Old 21st August 2009, 16:25   #1
DakarV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Things people don't like to see in a preset

Hi, this is a topic for things people don't like to see with a preset. Whether it be things that are used too much, things that ruin the effect of a preset etc

Just remember these are just my opinions, I’m sure people have very different opinions so please share them here.

Here are things I don't like seeing

1. Boarders. I'm not sure who started the trend of a stationary square boarder around a preset but it really ruins the effect of some very nice preset, they're still very good but could be a lot better if you take the border away. If you need it for the preset then fair enough but couldn't it be off screen or at least right at edge rather than a little bit in from the edge?

2. Words. sorry but I really don't like it when a load of words pop up in a preset, words take away from the organic feel of the preset, why not used geometric shapes and stuff instead? If they distort quickly it can be fine but ones that linger detract something imo

3. A big stationary fractal in the middle of the preset? One’s that change constantly are fine but ones that just stay there, twitch or move around a bit aren’t imo. Often looking at the backgrounds which are interesting the preset would be a lot better off without them. They just draw all your attention away from other interesting stuff that may be happening in the preset.

4. My favourite presets are ones that give you an impression of moving like falling down or tumbling around a 3D space but some of these are ruined by some object in the middle of the screen that attracts your attention instead. Some wave forms concentrated in the middle can do this. For example if that background is moving or distorting this should give you an impression of movement but you don't notice this if there are a set of non-travelling squiggly white lines in the middle of the screen. Sometimes they're needed for the effect of the preset but other times they're not.

Anyway these are just things I don't like to see, some people might like them. Please add your own things you don't like to see or disagree with others
DakarV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd August 2009, 16:27   #2
yhscchpcbr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 449
croak

i am not an author, only a masher and code tweaker, parasitically / symbiotically feeding off the true hard-working authors. that said, here are my useless reactions to your statements and some of my own.

...

Here are things I don't like seeing

1. Boarders. I'm not sure who started the trend of a stationary square boarder around a preset but it really ruins the effect of some very nice preset, they're still very good but could be a lot better if you take the border away. If you need it for the preset then fair enough but couldn't it be off screen or at least right at edge rather than a little bit in from the edge?

1a) used to bleed color, built into milkdrop so it's easy to do, many aderassi presets have these, mostly used well, i don't really like them either, especially if they aren't changing in size, position, color, or are always big. i think with thought and planning, though, they can be used effectively in moderation.



2. Words. sorry but I really don't like it when a load of words pop up in a preset, words take away from the organic feel of the preset, why not used geometric shapes and stuff instead? If they distort quickly it can be fine but ones that linger detract something imo

2a) these were really tedious to program and are cool at times, and cooler still if they are changing size, color, aspect, which, if you dig a little, is easily possible with the established code. particularly, these are hard on frame rate as most older cpus blow. in general, i have to agree, unless they are lyrics timed to the music, fuck em.



3. A big stationary fractal in the middle of the preset? One’s that change constantly are fine but ones that just stay there, twitch or move around a bit aren’t imo. Often looking at the backgrounds which are interesting the preset would be a lot better off without them. They just draw all your attention away from other interesting stuff that may be happening in the preset.

3a) yeah, pretty much gay, but the slight advantage of stillness in fractals is the greater clarity with which you can then see the colors bleed down every level of the fractal, which in itself can be a visual entrainment. anything you don't like can be turned into something you like if you try hard enough (except maybe scat munching)


4. My favourite presets are ones that give you an impression of moving like falling down or tumbling around a 3D space but some of these are ruined by some object in the middle of the screen that attracts your attention instead. Some wave forms concentrated in the middle can do this. For example if that background is moving or distorting this should give you an impression of movement but you don't notice this if there are a set of non-travelling squiggly white lines in the middle of the screen. Sometimes they're needed for the effect of the preset but other times they're not.

