Board index Other Hangar talk

Help needed - market research for FG

Talk about (almost) anything, as long as it is no serious FlightGear talk and does not fit in the other subforums.
Forum rules
Please refrain from discussing politics.

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Thorsten » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:01 am

I am wondering about the possibility to render our scenery smoothed, in essence without those knife sharp edges.


A vertex in the rendering pipeline doesn't know about its surroundings, so in rendering a triangle, we can't know what textures are on the neighbouring triangles, or even if we are at a border where texture changes. As far as I know, a real smoothing of the edges requires us to change the scenery creation process to make this info available already at design time.

Procedural texturing and in particular the use of overlay texture patterns can mitigate the problem - if you have a mix of three textures, and you change only one component across a landclass boundary, the eye doesn't key on the edge any more. Even two changes across a boundary work fine. Basically, once you reduce the contrast, it doesn't look as bad any more.

Also, note that we sometimes don't want smoothing of boundaries - managed forests or agriculture do have really sharp edges in reality, so do roads and concrete surfaces.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10819
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby psadro_gm » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:39 pm

If you're talking about the sharpness of the geometry, generating a higher res mesh certainly helps. The default in the fitting algorithm is 1000 points per tile maximum. SRTM has 22,500 data points per tile. So we are using less than 5% of the source data. I'm thinking for the next scenery release, we could up this limit to 2,000-4,000. Especially since we'll be adding extra nodes for more detailed landclass and roads.

If you're talking about the boundaries between landclasses, there are several ideas flying around. Thorsten's procedural texturing looks promising in itself. At scenery generation time, adding some vertex attributes in some of the landclasses would help. Shaders could know how close they are to an edge, for instance, making coastlines possible.
8.50 airport parser, textured roads and streams...
psadro_gm
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:23 am
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
IRC name: psadro_*
Version: git
OS: Fedora 21

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby statto » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:50 pm

Well, the graphics in and of themselves don't necessarily faze me - though I must admit a lot of the work I've been trying to do is to get FlightGear to a level which has more interesting scenery. But another user could fly over the default scenery, compare it to commercial products and get really frustrated. That being said, I don't think X-Plane's scenery is that great either, nor do I think the FSX default scenery is very good - but I think they offer a level of precision FG doesn't.

Still, the biggest flaw we need to overcome is the learning curve. It's not necessarily pretty or intuitive to launch FlightGear for the first time - to a programmer's mind it feels like you are just filling out the command line graphically, and if you're new to flying, you're pretty much stuck.

Adding training procedures and perhaps a better graphical launcher could go a long ways in my mind.
Custom Scenery available from http://www.stattosoftware.com/flightgear
statto
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Hooray » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:50 am

Like I said earlier, I completely agree with these ideas. However, regarding the GUI launcher, I think we should not strive to yet another one, but instead an integrated one - using the Canvas system, this has now finally become possible. And the work that Zakalawe has been doing on dynamic subsystem-reinitialization will also make it easier to make the simulator increasingly runtime-configurable.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11321
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Hooray » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:34 pm

stuart wrote in Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:16 pm:What sort of "real life" features do you think we particularly lack?
Your comment about not being able to change aircraft or load/save flights is a very good one.


Actually, with ThorstenB's recent improvements to the replay/flightrecorder system, we are much closer now to supporting such features with real instructional value.

Especially if we could add Nasal hooks to the replay system, so that the replay system can be easily interfaced to related systems, such as your interactive tutorial system or the new XML checklists.

Supporting Nasal hooks/events via the replay system is something that ThorstenB mentioned being interested in for other reasons, i.e. better support for recording videos: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15979&p=155095&hilit=thorstenb+replay#p155095

In combination, these three features should in fact make it possible to come up with fairly advanced integrated tutorials, including virtual flight instructors or even mission/adventure support, that would also have a huge "wow" effect during events like FSWeekend/LinuxTag.

Using checklists would make it possible to implement missions in an aircraft-agnostic fashion eventually.
Mission objectives (such as flying a certain DP/STAR/IAP etc) could already be visualized using our canvas/map system easily.

