SUBSIM®  Radio Room Forums


SUBSIM: The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM® Radio Room Forums > Silent Hunter 3 - 4 - 5 > SHIII Mods Workshop
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-30-2018, 09:16 PM   #121
schlechter pfennig
XO
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 436
Downloads: 35
Uploads: 6
Default

I'd be happy to help integrate the depth charge noise mod with yours, and help out in other respects as well. I had a mod called "increased asw", so it's not like I'm not used to this particular area.
schlechter pfennig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 11:03 AM   #122
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,206
Downloads: 690
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schlechter pfennig View Post
I'd be happy to help integrate the depth charge noise mod with yours, and help out in other respects as well. I had a mod called "increased asw", so it's not like I'm not used to this particular area.
I am not the initiator of this mod/thread, but as far as I am concerned you are welcome in the team schlechter pfennig!
Let's wait for padi to reply to your proposal of collaboration, and we will see how to best coordinate our respective skills.
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 12:10 PM   #123
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
I am not the initiator of this mod/thread, but as far as I am concerned you are welcome in the team schlechter pfennig!

Let's wait for padi to reply to your proposal of collaboration, and we will see how to best coordinate our respective skills.


I go with Gaps words all the way that your help is appreciated and I'm very happy that the team is gaining size and knowledge!
What mod do you mean with "advanced asw"?
I can't find a mod with that name...
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 02:43 PM   #124
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,206
Downloads: 690
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
I go with Gaps words all the way that your help is appreciated and I'm very happy that the team is gaining size and knowledge!
What mod do you mean with "advanced asw"?
I can't find a mod with that name...


Here is a possible work plan, divided in four main points:


Historical information collection:

- creating a complete list of ASW ships and aircraft represented in game and in the megamods we want to feature. This list should include among the others: destroyers, minelayers, destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes, sloops, submarine chasers, minesweepers, naval trawlers, torpedo boats, patrol vessels, patrol aircraft, carrier-based bombers and fighters and scout planes.

- creating a list of the main ASW weapons that we want to be featured in our mod with their specs, measures and (possibly) drawings, and with approximate introduction and disposal dates. This list should include sea- and airborne depth charges, bombs used in the anti-submarine role, torpedoes and rockets as well as their relevant dropping/throwing/launching gear. As far as depth charges and A/S bombs are concerned, I am at good point with this task. Later today or tomorrow I will post here my list.

- for each of the featured ships, researching number, arrangement, type and mark of ASW armamenets fitted aboard, also taking in account mid- and late-war refits. Probably padi has already collected most of this information.

- for each of the featured ships and aircraft, researching historical ammo outfits and bomb loads. Again, as far as ships and number of depth charges carried on them are concerned, I think the current version of ASW Mod is a good base to start from for creating such a list.


3D/2D work and importing of models in game:

a few days ago I have posted here a list of weapons I have already modelled (but not yet imported in game). This list had laready changed as I go on modelling new weapons. The final list will depend on the results of the histrorical research I proposed above. I suppose I will be in charge of the 3D modelling, but anyone who is familiar with Wings3D, Blender, 3dsMax or Maya is welcome to supplement my modest modelling skills (2D artists are also wellcome).


Damage modelling and testing:

- at the end of this post, I have posted a short list of articles on underwater explosion physics that we should read carefully and stick to when setting Min/MaxRadii and Min/MaxEF's as well as explosion ranges/impulses of the new ASW ammunition we want to model in game. I plan creating an excel spreadsheet with simplified formulas, for calculating those parameters based on type and weight of explosive charge (and maybe detonation depth). I will post it here when I got it ready, but maybe, if you are familiar with physics and formulas, you can have a glance at those articles yourselves: three brains are better than one...

- Once we have finished with the theory, we will have to check our new settings in game, for making sure that they give realistic results.


Visual effects:

in some of the articles I mentioned above, there are even formulas for calculating the shape and size of bubble sphere and water/foam column caused underwaterd and on surface by underwater detonations. Those factors vary depending on explosive weight and explosion depth. It would be cool (though not an high-priority feature) having maybe two or three realistic explosion effects, customized for use with depth charges/bombs of different sizes. I know Kendras was working on something similar (though not based on formulas), and if padi has not objections, I could ask him to join our team. He is the an excellent modder with many skills and ideas, and he is the king of particle effects

Please feel free to integrate this list, in case I forgot something
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 03:58 PM   #125
schlechter pfennig
XO
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 436
Downloads: 35
Uploads: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
I go with Gaps words all the way that your help is appreciated and I'm very happy that the team is gaining size and knowledge!
What mod do you mean with "advanced asw"?
I can't find a mod with that name...
I'd meant "increased ASW"

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=increased+asw

(And yes, that's my old name)
schlechter pfennig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 05:32 PM   #126
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,206
Downloads: 690
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schlechter pfennig View Post
I'd meant "increased ASW"

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=increased+asw

(And yes, that's my old name)
Interesting
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 05:47 PM   #127
Slyguy3129
中国水兵
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tejas
Posts: 281
Downloads: 108
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudewarrior View Post
So, I have been following a couple of mods here, and I just thought I should go ahead and post. I am not going to claim to be an expert modder, but I (think I) have done some modding to make this work. I am willing to accept that I could be completely wrong.

The mods I have been following are the Real ASW mod, the Depth Charge noise mod, and, to a lesser extent, the Torpedo Alarm Mod.

Basically, I play a heavily mod-souped version of GWX. I have managed to mod the Real ASW Mod into it. I went through and modified all of the .cfg files (at least some of the time working with MFM 3.3 .cfg files) and all of the .eqp files (at least some of the time working with RCB's SH4 effects for SH3 mod). I basically powered through the PITA and edited all the files to incorporate padi's mod, and, well, I think it works. Later in the war, the depth charges seem more powerful and reach depth to explode a lot sooner, as it should (this is not empirically determined, tho, it just seems that way). It is also stable, considering the soupyness of my mod list.

Now, I have been working(-ish) with schlechter pfennig on his Depth Charge noise mod. I haven't been doing near as much as he. It seems also he has started running into a CTD problem that I was experiencing too (and I also experienced it with TDW's Depth charge water disturbances). I am going to let that play out a little bit, since he seems to be focused on getting it to work with WAC as opposed to GWX.

What I would like to see, is not only this mod working, but also working with the Depth Charge noise mod (and also the Torpedo Alarm Mod, since it generates DC's, which would in turn generate Bold decoys). It would be nice to see this combination of mods such that more powerful DC's exist later in the war, but you can still escape escorts that are DC only (obviously, with hedgehogs, it can get really bad). As a side note, I think it would be nice to have your torpedoes create disturbances too ala the Torpedo Alarm Mod, but that doesn't absolutely have to happen.

Ultimately, I don't know if this information will help anyone. But it seems to me that:
  1. It works with GWX (albeit modded).
  2. It is a great idea (keep up the good work).
  3. It seems to be an idea that could work well with the Depth Charge noise mod (and others).
  4. I really like it.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and I hope my rambling might help or inspire you in some way.
Wow thanks for the reply. I'm not very confident in modding cfg files though. I'm just looking to maybe get this mod working with GWX3. But with the way downloads are so insanely limited I'd rather spend those precious few mbs getting a mod I know will work.

Downloaded one freaking mod yesterday, and I'm still on "cool down" on downloads. If only the internet had more than one website from which we could download from. Perhaps one day, technology will advance that far!
__________________
I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight, even to death, for your right to say it. By: Someone more articulate than I, but in my words.
Slyguy3129 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2018, 08:43 PM   #128
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,206
Downloads: 690
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schlechter pfennig View Post
I'd meant "increased ASW"

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=increased+asw

(And yes, that's my old name)
So I have read the list of features of the increased ASW mod by our schlechter pfennig / Albrecht Von Hesse, and I have a few remarks about some of them. I wanted to post my comments directly in the mod thread, but then I realized that the mod itself is no longer available, and that the last post in its thread dates back to when I wasn't even aware of subsim or Silent Hunter games. After all, I think I will post my remarks here rather than risking to be called a thread necromancer

Here we go:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
1) setting all bombs so that they detonate when they impact the water, or just below.
That would be correct for most bombs, including the (remarkably uneffective) British A/S bombs, used during the early part of the conflict. Matter of factly those bombs were commonly fitted with impact fuzes/pistols which could be set for triggering an explosion immediately or with a short delay, usually in the order of a few tens of seconds. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the US 500-lb and 1000-lb GP bombs could be fitted with hydrostatic fuzes, thus behaving as a normal depth charge.

Sources:
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. June 44, pp. 45, 47 and 171
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. September 45, pp. 51, 53, 251 and 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
2) setting the air depth charges to detonate at 9 meters (which isn't exactly historic, I'll admit; from what I've been able to research 7.9 meters seems to be the 'normal' depth setting, although I've only been able to find the tech details for British air depth charges so far).
According to John Campbell (Naval Weapons of World War Two, 1985, p. 94):

"The original pistol setting of 50ft (15m) was too deep for aircraft attack on a surfaced U-boat and it was reduced to 25ft (7.6m) in 1942"

This is referred to the British Mk. VII airborne DC, but it probably applies to other aircraft depth charges used ny the British. An user in navweaps' discussion board quotes another source (a link to is provided, but it is no longer available online):

"In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary.

Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres."


This is probably referred to US depth bombs. The two pamphlets by Navy Bomb Disposal School I mentioned above (dated summer 1944 and autumn 1945) specify for all the hydrostatic fuzes used with air ordnance depth settings in steps of 25ft, from 25ft (7.6m) to 125ft (38.1m), but I think only the 25ft setting was used in practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
3) setting the 'explosiveness' of air depth charges to match up to the weight of explosives they normally carried.
The 'explosiveness' of depth charges (and thus the damage they can cause at a given distance) should be roughly proportional to the cubic root of the weight of its explosive filling multiplied by its TNT equivalency factor. You can find the relevant formulas in any of the articles I linked towards the end of post #89 in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
4) setting the sink rate of air depth charges to match the historical sink rates.
I am curious to know your settings. Unfortunately I couldn't find much information on this respect, except for the British Mk VII air depth charge probably had a terminal velocity equal or similar to its surface counterpart (i.e. 9.9 fps, 3.02 mps, source: United Kingdom / Britain
ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com
). Both navweaps.com and Campbell list the illogical figure of 600 fps (183 mps!) as terminal velocity of the streamlined Mark VIII 250-lb a/c depth charge, but I regard it as a typo. No information at all on the sinking speeds of US depth bombs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
5) modified the Catalina, Sunderland, Wellington, select Liberator and select Fortress aircraft with ASW loadouts.
I think you forgot here the embarked bombers, fighters and scout planes, which also played an important role in WWII A/S warfare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
Most British DDs and DEs begin carrying the Mark VII heavy depth charges starting September 1942. The Mark VII heavy had a somewhat improved sink rate from the addition of lead to the depth charge.
That's probably a bit too late. According to navweaps.com, the Mark VII heavy depth charge was introduced in service in 1940. This is in accordance with Cambell (op. cit, p. 89) who states the end of 1940 as time frame for its introduction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
US DDs and DEs begin carrying the Mark 9 'fast sinker' depth charge starting June 1943. Designed to sink fast and detonate at up to 1000 feet, the Mark 9 was aerodynamically shaped, lead-weighted and finned.
There were two main versions of the Mark 9: the first version (depth charge Mk. 9 and Mk. 9 Mod. 1) had a terminal velocity of 14.5 fps (4.4 mps) and it entered service in spring 1943. The second version, called Mk. 9 Mod. 2, was further improved "by means of a finer setting of the tail and added lead". This came at the sacrifice of explosive power, but it resulted in a maximun sinking speed of 22.7 fps (6.9 mps). In a personal note, I have noted august 1943 as date for the introduction of this later version, though honestly I cannot find the source for it. For all the other information reported here, the sources are:

John Campbell, op. cit, p. 163
United States of America ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com
Depth Charge, Mark 9 and Modifications: Descriptinìon and instructions for Use, Bureau of Ordnance, February, 1944
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 06:12 AM   #129
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,206
Downloads: 690
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse View Post
2) setting the air depth charges to detonate at 9 meters (which isn't exactly historic, I'll admit; from what I've been able to research 7.9 meters seems to be the 'normal' depth setting, although I've only been able to find the tech details for British air depth charges so far).
According to John Campbell (Naval Weapons of World War Two, 1985, p. 94):

"The original pistol setting of 50ft (15m) was too deep for aircraft attack on a surfaced U-boat and it was reduced to 25ft (7.6m) in 1942"

This is referred to the British Mk. VII airborne DC, but it probably applies to other aircraft depth charges used ny the British. An user in navweaps' discussion board quotes another source (a link to is provided, but it is no longer available online):

"In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary.

Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres."


This is probably referred to US depth bombs. The two pamphlets by Navy Bomb Disposal School I mentioned above (dated summer 1944 and autumn 1945) specify for all the hydrostatic fuzes used with air ordnance depth settings in steps of 25ft, from 25ft (7.6m) to 125ft (38.1m), but I think only the 25ft setting was used in practice.
Quick update from the USNBD Pamphlet "British Bombs and Fuzes, Pyrotechnics, Detonators", November, 1944 Ed.
Apparently, the hydrostatic pistols that could be used with British a/c depth charge were as follows:

Pistol Mk. X** (obsolete by the date of publication):
Depth settings: 50, 100 and 150 ft (15.2, 30.5 and 45.7 m respectively)
DC's used on: Mk. VII and VIII

Pistols Mk. XIV and XIV* (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 14-18 ft (4.3-5.5 m)
DC's used on: Mk. VII, VIII, XI and XI*

Pistols Mk. XVI and XVI* (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 20-24 ft (6.1-7.3 m)
DC's used on: as above

Pistol Mk. XIX (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 20-24 ft (6.1-7.3 m)
DC's used on: Mk. XI and XI* with Mk. IV tail

Pistol Mk. XX (in service):
Fixed depth setting: 14-18 ft (4.3-5.5 m)
DC's used on: as above

Summing up: after all, unlike stated by post-war sources, British a/c depth charges could be set to detonate at depths shallower than 25ft. Indeed, we don't know how reliable/effective were the shallowest pistols (Mk. XIV and XX, 14-18 ft), and how common they were.

Incidentally: happy Easter guys
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 06:24 AM   #130
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schlechter pfennig View Post
I'd meant "increased ASW"

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=increased+asw

(And yes, that's my old name)


Ok. Then, as you probably already knew from our PMs, my mod is based on the idea and, with your ok via PM, on your Mark 9 model...
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 10:53 AM   #131
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
@ padi



Niume anticipated me: during the last few days I have been wondering if you had made any progress with your mod. Since the last time we have discussed about it, I have added a few new models to my collection of 3D ASW ordnance. Models I have (more or less) ready so far are:


  • US 300 lb depth charge Mark 6 / Mark 6 Mod 1 + throwing arbor
  • US 600 lb depth charge Mark 7 / Mark 7 Mod 1
  • US 200 lb depth charges Mark 9 / Mark 9 Mod 1 and Mark 9 Mod 2 + throwing arbors
  • GB 300 lb depth charge Type D Mark III (this one was a WWI depth charge but, according to navweaps.com still in service as late as 1940)
  • GB 290 lb depth charges Mark VII and Mark VII heavy
  • GB hedgehog / US mousetrap projectile (according to John Campbell's "Naval Weapons of WWII" , a version of the latter was modified for being fired or dropped from patrol aircraft)
  • GB squid laucher and projectile (those models are already part of a mod by LGN1)
  • GB 60 lb HE and 25 lb AP RP-3 rockets + rail
  • US 3.5-Inch and 5-inch FFAR rockets + rail (I hope at some moment my rocket models will be merged with Kendras' WIP rockets mod)
  • GB 100 lb A/S bombs Mk. III, IV and VI
  • GB 250 lb A/S bombs Mk. III and IV
  • GB 500 lb A/S bomb Mk. IV
  • US 325 lb Mk. 17 / 350 lb Mk. 44 depth bomb
  • US 350 lb Mk. 41 / Mk. 47 depth bombs
  • US 325 lb Mk. 53 / 350 lb Mk. 54 depth bomb
  • US 650 lb Mk. 29 and Mk. 37 depth bombs
  • US 650 lb Mk. 38 / 700 lb Mk. 49 depth bomb
Do you think that it is also possible to simulate the Mark X DC?
I have tried that years ago but coudn't archive a working result...
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 11:48 AM   #132
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,206
Downloads: 690
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
Do you think that it is also possible to simulate the Mark X DC?
I have tried that years ago but coudn't archive a working result...
mmm... I wish we could, though it doesn't seem to have been used very much during the war, anyway there are quite a few con's in adding it in game:

Its big kill range meant that the Mark X DC could only be used against deep targets. Its slow sinking speed allowed the launching ship to get clear of the explosion while sailing at full speed. I doubt that AI destroyers would manage the same tactic, and they would end up suiciding themselves more often than they hit any target.

This DC was lauched from 21 in torpedo tubes. We should invent some trick in order to simulate this in game.

We don't have a 3d model for it, and so far I couldn't find any picture/drawing or even measures of it.

I we find a way to get round the problems above, I say why not? Maybe we will get some nice idea, or some subsim comrade will give us some clue. In the meanwhile, my opinion is to focus on other and more important aspects...
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 12:04 PM   #133
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Historical information collection:



- creating a complete list of ASW ships and aircraft represented in game and in the megamods we want to feature. This list should include among the others: destroyers, minelayers, destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes, sloops, submarine chasers, minesweepers, naval trawlers, torpedo boats, patrol vessels, patrol aircraft, carrier-based bombers and fighters and scout planes.



- creating a list of the main ASW weapons that we want to be featured in our mod with their specs, measures and (possibly) drawings, and with approximate introduction and disposal dates. This list should include sea- and airborne depth charges, bombs used in the anti-submarine role, torpedoes and rockets as well as their relevant dropping/throwing/launching gear. As far as depth charges and A/S bombs are concerned, I am at good point with this task. Later today or tomorrow I will post here my list.



- for each of the featured ships, researching number, arrangement, type and mark of ASW armamenets fitted aboard, also taking in account mid- and late-war refits. Probably padi has already collected most of this information.



- for each of the featured ships and aircraft, researching historical ammo outfits and bomb loads. Again, as far as ships and number of depth charges carried on them are concerned, I think the current version of ASW Mod is a good base to start from for creating such a list.
First, we have to agree on which mods we want to focus on. I would suggest WAC and GWX for first with focus on WAC because it is the newest, what do you two think?

I'm creating list one for WAC in the following days, easter is family day...
After that is finished I create list three and then the same for the other basemods that we agree on.
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 12:16 PM   #134
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,206
Downloads: 690
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
First, we have to agree on which mods we want to focus on. I would suggest WAC and GWX for first with focus on WAC because it is the newest, what do you two think?

I'm creating list one for WAC in the following days, easter is family day...
After that is finished I create list three and then the same for the other basemods that we agree on.
Sounds good to me

In my previous post I forgot to ask what was your experience when you attempted to model the Mark X DC in game
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 12:40 PM   #135
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Sounds good to me



In my previous post I forgot to ask what was your experience when you attempted to model the Mark X DC in game

It was only beginner-style...
I had attemted to include a depthcharge-fire controller to the torpedo tubes and have added them into the .eqp.
As I know now that couldn't work...
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
asw , depth charge , mod , real , realismn

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2018 Subsim