Jump to content
infosys_ms

VF-1 Size and scale up for debate

Recommended Posts

I’ve said it before. There is zero measurement or scale behind hand drawn animated cells from the 1980s. There is zero measurement or scale behind hand drawn line art, there just isn’t. So please no more screen caps or line art to argue the point. The only thing it is good for is for visual reference and I’ve used it as such.

Honestly, this whole thread comes off as incredibly disingenuous. It's increasingly clear you've never wanted to have any kind of open discussion on the topic presented, you're just fishing for positive reinforcement for this theory you've come up with and you refuse to acknowledge valid arguments that contradict it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get into the debate of scale, but I will say that as a rule fans do not have the luxury of dismissing any official published material when analyzing any part of Macross. Fans have previously tried to dismiss plenty of official material from Macross to fit various theories and that is wrong by default. We as fans don't get to just say the DYRL?, or Macross 7, or the Variable Master File books aren't official because they MAY contradict something we've figured out on our own. We're fans, nothing more. We are forced to include EVERYTHING as evidence and then we have to rationalize for all sources being all inclusive with each other. That's the ONLY way we fans are allowed to examine the Macross franchise. It's all or nothing; no piecemeal. So yeah, we don't have the option to dismiss the animation and line art when examing scale for the VF-1 Valkyrie :)

In the next update to my website, I have a much better scan of the VF-1 Valkyrie schematics. Also I have a DYRL? size comparison chart that has the pilot next to the VF-1. I'll attach these images to this post. Maybe this art might help your investigation.

post-114-0-30638000-1370185125_thumb.gif

post-114-0-37894800-1370185300_thumb.gif

Edited by Mr March

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we told you that you can't use the 1/55th as your base because it doesn't accurately reflect the design down in the nitty gritty details. You don't use a Transformer if you want to model up the perfect Lamborghini Countach ;3

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=34651&p=959725

and danbickell did it using the 14 meter figure and it seems to work fine.

What ever model we think may or may not reflect the design is subjective. What is well defined is scale and since we don't have a real VF-1 I had to start with the 1/55 and scale up. Then it is a question of general shape and size not so much the details.

Others up the post have also mentioned scaling up other toys like GI Joes. I don't think GI Joes or Transformers make a claim to scale. There is also no question there because we have real Lamborghini's. So your right I wouldn't do that.

If I did want to make a Transformer. I would start with a stock model of the vehicle then copy the guts of a masterpiece or a binaltech. I already have an F-14 and pilot model for GI Joes so hey I'm done there.

Danbickell has part of a model. We need to see his completed model for a final size. Then see how a pilot model fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i don't think Danbickell is going to change much now that he has the nose perfect. It's not like once you get the rest of the machine you can't make minor adjustments to say the feet to get the right length.

Maybe you should have started with the Bandai High Complete Model 1/72nd scale toy instead of the 1/55 since we keep telling you how the latter is inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest treading lightly when discussing danbickell's model. More has gone into that one model than most of us will likely do in our entire lives :);)

Just a note about the pilot in the cockpit, be very careful to ensure any pilot model is not seated upright with the legs dipping low. The line art for the VF-1 clearly depicts the pilot seated in a reclined position and the legs positioned more horizontally than vertically, which would have a big effect on the amount of space below the pilot.

http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossdyrl/vf-1a-fastpack/vf-1-dyrl-cockpitcrosssection.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started my 1/55 custom from my sig in my post which is still unfinished I measured out the lengths of the legs on a Bandai 1/100 a Hasegawa 1/72 and a Imai 1/200 scale kit and scaled the measurements up to real scale i.e 6cm X 100 etc all the measurements from the kits were with in a few centimeters when scaled up except the 1/55 which was a bit out. I worked out the average size and then made my adjustments to the 1/55 considering there was 20 years between the oldest kit and the newest kit the difference wasn't that bad. I just assumed the scales were about right I never checked to see if they fitted into official guide lines.