4a) i tend to make an overwhelming number of presets involving the spectrum analyzer waveform. the best of these i tend to like on the side of the screen, not so i can experience movement better in the middle, but so i stare at the middle, but don't acknowledge what i am looking directly at, but instead use my peripheral to feel the stereo spectrum. this is especially entraining with something super dynamic like venetian snares. if i put a spectrum in the middle with lots of movement, it's only because i just don't know how you could ever enhance anything by moving the waveform, and since the spectrum for me is the main point, to pay attention to the correlations between it and the sounds, which to me is the main point of any visualizer, reactivity. eye candy and 3d environments can be interesting and acknowledge the subtle tricks and creativity used to get your eye / brain to perceive depth, but bang-for-your-buck-wise just aren't the territory i'm interested in for the long haul, unless the depth of the 3d is highly reactive. of course, that can meke some people sick.


Anyway these are just things I don't like to see, some people might like them. Please add your own things you don't like to see or disagree with others

5) I don't like presets with beat code because no beat code works. you need serious ai to get a computer to recognize beat consistently for a variety of meters and time signatures. i think one can design a really clever algorithm to do it consistently for a narrow set of music, but beyond that, lose the beat code. metadata in the mpg7 standard should allow us to do a lot more in this area in the future without the hassle of detection. i like seeing not only the beat though, but every syncopation in the music, which is why i overuse the spectrum.

6) in general, non-reactive presets seem pointless to me, unless you are listening to ambient, in which case, the reactive ones settle down, especially with a spectrum because unlike the bass/treb/mid vars, the spectrum isn't dynamically adjusted, so you get a straight db related output, so if you do have ambient drone playing, a spectrum won't start freaking out after 10 sec of adjustment time like the vol vars. further, when something suddenly noisy happens, you don't get as an immense a flash of some sort like you get with b/m/t. of course, because of the adjustment quality of these vars, many preset authors code dampening in, so it's not like it can't easily be avoided if you're not lazy like me.

7) i like presets with wacked out conceptual pairing in the naming. if what you name your preset is too boring after seeing the name a few times, i might just get bored of your preset quicker. that said, this isn't really that big a deal to me, i am just starting to get nit picky because i can't think of much i don't like about milkdrop.

8) i am guilty of this one, endless mashing on a few shaders, thus making you sick of even the original few presets with those shaders. i can't help myself though. however, as redemption, i do mash a lot of one-offs.


9) i don't have a 9) or 10), that's for someone else

10) i said i don't have a 10) bitch

ayahuasca chupacabra
yhscchpcbr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd August 2009, 16:33   #3
yhscchpcbr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 449
shit

i forgot to comment on backgrounds. used effectively, these can provide great random palettes. they have to be blurred though, and this costs a lot of cpu operations. so i don't know, kill me now. oh, also, if your border isn't just off the edge (which is impossible it's either somewhere on the canvas, or not contributing anything), it wouldn't bleed any color. i guess you could zoom and do that maybe, never tried it. the end.

ayahuasca chupacabra
yhscchpcbr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd August 2009, 23:11   #4
Nitorami
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Erlangen
Posts: 867
Interesting thoughts. I find it difficult to tell what the problem with a preset is, often found myself trying various movements only to see how boring they really are.

What I particularly don't like are erratic movements. If the preset appears to be too static, it is normally a bad idea to add bass to x or y, just to make it shake it around a bit. This is not a problem for the spectrum analyzer or the waveform, where jumping lines appear to be quite normal and make you feel the music. However applied to zoom, rot, dx/dy, it looks really bad. Why?

On the beat detection issue, I agree in principle that this is a complx issue far beyond milkdrops possibilities. I've tried a lot to somehow overcome this but is doesn't work, not even half satisfactory. On the other hand, I can't do without some kind of definitive beat reaction, e.g. to switch between different states, to initiate a rotation or whatever. Rather than the erratic trembling provided by bass&co, I prefer definitive triggered movements. Even if the trigger was wrong because beat detection went tits up as normally would happen approximately twice a second - never mind. We probably waited long enough for the next beat... once it was triggered by whatever noise, go for it.