So, as usual in FG, the real issue is properly integrating the various building blocks we already have in FlightGear.
Obviously, exposing the replay buffers to Nasal space via a simple API would be useful for a whole number of features, such as flight path visualization or evaluation etc - so that for example the canvas map could show the flight path history.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11321
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Theslayerbudgie » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:49 pm

Also 1 small problem is the stupid AI traffic. i were flying in finland with a friend when 3 AI a320 taxied into the terminal and 1 on the terminals roof. and another thing i discovered in the netherlands near EHAM is that some windmills were in a river, some on land.
Like a bird in the sky :)
User avatar
Theslayerbudgie
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:59 pm
Location: Loviisa, Finland
Callsign: Jon
Version: 2.10
OS: Windows XP pro

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Hooray » Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:29 pm

Well, AI traffic in FG doesn't generally behave erratically - it's just a system that is under active development and so it has some known glitches, because it's a generic subsystem that tries to work for different locations, even without explicit setup/configuration.

On the other hand, it is easy enough to disable the AI traffic system completely. I'd argue that most serious users are not primarily interested in FlightGear's support for AI traffic, despite the fact that it may obviously contribute to better realism under certain circumstances.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11321
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Thorsten » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:30 pm

After thinking about the problem for a while, some thoughts from my side:

First, I'm not sure if that's true, we've had a fair number of users who have tried to conduct "bounties" over time.


Well, from a commercial point of view, that's a joke. My commercial working hour goes for about 50 US$, the available bounties went up to 40 US$ or so. The commercial value of something as seemingly trivial as implementing the urban effect in atmospheric light scattering is about 400 US$, the Advanced Weather Nasal code probably exceeds 20.000 US$ in pricetag. There's just no way crowd funding will be able to offer me anything like a realistic incentive. At best bounties and crowdfunding can offer some token compensation, but if given the choice between 'I get 100 US$' and 'I do what I like' I go for the latter option. Coding for FLightgear is my hobby, I don't want payment for my hobby, I want to enjoy it, and to make payment a real incentive for me which I would even consider, it would way exceed what you can come up with.

I guess with FG and FSX/XPlane it's a bit like Mac vs. Linux users. Mac users want stuff to work out of the box and don't mind paying a lot extra for it, and also don't mind giving up freedom - Linux users don't mind tinkering with things that don't work immediately, but they do mind giving up control over their computer.

So I'm not sure we would even want to convince the die-hard FSX user to switch to FG, because doing that would make FG into something we would probably no longer enjoy. I guess what we rather want to do is to convince the casual, curious user who is new to flight simulation and just got his first shock seeing how expensive all these FSX addons are that FG is a good alternative and well worth considering, because I could imagine many potential FG users simply end up with XPlane or FSX because they simply don't know there is a real alternative. And once you're in the ecosystem and have invested your first 500$ into addons, switching becomes progressively harder - that's just basic psychology, you have to justify the decision you've made.

As for where FG has the edge - I find that difficult to judge, because I know next to nothing about FSX and XPLane except some screenshots. I am fairly sure that Advanced Weather is in many details superior to what others have - for instance I've read the manual of CumulusX which seems to be a glider addon for FSX, and that did not have the type of atmosphere physics heuristics we use.

I find our integrated environment approach a pretty strong competitor - the convective system 'knows' the terrain, we spend a lot of computations to place clouds and thermals where they belong - weather knows how strongly a particular landclass heats in the sun, that convection is more likely to be seeded from high points than from valleys, that wind acts differently windward and leeward, it knows that an instable atmosphere produces different cloud shapes,... CumulusX largely did not know all these details. Yet you have to know a lot about soaring to appreciate this :-) Likewise, our environment increasingly starts feeding back into terrain rendering - we can do wet or dusty terrain, we get the wind determining water waves,... So treating the whole environment, scenery, weather and atmosphere, as one combined system is something any addon-based approach is going to find very difficult I guess.

My particular problem is - I know how to make Flightgear look good and to make the advertizing screenshots. But that helps only so much, because if user X then has a look and find it doesn't regularly look like that, he's disappointed.

Which is why I think we need to make sure that high quality planes and low quality planes are distinguished on the download page. Which is also why I think it'd be a good thing if we come up with some good approach to distribute custom scenery. I appreciate the point that the scenery team likes all efforts focused on the next world scenery, but in many cases if we want to compete with FSX and XPlane screenshots, we need custom scenery quality. From that perspective, having custom scenery patches here and there for users to hunt isn't particularly smart - a central platform offering guidance where to download custom scenery and what exists would not be a bad thing to help users get started.