I still love my 1/55's and hats off to you though for even trying to make a 3d model of any Valk let alone the Chunky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever model we think may or may not reflect the design is subjective. What is well defined is scale and since we don't have a real VF-1 I had to start with the 1/55 and scale up. Then it is a question of general shape and size not so much the details.

Others up the post have also mentioned scaling up other toys like GI Joes. I don't think GI Joes or Transformers make a claim to scale. There is also no question there because we have real Lamborghini's. So your right I wouldn't do that.

If I did want to make a Transformer. I would start with a stock model of the vehicle then copy the guts of a masterpiece or a binaltech. I already have an F-14 and pilot model for GI Joes so hey I'm done there.

Danbickell has part of a model. We need to see his completed model for a final size. Then see how a pilot model fits.

Speaking of Transformers, GI Joe and Robotech :-D

post-15512-0-68808100-1370673987_thumb.jpg

The only thing that would make this more awesome is if He-Man was the pilot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this whole thread comes off as incredibly disingenuous. It's increasingly clear you've never wanted to have any kind of open discussion on the topic presented, you're just fishing for positive reinforcement for this theory you've come up with and you refuse to acknowledge valid arguments that contradict it.

Hey! don't call my post names, my post never did anything to you! ;-) Of course I want positive reinforcement of my theory, no one starts a post to get shot down (if they can help it). So far I have not valid arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest you're not exactly starting with a valid premise. You found you couldn't make an upscaled 1/55 toy work right, we told you it's not the most accurate source. We offer better sources and you turn them down. So I guess we can't do anything to convince you can we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nosutaru.fc2web.com/anime-model/MACROSS/imai/kahenn-VF-1D/1-72kahen-D.html

http://rgm79.seesaa.net/article/107560917.html

Well then take the old 1/72nd scale transforming VF-1 kit by Imai and scale it up. That has working landing gear and a full pilot figure.

I don't have one of these. I have a Yamato 1/60. I did the measurements on it and got the same results. Being a sleeker design, smaller model and having more units per scale the life size pilot model did not appear to do much better when it was scaled up to 14m. If you would like to send me your 1/72 I would be glad to run the measurements for you. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand. You say you have a toy of the VF-1 that has a fit that does fit and it still doesn't work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i don't think Danbickell is going to change much now that he has the nose perfect. It's not like once you get the rest of the machine you can't make minor adjustments to say the feet to get the right length.

Maybe you should have started with the Bandai High Complete Model 1/72nd scale toy instead of the 1/55 since we keep telling you how the latter is inaccurate.

Think in 3D. When he completes his model, he can make it what ever size he wants in his 3D program. He can make it 14m; he can make it 14cm. What doesn't change is the size of a pilot.

I had never seen a Bandai High Complete Model 1/72. Now that I have, I can say that it is the worst VF-1 model I have ever seen. What is up with that back pack? I am pretty sure it is not supposed to be like that. How do you know the 1/55 is inaccurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know the 1/55 is inaccurate?

because we have eyeballs and the ability to see with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you got time.

http://www.collectiondx.com/blog/vf5ss/veef_show_episode_38_history_takatoku_vf1_valkyrie

http://www.collectiondx.com/blog/vf5ss/veef_show_episode_51_retrospective_yamato_toys

You can listen to these podcasts where Renato and I discuss the history of the Takatoku VF-1 and also the history of Yamato toys in where he brings lots of information from translated sources about the development of the VF-1 as a design and how over the years Kawamori would work with the toy makers to make better toys.

To be honest I really don't understand the idea of the 1/55th toy is the end all and be all of the design when even it at the time it was just one of several pieces of merchandise. What did you expect? A government committee voting on which is the best ever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think in 3D. When he completes his model, he can make it what ever size he wants in his 3D program. He can make it 14m; he can make it 14cm. What doesn't change is the size of a pilot.

I had never seen a Bandai High Complete Model 1/72. Now that I have, I can say that it is the worst VF-1 model I have ever seen. What is up with that back pack? I am pretty sure it is not supposed to be like that. How do you know the 1/55 is inaccurate?