My other pet peeve are overly CPU/GPU heavy presets, which can really seriously mess up a smooth and satisfying flow of visuals. Unfortunately if you design a preset you can't feel how power consuming it really is until to the point of fps break down. Of course it is seductive to go to the limits but then the preset will choke older machines down to 5fps. Which is no fun.

Having said that, I wonder why anything of this should matter because most people don't have a feeling of rhythm and/or aesthetics at all, which can easily be demonstrated by watching a few youtube music viz videos which in most cases either just run random presets, change presets twice a second or not at all during ten minutes, in the latter case certainly using the preset least fitting to the music.

Which brings me to the next issue: I feel that the most important factor is the proper choice of the preset. Not each one fits each music style, and they need to match, which requires manual selection. I had the illusion in the beginning to produce something that fits every style, but this is just not possible. If I were a DJ I would try to organise the presets in different folders or something.

On the spectrum analyzer issue: I agree that having a signal which has not been messed up by AGC, is a huge advantage, but unfortunately there is no way to use the spectrum outside the wave equations - which I don' particularly like because waves are bold and grainy. To make it worse, they bypass the warp shader and enter the comp shader directly, just to deface the smooth shader polish with their sqare and obsolete pixeliness.

One final issue: I don't understand why but I find the transition between presets often more impressive than the preset itself. I've often been just watching for the next transition, which occasionally can be quite overwhelming.

And yes, the preset names do matter, odd enough, and I used to blend them in just to read them while watching... why ? I have no idea but some of my brain cells seem to sympathetically react with the music, the visual AND the stupid name. By, I guess, producing whatever agreeable molecules...very weird. But then, common sense tells me that long names are impractical because they would hide almost the complete the screen when calling up the selection menu.
Nitorami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd August 2009, 23:18   #5
DakarV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Interesting perspectives

I thought as much with the boarders but why not have them at the edge of screen? that way its just like the preset is a bit smaller rather than having an ugly plastic picture frame that’s too small for the screen stuck in the middle of your preset. The next evolution would be new milkdrop that allows you to specify things that happen off-screen, then float/move whatever onto the screen for all to see in their transformed glory

If you don't like the beat code presets then you don't listen to enough electro music with driving base lines, i've seen some amazing preset that suddenly snap to something different on every major beat

I sort of agree with the non responsive thing, after all your just looking at a video not a music visualizer if it doesn't respond to the music. However saying that some of my favourite ones don't do this and they are still brilliant.

As for the naming thing you could always press f4 and voila, no longer a problem
DakarV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd August 2009, 23:40   #6
DakarV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Hey sorry posted my response without reading yours martin, bad timing

I don't make presets so I’m not sure how they work but surly as soon as the spectral analyser does something to the flow field (whatever its called) it's subject to shaders etc, can't you hide it but still see its effect on the backdrop? or have it make such an effect that it hides the original grainy line etc

With the music yes not all presets suit all styles of music and sometimes you just have to appreciate a preset in it's own right, especially if it doesn’t respond at all. I think its part of the magic when suddenly the preset matches up perfectly with the sound that going on around it gives you a feeling of unity and harmony. Trying it get this all the time would be next to impossible

With the transformations they can be absolutely amazing and blow your mind but I find it very hit and miss, now if someone could decide which work very well together and then have a list of possible presets that can proceed the current one then I think you could have something special. At the moment I’m enjoying 4 second presets and 15 second transformations. You get to see plenty of the preset during the transformation so I think that still gives you enough time to appreciate them.

edit: PS as far as i can tell people don't mind double posts on this forum so i made two instead of editing one massive post
DakarV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2009, 20:31   #7
Nitorami
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Erlangen
Posts: 867
Quote:
Originally posted by DakarV
I don't make presets so I’m not sure how they work but surly as soon as the spectral analyser does something to the flow field (whatever its called) it's subject to shaders etc, can't you hide it but still see its effect on the backdrop? or have it make such an effect that it hides the original grainy line etc

No, unfortunately not. Sacrificed to simplicity I guess.

I think its part of the magic when suddenly the preset matches up perfectly with the sound that going on around it gives you a feeling of unity and harmony. Trying it get this all the time would be next to impossible

Agreed. That makes the fascination of a lasershow which has been exactly programmed for a specific music.

At the moment I’m enjoying 4 second presets and 15 second transformations. You get to see plenty of the preset during the transformation so I think that still gives you enough time to appreciate them.

Hell, what a waste, to try and make presets variable by changing parameters in the minutes range. Unfortunately, milkdrop is not too fit for that, given its limited number of variables etc. It's made to crossfade a multitude of short-lived presets rather than for "long runners". Still, it is my quite personal ambition to produce visuals that can stand on their own, at least for a few minutes. I think my last one, elusive impressions, is a step forward with that. However you can't see it on your PS1 video card.
Nitorami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2009, 14:28   #8
DakarV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
hmm someone said my video card was ps2, oh well

Anyway you look at presets for minutes at a time? sure i do if i'm especially checking out a cool preset sometimes but not for my general milkdrop watching where i'm listening to music almost as much as i'm watching milkdrop

Also for this i wouldn't like to have to keep skipping presets that got boring (or worse stare at a not so good preset for minutes) once i've looked at a preset too long it looses some of it's magic, only watching them for a short time keeps all the presets fresh and next time it comes on i'm still just as interested in seeing it. Also i can just relax keyboard free and get absorbed in the program

When i have to spend minutes deciding if i want a preset in my main collection, if it then comes on randomly in my general watching it’s like, oh, i know everything this preset is going to do off by heart. Makes it not as fun to watch

PS. how come milkdrop can't cross fade long preset? it seems fine playing one constantly
DakarV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2009, 16:22   #9
Nitorami
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Erlangen
Posts: 867
Misunderstanding - milkdrop can of course fade long presets, but it hardly supports the making of long presets in the first place. What I would like is to have presets look different all the time - not totally different of course but surprise me with varying effects each time I look at them... I mean more than just color changes.

On your waterfall proposal: Accidentally I have been tinkering with something like that a few days ago, but I couldn't be convinced yet. I have done milkdrop programming for quite a while now and feel I'm getting more and more saturated with previously used effects, and more picky about new ones.... my disk is stuffed with thousands of interesting visuals but only few matured to a state where I would actually release them. Said that, it's well possible that I'll come back to the waterfall issue one day, but currently I pursue other ideas.

Cheers
Nitorami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2009, 00:42   #10
Amandio C
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 400
On the issue of presets poor response to music, probably the major reason is music complexity itself. What ideally should drive the preset are the instruments. If MD could read a midi file in sync with the music, then it would really dance.
Amandio C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2009, 16:11   #11
DakarV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Quote:
Misunderstanding - milkdrop can of course fade long presets, but it hardly supports the making of long presets in the first place. What I would like is to have presets look different all the time - not totally different of course but surprise me with varying effects each time I look at them... I mean more than just color changes.
ops my bad, i blame tiredness here. I've got a new job in the evening to early morning which pretty much means i'm tired all the time and i can seriously notice my brain not working as well. Anyway can milkdrop not do random things so well to keep a preset varied? I guess if it was too random it could just end up not looking very good a lot of the time

As for the waterfall fair enough, i assumed you would be more interested in taking things in new directions, although its fairly different from presets i've seen. Thought i'd ask anyway. Maybe someone else could give it a try? Do you think it would hard to do?

Btw how hard is making presets in the first place? My maths is very good, i can already do all the complex numbers, polar coordinates conversions and stuff but my programming skills are low. Still i've done lots of trial and error stuff on computer games and things.
DakarV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2009, 17:28   #12
ORB 13
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 79
Have a look at the milkdrop_preset_authoring guide located in winamp\plugins, that will give you an idea what you will need to do to author presets. Oh Im pretty sure your card is capable of ps2, it supported DirectX 9 but not 9.0c. Check if you can see a preset called ORB - Acid lamp that's ps2.

Last edited by ORB 13; 25th August 2009 at 17:48.
ORB 13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2009, 21:26   #13
Nitorami
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Erlangen
Posts: 867
Yes, milkrop is fairly easy to start with. I reckon it was made so simple in order to enable everyone to contribute. If you've additionally got some basic mathematic understanding, what are you waiting for ?
Nitorami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2009, 05:26   #14
yhscchpcbr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 449
hmm, i had a hiatus, too busy with my work, mind and nassim and other things. anywho, cool to see so much posting around these issues. i skimmed it after reading the first two posts after mine, i'll have to go back through in finer detail later. that said, i had to say this about what i read.

i totally agree about transitions. they often offer the most intriguing stuff.

also, botborg, introduced to me by flexi, has some of the best stuff to date that reacts the way i'd like. check it out on youtube sometime. i would ideally like two things: that mentioned, where at key changes in the music, like to chorus or something climactic or building, the visualizer changes to suit - hard to do without ai. and more ideally, something that preparses music and can timbrely reflect all details of the signal. the spectrum has too much info and thus isn't ideal for this. you need to break down which instrument is which. ideally, music would be recorded by track and could then more easily have a visual element applied to each track. the recording industry will probably never allow this, because it makes remixing too easy. anyway, money shouldn't exist anyway, and i believe that's possible, so despite current controlling establishments, i'm positive something will materialize eventually in this realm. one great development over the years is mod trackers (venetian snares). if the raw mod file could be robustly parsed and reflected visually, that would be awesome, i think, but i haven't found anything like that yet (haven't looked too hard). that said, if people's interest / intelligence about reactive visuals is poor, that's only because of bad marketing, not because it isn't the coolest art in the universe. education on the issue is important for sure. that said, one of my favorite band's visuals, tool, are often not purposely not synced with their music. adam jones himself said on the dvd for the making of the vicarious video that one guy responsible for part of the visuals in the beginning naturally assumed the visuals were going to align with the music, so he too the trouble of mapping out the odd time signatures of the song to accommodate this idea. adam turned around and said scrap that, he wanted the opposite. so, it's often not the preferred aesthetic for some reason. in any case, i'll probably never completely lose interest in timbrelly driven visuals until i see it and it isn't that impressive. i doubt that. i just think we have yet to really have good visual representations of sound. anyway, i'll probably respond further one i read later posts in detail. i hope this helps / hurts someone.

ayahuasca chupacabra
yhscchpcbr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2009, 21:10   #15
Nitorami
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Erlangen
Posts: 867
I agree that mod files would simplify the issue of beat reaction, but still the problem of detecting the timbre or mood of the music would remain. I played around with modtracker a while, in an attempt to extract the scores for pieces I liked, and I also used mod files for my visuals, just because a large variety is available for free on modarchive.org. There's also loads of crap but it is worthwhile to dig for the jewels.

The intent of the mod format was to find a format reasonably efficient with storage space but not restricted to the dull standard midi sounds of the sound card, motivations which have become entirely obsolete.

State-of-the art music production software may internally work similar to modtrackers, but no one would consider to
publish the finished piece other than in a standard consumer format such as mp3. Who would be willing to spend several hundred Euros on a particular software just to play the music produced with it?
Technical limitations made mod files the only reasonable music format in the mid 80s, and the tracker or at least a player was distributed with the machine. I don't think we can blame the music industry in this case. Mod is just no longer necessary.

Interestingly, given the increase of computational power over the recent decades, it has become possible to reverse the process. Normally there is no way back after the mixdown, but it is now to a certain extent possible to "disassemble" pieces e.g. wav files, into the individual instruments and notes and to rearrange them. Tricky piece of engineering and in fact considered impossible before proven to the contrary, see celemony.com. I think this might also open a way to new techniques of music recognition and visualisation in the future.
Nitorami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2009, 07:38   #16
yhscchpcbr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 449
one of the reasons i think voice separation is possible is because you typically have an album recorded (well within the genres i listen to mostly) in a studio in a short period of time with a lot of consistency in those voices (kick, snare, guitar distortion, etc) that should mean there are many many chances to statistically analyze (like our brain does) voices in order to separate them (geoffrey hinton - google tech talks) anyway, i don't expect much in a mediocre world. and yeah, there's really not a market for this stuff at the moment anyway. i mean, milkdrop is awesome, free and there are like 50 people interested it seems.

ayahuasca chupacabra
yhscchpcbr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2009, 16:08   #17
Amandio C
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 400
I probably didn't explain correctly my idea. The midi file would not be transmitted to the soundcard, but the data would be read by MD instead (or in addition) of bass, treble, etc. This would only work of course if one could find the midi file of the track, and they generally are available for the most popular musics, and more. It would also require to cut and stretch the midi to make it sync with the mp3, which I believe is easy. Midis have the separate signals of every instrument and sometimes even the voice, and are tiny sized. Maybe you could have a shortcut key in MD to bring a menu and choose which of the instruments to assign to which variable. One could therefore assign the behavior of the preset to respond to specific instruments, like one shape to the voice, another to the drum, a wave to the guitar, etc.
Amandio C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2009, 20:29   #18
ravermeister
Senior Member
 
ravermeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cologne
Posts: 198
Send a message via ICQ to ravermeister
sounds awesome, would be great,
but i think its hard to find the correct midi file to
the mp3 file. especially couse much is cutted/extracted etc.
and very often the id-3 tags are not correct.
you could choose the midi by your own, but then you've got to have the title twice or not?
i don't know really much technical information about sound.
but isn' it possible, to "guess" the instrument based on filtering the frequency for example?

regards
raver
ravermeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th October 2009, 15:21   #19
Amandio C
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 400
I'm not into mids either. Anyway, as a music visualizer input, the data in mids is much richer then the sound signal because it contains the music score of instruments. The behavior of the preset would be based specially on music notes, which would be something really new. This is all theoretical of course. I'm afraid I dont' have the skills necessary to try to implement it.
Amandio C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th October 2009, 21:51   #20
Nitorami
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Erlangen
Posts: 867
Well. I think that to write a midi file matching a track of music, just for the purpose of visualisation, is completely hypothetical. By the time you are finished with the midi you'll be so bored with the track that you'll never want to hear it again. Plus, you'll need a tailored visualiser since milkdrop only works on audio streams.

You may use a mod or midi file in the first place, instead of a commercially produced track. There are plenty out there, but a) they sound quite dull these days, and b) you'd still need a specific visualisation software.... which I think will never be produced because who in the world is listening to midi files? These days, midi is merely a transport protocol between keyboard and PC.

It will soon be possible, by sheer computing power, to identify and separate individual instruments in any stream of music. But still, you'll need a specific visualisation software to work with that.

In the meantime I prefer to enjoy milkdrop, select presets matching my music style manually, and cease dreaming about further visual climaxes. There are limits to the human perception and ability to experience anyway, and personally I think milkdrop takes me pretty far.
Nitorami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th October 2009, 21:00   #21
Amandio C
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 400
Hi. The idea was to use the midis already available, "cutting and stretching" them to synchronize with the mp3 tracks. The midi naturally wouldn't be played by the soundcard, only the mp3. On the other hand, the concept that spectrum analysys will in the next few years provide every instrument's music score seems too optimistic. For now, the two should complement each other, and with these tools maybe we could make presets really dance. Cheers.
Amandio C is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Visualizations > MilkDrop > MilkDrop Presets

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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