FG in custom scenery with dedicated regional textures and perhaps some shader effects thrown in for good measure doesn't need to hide in comparison - but to get a default FG to that point is a long, long way...

Also, I think we might want to market better how easy it actually is to customize things - some tutorials might help, I think the new options to switch texturing schemes runtime are also great.

A weak point is the GUI - which is often more developer-oriented than user-oriented (I admit I did not appreciate that point sufficiently in a discussion a while ago...). This is a natural consequence of a coder writing the GUI - then the GUI is just a reflection of the internal function of the code. Rather, someone else who is not familiar with the internals of the code should design the GUI based on usability.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10819
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby stuart » Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:24 pm

Hi Thorsten,

Thanks for your input, as always. A couple of comments:

On the subject of commercialization, I agree that the current bounty levels aren't enough to get anyone out of bed in the morning. However, they do suggest that FG users would be prepared to pay for add-ons, i.e. detailed scenery/aircraft. In that regard I think there is a (albeit small) market for commercial addons, similar to what is present in FS-X, X-Plane. I'd be very interested to see some commercial sim development create an aircraft for FG.

Considering convincing FS-X users, I'm not expecting that we'll get true "converts" from those completely happy with FS-X. However, we should be targeting those new to the hobby, and also those who are thinking of switching from FS-X which is no longer being developed. From reading the forums, a fair number of people are wonder "what next?" and thinking about a future where FS-X simply doesn't run on new hardware. At present, they are really only considering Prepare3D (which has a license that excludes recreational use), or X-Plane. We should be able to offer a compelling third option.

I agree completely regarding needing to rate aircraft on the download page, and a better way to distribute custom scenery.

I'd like to think that we've improved the GUI in the last 6 months, but as a developer I'm probably not the best judge.

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Hooray » Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:01 pm

Thorsten wrote in Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:30 pm:
First, I'm not sure if that's true, we've had a fair number of users who have tried to conduct "bounties" over time.

Well, from a commercial point of view, that's a joke.

We actually agree here - like I said earlier, I also don't believe that 50-250 (or even 500 USD) are good incentive to make someone work on a particular feature.

There's just no way crowd funding will be able to offer me anything like a realistic incentive.

Okay, you are talking about yourself, so it's fair enough to say that directly - However, let's keep in mind that "crowd-funding" can be much bigger and more successful than just having 100 USD bounties. For example, see kickstarter.com - where OSS projects regularly get funding in the range of several 10k USD.
Similarly, nlnet.nl provide OSS funding in the range of >= 50k per project.

This is not to say that I disagree with your point - it's just to put things into perspective: Quite certainly, your own salary isn't necessarily representative of the usual salary of other contributors. We also have lots of students or teenagers contributing here, not just university graduates who already have one or more degrees
So different people may be motivated by different amounts of money actually, even if just as an incentive.

Coding for FLightgear is my hobby, I don't want payment for my hobby, I want to enjoy it, and to make payment a real incentive for me which I would even consider, it would way exceed what you can come up with.

Understood, and then there are other issues like taxes for example, once you start earning "real" money, these things become suddenly more important ;-)


So I'm not sure we would even want to convince the die-hard FSX user to switch to FG, because doing that would make FG into something we would probably no longer enjoy.

Yes, like I also said earlier - I completely agree that this is a real danger.

And once you're in the ecosystem and have invested your first 500$ into addons, switching becomes progressively harder - that's just basic psychology, you have to justify the decision you've made.

Yes, exactly.


My particular problem is - I know how to make Flightgear look good and to make the advertizing screenshots. But that helps only so much, because if user X then has a look and find it doesn't regularly look like that, he's disappointed.

That's another very good point.

Which is why I think we need to make sure that high quality planes and low quality planes are distinguished on the download page.

Personally, I have been thinking in terms of making some of our more advanced aircraft/airports more prominent. I think I read about this on the wiki:
For instance, we are currently having two releases per year. But we've been using KSFO/c172p as the standard startup settings for many years.
Personally, I would think that it would be a great incentive for aircraft and scenery developers if we could have polls prior to each release phase to determine which airport/aircraft is going to be the defaults for the next release.