Well, if you got time.

http://www.collectiondx.com/blog/vf5ss/veef_show_episode_38_history_takatoku_vf1_valkyrie

http://www.collectiondx.com/blog/vf5ss/veef_show_episode_51_retrospective_yamato_toys

You can listen to these podcasts where Renato and I discuss the history of the Takatoku VF-1 and also the history of Yamato toys in where he brings lots of information from translated sources about the development of the VF-1 as a design and how over the years Kawamori would work with the toy makers to make better toys.

To be honest I really don't understand the idea of the 1/55th toy is the end all and be all of the design when even it at the time it was just one of several pieces of merchandise. What did you expect? A government committee voting on which is the best ever?

Nice podcast. I could talk about Valkyries for hours too but if you could cut to the part where there is evidence on how they arrived at a length of 14m, it would help move this post along. You did state that the designation of 1/55 scale was largely made up. I tend to agree with you. I always assumed the length of 14m was also made up or at least an educated guesstimation.

I think you are putting words in my post. I haven’t seen any one here claim any one model is the end-all-be-all best. Nor did I ever think there'd be so much 1/55 bashing going on. There are just different versions of the same fictional plane, so none of them are really inaccurate. A stated length of 14m is not an inaccuracy of the model only a miscalculation in scale. Using the 1/55 as an example it should be obvious that a length of 14m is a problem for any version, measurements of the yamato 1/60 confirm this.

One only needs to look at the real life examples f-14 and f-18 for a “landing gear under the pilot, twin engine, carrier based” configuration to see that a length of 14m is just not feasible. A more realistic length would be longer then an f-18 but shorter then an f-14. It certainly doesn’t have to be the length I arrived at but it can’t be 14m.

If I had to vote for best Valkyrie, it would be the 1/55, but that is a topic for another post.

Edited by infosys_ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread keeps popping up and every time I read the new posts it made less and less sense, but I think the issue just hit me. Maybe I can help put things into perspective - at least as I understand it - so here goes.

I think your priority list of "design compromises" is the thing most people can't fathom. Most seem to wonder why you're placing so much priority on the front landing gear at the expense of everything else. In fact, its seems you're willing to compromise the nose, the cockpit, the intakes, the legs, the arms, almost the entire design of the craft (including running back to the inaccurate Bandai 1/55s) just to find a design that fits the front landing gear. This in an exercise in designing an entire VF-1 around front landing gear while deprioritizing every other design problem of modeling a VF-1 in 3D, even the problems that demand higher priority. If I'm correct, I think that's why most are criticizing/rejecting your rationale.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't deter you from your model. Keep doing good work, just thought maybe I could help bridge some understanding between the debating parties (or maybe just clarify my own understanding).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread keeps popping up and every time I read the new posts it made less and less sense, but I think the issue just hit me. Maybe I can help put things into perspective - at least as I understand it - so here goes.

I think your priority list of "design compromises" is the thing most people can't fathom. Most seem to wonder why you're placing so much priority on the front landing gear at the expense of everything else. In fact, its seems you're willing to compromise the nose, the cockpit, the intakes, the legs, the arms, almost the entire design of the craft (including running back to the inaccurate Bandai 1/55s) just to find a design that fits the front landing gear. This in an exercise in designing an entire VF-1 around front landing gear while deprioritizing every other design problem of modeling a VF-1 in 3D, even the problems that demand higher priority. If I'm correct, I think that's why most are criticizing/rejecting your rationale.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't deter you from your model. Keep doing good work, just thought maybe I could help bridge some understanding between the debating parties (or maybe just clarify my own understanding).

