go for more power, supposing I could afford it.

I'm happy with it because it is far and away the fastest card for the games I actually run, especially at the time when I got it. You can argue about the DX10 support all you like, what it comes down to is the thing is just smoking fast at DX9. Maybe it seems excessive if you have a small monitor, and indeed back when I was running a 1280x960 CRT I didn't find the 7800 lacked for much, but when you get a high resolution screen, it's good stuff.

So don't be hating just because you are jealous that come people have a toy you don't. I'll agree it is silly to buy it for DX10 support since there's all of nothing that needs it, but it turns out when you benchmark it on the games actually out there right now in DX9 mode, it is fast as hell and that right there is plenty of reason for many to want it.
Click to expand...

Ok I will grant you that if you are running at some insane resolution (don't be offended - I'd love to be able to afford insane resolutions myself LOL) then yes maybe it may be worth it. Heck if you can afford a monitor with crazy resolution then you can also afford a video card with insane price :)

Fact is that most people do not game at 1900x1200 and while it's getting more popular as prices of those sweet 24" monitors are dropping, most people are still playing at 1280x1024 or maybe 1680x1050.

Now as far as saying that people didn't know any better as far as expecting DX10 to be as good as the hype... well yes and no. As I said before... time and again history has shown that 1st gen cards are a bit lacking. The ATI 9700 was a great 1st gen card but 2nd and 3rd gen were still far far better.

I really could not care less how people spend their money. What I find funny (or sad) are people who buy the 2600 and 8600 cards because not only is the DX10 thing a non-factor but they pay the same or even more than much faster DX9 cards and they do so for only one reason... so they can say they own a DX10 card.

Sad :(

-JB
 
I have a dual boot system. One with Xp Pro, and the other is Vista Ultimate. They both almost look identical to me. They both run great on my system at max settings, but to be honest, I see no real noticeable difference between DX10 Bioshock, and DX9 Bioshock. So... idk. I guess i'll play it on DX10, but there's really no huge difference to me.
 
anyone else notice that Bioshock, be it DX9 or DX10, does not have character shadows for the player.

even people with the demo can check this. In the demo, where you see the hag with the stroller where you find the handgun. There is a neon sign on the right wall thats caster the shadow of the crib on the wall.
After dispatching her, I wondered if the shadow of the crib was real, or just a texture.
walking into it and moving it shows the shadow as real, but no character shadow.
 
i was really hoping for some major differences between dx9 and dx10 for bioshock, something's gotta get me to switch to vista.

but with all these reports of little to no graphical improvement, i guess i'll have to wait for a PC-only title, like crysis, to help force me into vista and dx10.

i'm waiting on my 8800 right now. i can play bioshock with my current setup, but the fps tanks at many points at my desired resolution. avg of 20fps sucks, 40as the high, 5 as the low. ouch.

on a related note, racer_s' patch is awesome, i can actually play the game the way it's supposed to look on a ws monitor now. it makes me even more excited to get my 8800 installed to play this awesome game.
 
Droc said:
anyone else notice that Bioshock, be it DX9 or DX10, does not have character shadows for the player.

even people with the demo can check this. In the demo, where you see the hag with the stroller where you find the handgun. There is a neon sign on the right wall thats caster the shadow of the crib on the wall.
After dispatching her, I wondered if the shadow of the crib was real, or just a texture.
walking into it and moving it shows the shadow as real, but no character shadow.
Click to expand...

much too painful for me to check that out with the 7600's :p.
 
jrb531 said:
I really could not care less how people spend their money. What I find funny (or sad) are people who buy the 2600 and 8600 cards because not only is the DX10 thing a non-factor but they pay the same or even more than much faster DX9 cards and they do so for only one reason... so they can say they own a DX10 card.

Sad :(

-JB
Click to expand...

The 8600 series is pretty close to the 7900gs when OCed, plus it has other features besides being DX10 ready. It also offers AA+HDR as well as improved IQ from AF. Also as said above, there is a 17% improvement running DX10 vs DX9 in Microsoft Flight Sim, and that trend will only grow as more people develop TRUE DX10 games.

DX9 was released in 2002. It took until late 2004 for games like Doom 3 / HL2 to push the graphics and features of DX9.
 
Droc said:
anyone else notice that Bioshock, be it DX9 or DX10, does not have character shadows for the player.

even people with the demo can check this. In the demo, where you see the hag with the stroller where you find the handgun. There is a neon sign on the right wall thats caster the shadow of the crib on the wall.
After dispatching her, I wondered if the shadow of the crib was real, or just a texture.
walking into it and moving it shows the shadow as real, but no character shadow.
Click to expand...

I also noticed her weapon was missing from the shadow.
 
jrb531 said:
The people who spent tons of $$$ on 1st generation DX10 will say yes :)

Reality takes a backseat to perception (and trying to justify in their mind why they needed a $350-$500 video card over a $150 DX9 card)

-JB
Click to expand...

Never mind the fact that the 8800GTX is about twice as fast as the last generations fastest card. People upgrade for performance, as well as visuals. Its pretty ignorant for you to sit back and make a blanket statement like that. Just a FYI.

jrb531 said:
Even if you want to say "well they run DX9 code really fast" is not enough because a 7950 or x1950 would have been enough to hope anyone over until 2nd gen DX10 came out.

-JB
Click to expand...

Negative Ghost Rider. Again, your opinion is not fact. And your needs/wants are not the same as everyone elses. Some people have high resoutions, and would like faster performance in newer games. Those cards you mention can choke at 1920x1200 with eye candy on in lots of games.
 
I am no hater of nvdia/ati,nor am I jealous.My little old system plays every thing just fine.Basical I am going to see if the next generation does a better job.
 
I play at 1920x1200 and don't regret buying my GTX one bit.
 
I upgraded from a 7950 to this 8800 and I'm SOOOO glad I did. I'm not even running fraps, because I just put it on max and every game is smooth as butter.
 
I upgraded to a 8800 Ultra very late in the game, (as in within the last month) and the whole DX9 versus 10 wasn't even a consideration. I bought it because I can now play Oblivion at 1920X1200 with 8x AA and 16XAF. There was pretty much no other card that could give me a playable frame rate at this resolution/settings. And you know what? It looks AMAZING! No regrets whatsoever on my part. I just bought Bioshock yesterday and when I get home from work today I'm really looking forward to playing it on my system. I'm still using XP and I have no problem with that because like most people I can't really discern much difference between Dx9 and 10. But I'm pretty sure Bioshock at 1920X1200 with AA enabled will look pretty damn good even if it's only DX9. I'll report later and let you know. ;)
 
defaultluser said:
I mean, I would be happy if the DX10 renderer had the same visuals, and just better performance...but this is proof enough that I'm asking too much.
Click to expand...
These are entirely different operating systems that use entirely different drivers. This isn't isolating the DX10 renderer at all, but is merely giving you an overall impression of performance, factoring in other aspects.

How in the world could you possibly find this conclusive in any capacity?
 
jrb531 said:
Fact is that most people do not game at 1900x1200 and while it's getting more popular as prices of those sweet 24" monitors are dropping, most people are still playing at 1280x1024 or maybe 1680x1050.
-JB
Click to expand...

That is a really good point. A few years ago high res was considered to be 1024x768 or 1280x1024 on our CRTs. Today "high res" is considered to 1600x1200 and above with yesterday's high resolutions being today's low resolutions. People's expectations have been ratched up in the last couple years, especially since lots of ppl run LCDs at native res now. I don't understand how so many people expect to be able to run high AA & AF at high res on $150 GPUs. Yesterday's mid range cards couldn't do it either.
 
Its not a good point, because the people gaming at 1280x1024 are not buying $600 graphics cards. At least not most of them. So buying a $150 DX9 card as he claims, isnt going to be fast enough. I would buy the 8800GTX even if it wasnt a DX10 card, just because its so much faster than the previous card. He needs to get off his high horse and realize he doesnt know whats best for everyone.
 
fallguy said:
Its not a good point, because the people gaming at 1280x1024 are not buying $600 graphics cards. At least not most of them. So buying a $150 DX9 card as he claims, isnt going to be fast enough. I would buy the 8800GTX even if it wasnt a DX10 card, just because its so much faster than the previous card. He needs to get off his high horse and realize he doesnt know whats best for everyone.
Click to expand...

For the record I play at 1680x1050 with everything turned to max just fine thank you.

While I do not turn on 4x or 8x AA I can turn on 2x which is good enough at such a high resolution.

I knew that people who bought that overpriced video card would attack me. People get defensive when you talk about their hardware.

I did say that if you were playing games at super high resolutions that you are justified.

My post was more for all those others (majority who are only playing at 1280x1024)

While you may not like what I have to say most people do not need a 8800 video card. They have talked themselves into all this crap that they need 100fps and a $300-$500 video card and DX10.

Well it's your $$$ and you can spend it anyway you want but I'll laugh my way to the bank as I play with my humble x1950Pro at full resolution and enjoy every game I can toss at it at a total cost of $135!

Next year I'll pick up a video card that is better than the 8800 at less cost!

Come back then and we'll talk :)

-JB
 
jmackay said:
The 8600 series is pretty close to the 7900gs when OCed, plus it has other features besides being DX10 ready. It also offers AA+HDR as well as improved IQ from AF. Also as said above, there is a 17% improvement running DX10 vs DX9 in Microsoft Flight Sim, and that trend will only grow as more people develop TRUE DX10 games.

DX9 was released in 2002. It took until late 2004 for games like Doom 3 / HL2 to push the graphics and features of DX9.
Click to expand...

Compare to the x1950 and not the 7900 and the picture changes.

-JB
 
jrb531 said:
For the record I play at 1680x1050 with everything turned to max just fine thank you.

While I do not turn on 4x or 8x AA I can turn on 2x which is good enough at such a high resolution.

-JB
Click to expand...

Let me know if you can't see a difference of 1680x1050 on a 20" screen vs 1680x1050 on a 22" screen (both native res) when it comes to AA quality and "needed" levels.
 
jrb531 said:
Compare to the x1950 and not the 7900 and the picture changes.

-JB
Click to expand...

I ment to write about this aswell as it is quite funny how G80 series is toutted to have wastly better IQ than previous generations. And after all, all the G80 did was up the IQ on the same level ATI users have enjoyed for years (and slightly surpassed ATI to be correct).

Still the G80 can be considered a amazing piece of hardware. I plan to get one someday, but I have no fantasies about the cards DX10 capabilities. I do think this card does not have the horsepower to run future DX10 tittles. And no too dissapointed about it either, DX10 has always felt like big bubble of Hype to me.
 
jrb531 said:
For the record I play at 1680x1050 with everything turned to max just fine thank you.

While I do not turn on 4x or 8x AA I can turn on 2x which is good enough at such a high resolution.

I knew that people who bought that overpriced video card would attack me. People get defensive when you talk about their hardware.

I did say that if you were playing games at super high resolutions that you are justified.

My post was more for all those others (majority who are only playing at 1280x1024)

While you may not like what I have to say most people do not need a 8800 video card. They have talked themselves into all this crap that they need 100fps and a $300-$500 video card and DX10.

Well it's your $$$ and you can spend it anyway you want but I'll laugh my way to the bank as I play with my humble x1950Pro at full resolution and enjoy every game I can toss at it at a total cost of $135!

Next year I'll pick up a video card that is better than the 8800 at less cost!

Come back then and we'll talk :)

-JB
Click to expand...

I didnt attack you at all. I corrected you. You dont know what resolution people play at. Just because you play at a low (to me) resolution, and have a lower end card, doesnt mean everyone else does. You admit that you dont play with high AA, some people like to. And you cards simply wouldnt cut it.

You're exaggerating yet again. Its not 100fps. If you think you can 100fps at 1920x1200 or higher, with a 8800GTX with all eye candy turned on with newer games, you're crazy. This link shows some Biochock numbers. In Vista and DX10, at 1600x1200 the 8800GTX only gets 58fps. And thats without AA/AF. At 1920x1200 it would be much lower. Your 100fps claim is just misinformation to help your agenda.

And I dont even won a 8800GTX, or a DX10 card. Once again, you assume too much. You claim people are trying to justify their top end card purchase. One could look at it the other way, and say that you're bitter for not having one and try to slander those who do.
 
Fallguy's right, going around talking about people's needs just makes you look more silly imo. Whether or not you care I don't know, but that's how some or many, view it. People talk themselves (or get talked into) all kinds of stuff, I could say the same thing about those who bought an HD2900xt (oh noes!) over an 8800GTS. It's reality, pointing it out really isn't needed.

I play at 1280x1024 because I don't feel the need to have a bigger monitor that's so close to my eyes. At this resolution, 8xAA/16AF (16AF = "free") is a plus, if not a must for me. Something like 16AA isn't really necessary as there's a very small difference between 8xAA even at a stand still, but if I can get 16AA playable at 40+fps then I'll take it. That's why I opted for an 8800 card, I can crank up all visual aspects more easily and not have to worry about conforming to my monitor's size. I'd rather have it conform to my GPU. :eek:
 
I'm going to try and steer this back on topic a bit. The issue here isn't whether or not an 8800 is useful for high resolutions, because it is. Nobody is questioning the performance of the 8800 as it seems to be a great performer.

If there is anyone who should be irritated, its those people who spent money to upgrade from Windows XP to Vista. Why would you run a game in dx10 mode when it will run faster and look the same in dx9 mode? You probably wouldn't. If you are, then its probably because you already spent the money, and you can't get a refund. Just like Micro$oft wanted you to do.

As long as game companies continue to make dx9 games that look as good as so-called dx10 games, then there is no need for Vista. It would seem dX10 is just a fancy marketing campaign for "dx9 that requires Windows Vista to run". For those people who bought a $400 dx10 graphics card and $300 Vista upgrade when a $150 dx9 card + Windows XP would have resulted in about the same performance, then I hate to break it to you, but you've been bamboozled.
 
Bioshock DX10 feels better in motion in my experience. DX9 feels, I guess the word would be 'flatter'. More two-dimensional? Not sure how well the difference translates to screen caps or compressed video, I haven't bothered with that. I guess because I don't intend to play a "screen cap" game or a "compressed video" game. ;) I couldn't even tell you offhand exactly why it happens in terms of pixels on the screen, haven't looked at it that hard, but it is tangible. I just play it and I feel more like I'm there.

Does it feel a couple hundred $ better? *shrug* That's just subjective priorities. But there is a difference.

P.S. I personally didn't really 'upgrade' either my OS from XP to Vista or to this next gen card (a 2900XT FWIW) to get where I am. So for me the economics were different than what some people here are assuming. If I had had a x1950 or something like that already there is a good chance I wouldn't have bothered to buy one of the new dx10 cards this soon. There are a very wide number of situations that people are coming from and for a number of them an 8800 or a 2900 made/makes sense.
 
It all comes down to:

People with money = dont need to consider a careful and well thought budget. So I wont argue people who have 24" monitors and have an 8800 ultra in sli because its comprehensible. But ill surely laugh at newbs who builds their pc first time and asks money from their parents and buy the shiniest

People who arent so lucky with money = needs careful consideration and planning when it comes to upgrading computer hardware. I.e. most of the time they buy 6/12 months after the hardware has released to get it cheaper. Or getting a brand new one which runs their game, and not be underpowered or overkill

I belong to the latter, got my current kit
7900gtx $150 from a friend who upgraded to 8800gts
e4400 oc'd to 3.2ghz for $60 from a friend who upgraded to a q6600
gigabyte mobo for $70 from the same friend lol
and a 2gb ram for $60 again from the same friend :D

All for $340 I cant go wrong with that price. Dual core and a top end dx9 card.. it should suffice for another year. And im planning to do the same next year so I cannot really complain much given that im short on cash
 
ahh try running oblivion with the mods @ 1600x1200 on any of the last gen cards maxed out! good luck too, cuz it just wont happen, I tried oblivion on my 1900XTX vs 8800GTS/GTX, the GTS/GTX are twice as fast =p
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
ahh try running oblivion with the mods @ 1600x1200 on any of the last gen cards maxed out! good luck too, cuz it just wont happen, I tried oblivion on my 1900XTX vs 8800GTS/GTX, the GTS/GTX are twice as fast =p
Click to expand...

oblivion dx10? :p

Oblivion was fun it lasted. I still haven't finished it. Sitting in my hard drive waiting for me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top