For example, just look at all the fantastic work done for LOWI - or amazing aircraft like the Seneca.
I could imagine we could make such work more prominent by changing the defaults for each release accordingly.
And we could then also change our release naming accordingl: FlightGear 3.2 (LOWI/Seneca)

That would go a long way to demonstrate to NEW users that we really have AWESOME scenery and extremely well-developed airports.
The current situation works such that only the "insiders" know about such things, and know how to download/install/configure everything.
And the screen shot competitions that we've had also demonstrate that we have an active community interested in contributing to polls.
So why not use polls AFTER each release to directly determine which aircraft/airport will be featured in the upcoming release?
That would give us plenty of time to focus on the corresponding scenery/aircraft, and to give other contributors a chance to even improve things further.

Regarding the GUI, I have to agree but the way the canvas project is heading, I am 100% confident that we'll have a very flexible and appealing GUI based on the Canvas system
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11321
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Gijs » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:13 pm

Hooray wrote in Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:01 pm:we could have polls prior to each release phase to determine which airport/aircraft is going to be the defaults for the next release.

The strongest (and maybe only) advantage of sticking to certain defaults is that our documentation, no matter how outdated, is always right on certain basics. I don't want to think about all the work that we'd have to do when we leave the c172p out of the base package or use a diferent starting place... Let alone if we change that every six months :?

Changing the other aircraft in the base package is a much smaller "problem". And we've actually changed this a few times in the past.

Thorsten wrote:I appreciate the point that the scenery team likes all efforts focused on the next world scenery, but in many cases if we want to compete with FSX and XPlane screenshots, we need custom scenery quality

Note that most custom scenery is no better than the next world scenery. Most custom scenery is European based CORINE data with OSM line data. Which is exactly what the scenery team is trying to achieve, on an European/world scale ;-)

For custom objects this is slightly different. Certain custom projects don't submit their objects to the database (for all kind of (sometimes understandable) reasons), so the next world scenery will indeed lack those...
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400
User avatar
Gijs
Moderator
 
Posts: 9363
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Amsterdam/Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 10

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Hooray » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:24 pm

I'm aware of the documentation-related issues that would cause, however at least for the wiki, this could be solved by using some template magic for different release versions, i.e. by search for "c172p" and "ksfo" and using a wiki template instead.

Overall, our documentation still isn't very good when it comes to providing info for different FG versions. We would actually need to add 2-3 wiki addons so that we can use "tagging" for "stable" versions, and fork/branch our articles after each release.
That would definitely make sense, because people with older FG versions could easily browse accordingly tagged wiki articles.
Arguably, this is easier to support in the LaTex sources because they're alrady being maintained via git and can be easily branched/tagged accordingly.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11321
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Gijs » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:33 pm

The problem with tagging articles is that lots of stuff that is nowadays added to the wiki also applies to older versions, it was just never documented before. It is impossible to check everything for each version and see if it was available at that release. Simply replacing every occurence of KSFO with something else does not address the issue. Usually there is slightly more written down than "Start at KSFO" (think of navigation tutorials, sentences like "You can find an example of the pick animation in the big hangar at KSFO." etc.). Anyway, discussing that could fill a whole topic on its own :-)

Arguably, this is easier to support in the LaTex sources because they're alrady being maintained via git and can be easily branched/tagged accordingly.

As far as I know the manual is distributed with each release, so people should already have the manual that fits their version.
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400
User avatar
Gijs
Moderator
 
Posts: 9363
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Amsterdam/Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 10

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Thorsten » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:02 am

On the subject of commercialization, I agree that the current bounty levels aren't enough to get anyone out of bed in the morning. However, they do suggest that FG users would be prepared to pay for add-ons, i.e. detailed scenery/aircraft. In that regard I think there is a (albeit small) market for commercial addons, similar to what is present in FS-X, X-Plane. I'd be very interested to see some commercial sim development create an aircraft for FG.

(...)
Okay, you are talking about yourself, so it's fair enough to say that directly - However, let's keep in mind that "crowd-funding" can be much bigger and more successful than just having 100 USD bounties. For example, see kickstarter.com - where OSS projects regularly get funding in the range of several 10k USD.
Similarly, nlnet.nl provide OSS funding in the range of >= 50k per project.

This is not to say that I disagree with your point - it's just to put things into perspective: Quite certainly, your own salary isn't necessarily representative of the usual salary of other contributors. We also have lots of students or teenagers contributing here, not just university graduates who already have one or more degrees
So different people may be motivated by different amounts of money actually, even if just as an incentive.