I think a few can’t think in 3D. Maybe I can help put things into perspective - In a project like this (scaling up a toy model) real world objects like a pilot, ejector seat, landing gear and tires are definable, relatable constants one can import into a 3D program, unlike a fictional plane. Now take any VF-1 model and 3D scan the external surfaces to get a 3D mesh. The scale tool in the program will keep the mesh proportional as we increase the length of the model to 14.2m. At that length you will find that no amount of engineering or stretch of the imagination will make those real world objects fit in the defined space and you will have to face the obviousness of the truth.

post-15512-0-49397700-1372895376_thumb.jpg

“I think your priority list of "design compromises" is the thing most people can't fathom. Most seem to wonder why you're placing so much priority on the front landing gear at the expense of everything else. In fact, its seems you're willing to compromise the nose, the cockpit, the intakes, the legs, the arms, almost the entire design of the craft (including running back to the inaccurate Bandai 1/55s) just to find a design that fits the front landing gear. This in an exercise in designing an entire VF-1 around front landing gear while deprioritizing every other design problem of modeling a VF-1 in 3D, even the problems that demand higher priority. If I'm correct, I think that's why most are criticizing/rejecting your rationale.”

This you have completely made up and is absurd. I haven’t compromised a thing. I have stated in my posts this is an accurate scan of the 1/55 and I can’t change anything on it because that would compromise the transformations. There is no running back to the 1/55 it is the 1/55 and the 1/55 is not "inaccurate". Designing around the landing gear is false, 1: I haven’t designed anything it was scanned, 2: the landing gear and the pilot where the last thing to be added after the scan was complete. The proportional size of the entire model was increased until the pilot and gear fit (see pics up top) nothing was compromised.

You give your self too much credit if you think you’re going deter me. Everyone is welcome to their opinion in this world.

Edited by infosys_ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This you have completely made up and is absurd. I havent compromised a thing. I have stated in my posts this is an accurate scan of the 1/55 and I cant change anything on it because that would compromise the transformations. There is no running back to the 1/55 it is the 1/55 and the 1/55 is not "inaccurate". Designing around the landing gear is false, 1: I havent designed anything it was scanned, 2: the landing gear and the pilot where the last thing to be added after the scan was complete. The proportional size of the entire model was increased until the pilot and gear fit (see pics up top) nothing was compromised.

You give your self too much credit if you think youre going deter me. Everyone is welcome to their opinion in this world.

My apologies, but I've been away from MW for so long I'd forgotten how impossible it is to have a discussion with anyone here. Totally my fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infosys, I really do think that you should change your thread title and premise to "VF-1 Size based on 1/55 Valks a bit weird and not up for debate." Great work and effort with the 3D modelling but could you please be intellectually honest and admit that it is your opinion that the 1/55 is the ultimate representation of the VF-1 and start treating it as such? I mean, you're ignoring any suggestions that the 1/60 v2 may be more faithful to the subject material.

Very puzzling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

head-asplode.png

The official length of a VF-1, as designed by it's creator, is 14.23 m. Trying to redefine this based on any interpretation, including the actual animation in the show, or any toy or model kit, is pointless endeavor in my opinion.

This is the whole reason why interpretations such as toys and model kits have a scale such as 1/55, 1/48, 1/60, and so on.

That there are all sorts of problematic scale issues inherent to the design that require a little "anime magic" here and there seems to be widely accepted truth. It has also provided us with decades worth of toys and model kits attempting to flesh out the design, all with their various quirks in their interpretations of the design. Most of the time, it seems the limitations of the materials, physical size, manufacturing methods, and price point are the most influential in these interpretations.

On a personal level, I embrace the original design, flaws and all. I would hate to scale it up for any reason, and the ergonomics of the pilot doesn't rank that high on my list. One of my attractions to the DYRL incarnation of the design is that they addressed some of this with the redesign of the cockpit, the bubble in the canopy, and defined details like the shape of the cockpit tub and how that relates to the space for the nose landing gear. The icing on that cake is that they paid closer attention to these scale issues with how they depicted the differently sized pilots in their cockpits. A good example would be when Focker is drunk flying to save Hikaru. The side profile shot of his cockpit shows him completely stuffed in there, too tall to fit properly, with his back hunched over. Kakizaki is shown with rather cramped fitting as well, while little Hikaru fits much better. DYRL remained faithful to the scale of the VF-1 design, and played around with the Zentraedi range of heights instead.

My $0.02, for what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you scan a yamato v2 VF-1 and do the same scaling then?

I did the measurements and numbers on the Yamato VF-1 1/60 and got similar results. I did not make a 3D model because I have to scan manually and these things are wonderfully complicated. My hope with this post is for other 3D artists, with different versions of the VF-1 to share there experience.

This is the Yamato I have. This is not me in the vid :-D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2O60smdm8

One day I hope to get a 1/42. If I can get my hands on a desktop 3D Scanner I would just to scan Valkyries all day. I would also be able to scan the pilot figure and scale the entire thing to it. This would give us a more accurate real world length of the plane. My bet is it won't be 14.2m.

Edited by infosys_ms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, but I've been away from MW for so long I'd forgotten how impossible it is to have a discussion with anyone here. Totally my fault.

Mighty nice of you. It takes a big man to admit he is difficult and stubborn. It take a bigger man to laugh at that man.

Next time, If you propose to lecture someone on the "design problem(s) of modeling a VF-1 in 3D" be sure to bring your own 3D model. After all (read the top of the post) that is who this post is geared towards, people with 3D work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, he was being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

head-asplode.png

The official length of a VF-1, as designed by it's creator, is 14.23 m. Trying to redefine this based on any interpretation, including the actual animation in the show, or any toy or model kit, is pointless endeavor in my opinion.

This is the whole reason why interpretations such as toys and model kits have a scale such as 1/55, 1/48, 1/60, and so on.

That there are all sorts of problematic scale issues inherent to the design that require a little "anime magic" here and there seems to be widely accepted truth. It has also provided us with decades worth of toys and model kits attempting to flesh out the design, all with their various quirks in their interpretations of the design. Most of the time, it seems the limitations of the materials, physical size, manufacturing methods, and price point are the most influential in these interpretations.

On a personal level, I embrace the original design, flaws and all. I would hate to scale it up for any reason, and the ergonomics of the pilot doesn't rank that high on my list. One of my attractions to the DYRL incarnation of the design is that they addressed some of this with the redesign of the cockpit, the bubble in the canopy, and defined details like the shape of the cockpit tub and how that relates to the space for the nose landing gear. The icing on that cake is that they paid closer attention to these scale issues with how they depicted the differently sized pilots in their cockpits. A good example would be when Focker is drunk flying to save Hikaru. The side profile shot of his cockpit shows him completely stuffed in there, too tall to fit properly, with his back hunched over. Kakizaki is shown with rather cramped fitting as well, while little Hikaru fits much better. DYRL remained faithful to the scale of the VF-1 design, and played around with the Zentraedi range of heights instead.

My $0.02, for what it's worth.

Of coarse this is a pointless endeavor but the name of this post is not "state the obvious". This is after all just a hobby for me. I knew one day I would have to ask the question so why not ask it? What could it hurt?

BTW, he was being sarcastic.

and sarcasm is like a second language to me so I am right there with you ;-p

^ What he said.

Try this at 47 feet ...

robotech-peluche-max-sterling-dmmwrq_MLM

I wuv it.

This is the greatest thing I ever saw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the measurements and numbers on the Yamato VF-1 1/60 and got similar results. I did not make a 3D model because I have to scan manually and these things are wonderfully complicated. My hope with this post is for other 3D artists, with different versions of the VF-1 to share there experience.

This is the Yamoto I have. This is not me in the vid :-D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2O60smdm8

One day I hope to get a 1/42. If I can get my hands on a desktop 3D Scanner I would just to scan Valkyries all day. I would also be able to scan the pilot figure and scale the entire thing to it. This would give us a more accurate real world length of the plane. My bet is it won't be 14.2m.

Just a thought, but I wouldn't ever want to base a scaled up model on anything from a cockpit. Doing so is naturally going to bork up the measurements horribly, because model cockpits are built so they are capable of being assembled. Making a pilot removable inherently will screw up the scale, because tolerances in model/toy cockpits are absolutely nothing like real life.

Get a schematic of a real life fighter cockpit, and see how the pilot fits inside it. Models often will have very misshapen/mis-sized pilots to account for the fact that real human beings can bend.

Aside from that, everything in a model cockpit is based on completely wrong thicknesses of materials. Generally speaking, if you have a 1/48 model, there is no way the seat frame is scaled to the correct thickness, because it would be paper thin.

Even then, cockpits are cramped, and pilots are flexible. Models and toys very rarely (if ever) can account for this in any fashion. Pilots in kits/toys are meant to look passable for what will fit in the aircraft, not be something you can scale the aircraft off of. And actually, given the way plastic canopies can magnify or distort what is seen inside much more than a thin aircraft canopy would, I wouldn't be surprised if many companies purposefully size the cockpits incorrectly to help correct for this.

Edited by Chronocidal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6491377265_38a85c132d_z.jpg

I've always thought a "real" Valk would/should be a little closer to the F-18 in terms of size, to really look "right."

Hornet.f18.750pix.jpg

Meh; it's just an excuse for posting more VF/jet porn... ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the topic title is no it isn't :)

The size is one thing you don't alter for something to remain Macross.

I've looked through your blog and very much like the model and the video, i appreciate someone modelling a parked folded fighter mode too.

I feel a cockpit naturally has an ergonomic form derived from the pilot, like the cabin of a car does ... so because your rescaling is so extreme i find your pilot figure looks funny and ridiculous. The design can certainly look good at a larger size but only with a reproportioned cockpit. However a fighter would naturally want the nose as slim as possible for downward visibility reasons.

My own 3D model is unfinished and in LEGO at 47ft. and has a rotating rising seat, the only way i can do that is by having the nosewheel strut not canon ... super-thin and compact and moving the nosewheel out of the way in battroid as shown in the illustration posted in this forum.

Here is as it should be, such that a female japanese pilot looks proportioned ...

21.jpg

Edited by paramat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the creative license that many seem to take with the proportions of the VF-1 design, namely the exaggerated "bubble" canopy profile that so many seem to want to add in most current renditions you see now...

The inner fanboy in me just wants to say: It was not shaped that way from the beginning. Stop trying to change it.

vf-1a-fighter.gif

vf-1s_colors.jpg

vf1_ladder_and_canopy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the creative license that many seem to take with the proportions of the VF-1 design, namely the exaggerated "bubble" canopy profile that so many seem to want to add in most current renditions you see now...

The inner fanboy in me just wants to say: It was not shaped that way from the beginning. Stop trying to change it.

Wrong. The "bubble" canopy isn't a creative license. It's not like an act of faith, things aren't what you believe they should be. Shoji Kawamori -who as the actual designer of the VF-1s is more important than you and me- revised his SDF-M designs for the DYRL? film and guess what, he came up with the "bubble" canopy among other things.

I don't think it's safe to say these snapshots are just "current renditions":

post-12283-0-30354800-1374957085_thumb.jpg post-12283-0-76151600-1374957091_thumb.jpg

post-12283-0-15005500-1374957106_thumb.jpg post-12283-0-26800900-1374957112_thumb.jpg

post-12283-0-86107800-1374957117_thumb.jpg post-12283-0-72172500-1374957122_thumb.jpg

post-12283-0-77931300-1374957126_thumb.jpg post-12283-0-91457800-1374957132_thumb.jpg

Edited by Reïvaj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psst: the VT-1 shouldn't count - as it's a two-seater trainer with a deliberately enlarged cockpit, not a single-seater front-line fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relative size of Zendran and the VF-1 is inconsistent and subject to much debate:

http://www.macross2.net/m3/forfansonly/zentradiheight.html

But from the recent Q&A session at the Osaka Macross Museum, Kawamori stated that the reason he made the VF-1 so small, is to make it different from a Gundam.

Correction: the VF-1 is tiny because it's designed to match the stature of the Zentraadi when in Battroid form.

OTEC et al only enables the small size, they didn't require it to be small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...