I'm not with a consulting company, but... let's do the numbers. Suppose there is a skilled aircraft creator who can come up with a really high-quality aircraft. Also assume he is in fact commerically oriented and does not just want to support FG. What's the business plan?

So, this is the seller's side: Someone with this set of skills can in all likelihood get at least 20$/h (if high-quality aircraft modellers were common, we'd have plenty of high quality aircraft, if a skill is rare, it comes with a price). It's nice that we have lots of teenagers contributing, however it's not obvious to me that they regularly produce high-quality aircraft - and even a holiday job on the computer earns you like 10$/hour in many places. I would guess that (including research, liveries, testing and documentation) most decent aircraft in the repository take ~100 work hours. Say a really high quality aircraft would take 300 hours to do - thus its price will be ~6000$ (probably even more if we start factoring in that if you sell it, you have to provide support, so let's place it at 8000$).

To be economocally viable, the sum of buyers times the price times the sales tax must yield at least 8000$. So, how's the buyer's side looking? You're looking at a situation where people can get high quality airplanes for free (the Tu-154b for instance has imo commercial quality, but you don't need to pay up, so does the IAR-80 or the MiG-15bis (if it still works) or the P-51D). That's bad for business, because people are not going to buy a plane because they want a high quality plane, but only because they want this particular high quality plane. The number of forum users who line up behind a particular feature request is in single digits - I think if a coherent case of 20 users for a feature would ever appear in the forum, that feature would be likely to be considered. Not all users who request an airplane are willing to pay for it, but not all interested and willing to pay are in the forum, so let's give this a factor 5 undertainty, and we end up with 20-40 potential customers. Another indication is that the number of people who bothers to click a 'Like' button for a screenshot illustrating a feature is usually somewhere below 100. Assuming 40 buyers, this would set the price for the airplane at ~250$ (where tax and shipping/server cost is included). This may just barely be acceptable for the Microsoft world (it seems steep for a single plane addon), but I'm sure it won't do in the FG world. People seem to be willing to pay 10-20$ according to the bounty experiment, so you'd need to find 500+ customers for the addon at that price. Seems a bold assumption to me.

Note that if you really had to pay realistic market prices for the core developers' time, also 50k$ would not go very far. There may just be something wrong with my numbers, but according to any estimate I can make, we're a factor 10 to 100 away from commercial viability of addons.


And we could then also change our release naming accordingl: FlightGear 3.2 (LOWI/Seneca)


I really like the idea - although Gijs has a valid point, and the scenery team is going ballistic if LOWI gets distributed as default starting location...

Note that most custom scenery is no better than the next world scenery. Most custom scenery is European based CORINE data with OSM line data. Which is exactly what the scenery team is trying to achieve, on an European/world scale


I repeat my point made on the devel list to Martin - a future world scenery with an unknown release date is of no use to me now, nor will it convince any new user.

I'd like to think that we've improved the GUI in the last 6 months, but as a developer I'm probably not the best judge.


Yes, I think it has improved quite a bit. Basially, what I wanted to say - with regard to an earlier discussion on the mailing list - you were right and I was wrong.

It's difficult to judge how good the GUI is now for me, because I know too much about the underlying structure. We'd really have to grab and question newcomers in the forum to get their first impression, gather some statistics on that and then find out what needs to be more intuitive.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10819
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Help needed - market research for FG

Postby Johan G » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:03 pm

Hooray wrote in Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:24 pm:Overall, our documentation still isn't very good when it comes to providing info for different FG versions. We would actually need to add 2-3 wiki addons so that we can use "tagging" for "stable" versions, and fork/branch our articles after each release.
That would definitely make sense, because people with older FG versions could easily browse accordingly tagged wiki articles.

I have been trying an old Blender, version 2.49b, and I have to say that I am impressed as to how they have solved the problem of documenting different versions. Once I have started browsing around my version I continue to browse around in my version (unfortunately only to some extent, but it works 95% of the time). Your approach is not that far off.

What the people at the Blender wiki seems to have done is having an article URL like "<base URL>/Doc:2.4/<article path><article name>" and a lot of template magic. Their wiki looks more than a bit modified though.

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.4/Reference/QuickStart
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

PreviousNext

Return to Hangar talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests