Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sigvatr

Things about Doom you just found out

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, rehelekretep said:

someone mentioned a node error in an otherwise empty room that caused something similar to this - unfortunately i cant remember where i read it, but it was recent.

i think it might have been @Memfis and/or @vdgg ?

Yep - node rebuild might fix/improve it. ZokumBSP can fix it with the right settings, but engines deriving from MBF cannot use these nodes, unless those engines test for the absence of Line 0 entries in every block of the blockmap. Unfortunate.

 

But, doing a standard node rebuild with a good nodebuilder might be adequate.

Share this post


Link to post

Until last night when I was reading more about the alpha versions of Doom and browsed for the items and weapons in the game afterwards I had no idea the mega armor actually halves the damage received and the regular armor is weaker than it. I always thought the mega armor just lasts longer since it provides twice the percentage of the green armor, not that the damage absorption is actually higher, and in consequence, picking a regular armor afterwards replaces it rather than replenish the damage protection (and vice versa), supposedly that's something only the spectral armor does.

 

I didn't know neither the mega armor nor the green armor count for the Items percentage at the end of a map either.

Edited by Agent6

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, the blue armor has 50% damage absorption and the green armor only 33%, by comparison Heretic's Enchanted Shield is actually more powerful at 75% damage absorption. Nothing triggers me more than having less than 100 armor that's strong only to run over a weak armor by accident.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, rehelekretep said:

someone mentioned a node error in an otherwise empty room that caused something similar to this - unfortunately i cant remember where i read it, but it was recent.

i think it might have been @Memfis and/or @vdgg ?

I guess "weird demos" thread:

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Agent6 said:

Until last night when I was reading more about the alpha versions of Doom and browsed for the items and weapons in the game afterwards I had no idea the mega armor actually halves the damage received and the regular armor is weaker than it. I always thought the mega armor just lasts longer since it provides twice the percentage of the green armor, not that the damage absorption is actually higher, and in consequence, picking a regular armor afterwards replaces it rather than replenish the damage protection (and vice versa), supposedly that's something only the spectral armor does.

A while back I put in a patch to prboom-plus to optionally colour the HUD / status bar armour number based on quality not amount, but it seems to have got lost somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
On 13/6/2013 at 4:35 PM, Eris Falling said:

TeamTNT made the Boom engine. This I knew. The joke I missed.

 

Lol I feel so stupid for not noticing this before.

 

(Yes, I quoted a post from 5 years ago, fite me)

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/04/2018 at 7:11 AM, kb1 said:

Yep - node rebuild might fix/improve it. ZokumBSP can fix it with the right settings, but engines deriving from MBF cannot use these nodes, unless those engines test for the absence of Line 0 entries in every block of the blockmap. Unfortunate.

 

But, doing a standard node rebuild with a good nodebuilder might be adequate.

That's not correct. When I found out that so many ports had buggy blockmap behaviour due to inheriting a bug from MBF, I turned off that optimization by default. Also, this has nothing to do with nodes, it has to do with the blockmap. I don't know if that is the problem with this map, but that is where the compability problem was.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, zokum said:

When I found out that so many ports had buggy blockmap behaviour due to inheriting a bug from MBF [...]

Are you talking about Boom skipping the first entry in each blockline list?

list = blockmaplump+offset;     // original was reading         // phares
                                // delmiting 0 as linedef 0     // phares

// killough 1/31/98: for compatibility we need to use the old method.
// Most demos go out of sync, and maybe other problems happen, if we
// don't consider linedef 0. For safety this should be qualified.

if (!demo_compatibility) // killough 2/22/98: demo_compatibility check
  list++;     // skip 0 starting delimiter                      // phares
for ( ; *list != -1 ; list++)                                   // phares

Is this what you're referring to as buggy behaviour? If so I can't agree, it fixes spurious invisible hitscan-blocking walls in open areas by avoiding having line 0 in every blockmap square. It's clearly needed to fix a vanilla bug. The player doesn't want his shots blocked for no reason. Or am I misunderstanding?

 

Edit: Doomwiki reference

Share this post


Link to post

RjY: The bug is in the vanilla tool chain id used. The engine treats the extra 00-entry as a regular linedef. This has been discussed to death many times. Simply skipping all the first entries is not good behaviour. The tool chains should have been fixed.

Also, the fix for the 00-lines should be fixed by fixing the collission detection code for line collissions. This would fix it for all lines.

Edited by zokum

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't the "right" solution be for a source port to scan the BLOCKMAP lump and if it finds that linedef 0 is first in the list of every block, then and only then skip it?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Linguica said:

Wouldn't the "right" solution be for a source port to scan the BLOCKMAP lump and if it finds that linedef 0 is first in the list of every block, then and only then skip it?

The 00-check could break on really small maps. The correct check would be to actually check if there are any linedefs in a blockmap that shouldn't be there. Adding "missing" linedefs could break a map, but removing those that never block shouldn't hurt. This of course rests on not needing demo compatibility or other compatibility with the slightly broken original code.

Long story short, do this in the tool chain, and just skip detecting a need for a fix runtime. There's a special kind of crazy in putting in bogus data in a size constrained data lump and then continuously discarding it during runtime.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, zokum said:

That's not correct. When I found out that so many ports had buggy blockmap behaviour due to inheriting a bug from MBF, I turned off that optimization by default. Also, this has nothing to do with nodes, it has to do with the blockmap. I don't know if that is the problem with this map, but that is where the compability problem was.

Why is what I said incorrect? I said "ZokumBSP can fix it with the right settings", to which I was implying that you had to choose a specific option in Zokum. And, yes, it's my understanding that the problem being experienced is the inclusion of that 0-line, making puffs appear as bullets hit "an invisible barrier".

 

 

4 hours ago, Linguica said:

Wouldn't the "right" solution be for a source port to scan the BLOCKMAP lump and if it finds that linedef 0 is first in the list of every block, then and only then skip it?

I recently discussed this with Zokum: I want to add this as a prerequisite for the CDEX (Compatible Doom Extensions) draft (Yes, I'm still working on it). What I asked specifically, was if Zokum wanted to write the detector that would conditionally disable the MBF optimization. Zokum said it should be a simple test, and that he thought Eternity already had a decent fix. Regardless, I want a fix that is guaranteed to not cause any issues, small map or otherwise. I'll look into it when I get a chance, but I was hoping to get a little help from someone that understands the issue better than me.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, zokum said:

The 00-check could break on really small maps. The correct check would be to actually check if there are any linedefs in a blockmap that shouldn't be there. Adding "missing" linedefs could break a map, but removing those that never block shouldn't hurt. This of course rests on not needing demo compatibility or other compatibility with the slightly broken original code.

Long story short, do this in the tool chain, and just skip detecting a need for a fix runtime. There's a special kind of crazy in putting in bogus data in a size constrained data lump and then continuously discarding it during runtime.

Too late to put it in the tool chain only. Having the extra line reference is infinitely better than skipping runtime detection. Nothing like breaking *every map in existence* on principle.

Share this post


Link to post

Been playing TNT for about 15 years and only discovered that MAP 15: Dead Zone has a hidden rocket launcher.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, kb1 said:

Too late to put it in the tool chain only. Having the extra line reference is infinitely better than skipping runtime detection. Nothing like breaking *every map in existence* on principle.

I think you're wrong here. Fixing the bug where it exists, in the toolchain, allows for larger maps and is fully compatible with doom2.exe, chocolate doom etc. No other way of doing it is as compatible. I have no idea what you mean by breaking every map in existence. Changing the tools will make sure every "future" map will work fine. The only downside is that older maps with bad blockmaps will be slightly slower, and we're talking an insignificant amount here.

If you want maximum performance, rebuild the maps on load, or permanently with a tool. The runtime skip is the slowest and most wasteful fix, both of disk space, memory and runtime cpu speed.

As for the wrong part, I was of course referring to "Yep - node rebuild might fix/improve it. ZokumBSP can fix it with the right settings, but engines deriving from MBF cannot use these nodes". This has nothing to do with the nodes of the map, this has to do with the blockmap as far as I know. Those are two separate data strucures. Nodes deal with segs and ssectors while blockmap deals with linedefs as part of the collission detection system.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, zokum said:

I think you're wrong here. Fixing the bug where it exists, in the toolchain, allows for larger maps and is fully compatible with doom2.exe, chocolate doom etc. No other way of doing it is as compatible. I have no idea what you mean by breaking every map in existence. Changing the tools will make sure every "future" map will work fine. The only downside is that older maps with bad blockmaps will be slightly slower, and we're talking an insignificant amount here.

If you want maximum performance, rebuild the maps on load, or permanently with a tool. The runtime skip is the slowest and most wasteful fix, both of disk space, memory and runtime cpu speed.

 

If you remove the MBF code and only fix the tools:

Old ports playing new maps: The first line is skipped.

New ports playing old maps: the 'bullets hitting invisible barriers' bug comes back.

 

The MBF code fixes one bug, as has for a long time. By adding a new check, the invisible barrier bug is fixed, and the blockmap can be more efficient.

 

9 hours ago, zokum said:

As for the wrong part, I was of course referring to "Yep - node rebuild might fix/improve it. ZokumBSP can fix it with the right settings, but engines deriving from MBF cannot use these nodes". This has nothing to do with the nodes of the map, this has to do with the blockmap as far as I know. Those are two separate data strucures. Nodes deal with segs and ssectors while blockmap deals with linedefs as part of the collission detection system.

Technically, you're correct. I was referring to "building the nodes" as the whole map build process.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, kb1 said:

 

If you remove the MBF code and only fix the tools:

Old ports playing new maps: The first line is skipped.
New ports playing old maps: the 'bullets hitting invisible barriers' bug comes back.

 

Old ports playing new maps isn't a very compelling use case. It would be unreasonable to require all releases to conform to the bugs of old ports. The amount of people that use these old ports is near 0. If you want to play a new map, use a newer/fixed port. Nothing stops people from updating an older port with a fix anyway. I am in no position to require new maps to work in doom2.exe, nor is anyone else to require that maps that work in doom2.exe should also work in mbf, boom, etc.

As for new ports playing old maps and getting the large area bug. This is a different bug. You're confusing it with this one: https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Hitscan_attacks_hit_invisible_barriers_in_large_open_areas

This is most likely fixed in most modern ports as well. And this does not only affect linedef 0, it affects all linedefs in a block. It's just statistically more likely to happen with the 0-in-all-blocks style of blockmap. Modern ports should not be affected by this at all unless it's an intentional compability fix/option. The reason the 0-entry is mentioned in that article is that "empty" blocks usually contain linedef 0.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, zokum said:

Old ports playing new maps isn't a very compelling use case. It would be unreasonable to require all releases to conform to the bugs of old ports. The amount of people that use these old ports is near 0. If you want to play a new map, use a newer/fixed port. Nothing stops people from updating an older port with a fix anyway. I am in no position to require new maps to work in doom2.exe, nor is anyone else to require that maps that work in doom2.exe should also work in mbf, boom, etc.

As for new ports playing old maps and getting the large area bug. This is a different bug. You're confusing it with this one: https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Hitscan_attacks_hit_invisible_barriers_in_large_open_areas

This is most likely fixed in most modern ports as well. And this does not only affect linedef 0, it affects all linedefs in a block. It's just statistically more likely to happen with the 0-in-all-blocks style of blockmap. Modern ports should not be affected by this at all unless it's an intentional compability fix/option. The reason the 0-entry is mentioned in that article is that "empty" blocks usually contain linedef 0.

In my post, "old port" refers to any port with the MBF-skip-1st-line code, but without a check for the absence of line 0 in the blockmap. So, yeah, it's probably what most people today use.

 

I don't want to "use a new port to play a new map". I want my port to know how to render a map. Your suggestion is ridiculous: Should everyone be required to open up each and every BLOCKMAP in a WAD editor, and then use that info to dictate which port to use?

 

You say "Nothing stops people from updating an older port with a fix anyway." How about ports where the user can't find the exact source code to compile. How about non-programmers?

 

I'm not confused - the bug does occur on other lines, but avoiding an erroneous line 0 obviously reduced the occurrence of the bug significantly when it was being debugged and tested. The article mentions line 0 because the inclusion of it makes this bug occur more so than any other line.

 

I am bewildered: Here I am trying my best to support your map builder and your discovery of this bug. I am trying to raise awareness of the issue. And, I am trying to support programmers by presenting a solution that allows maps to be properly loaded and handled, whether they are built with or without the line-0 bug, in a manner that causes no issues for the player. And, here you are doing everything you can to provide the user with the worse possible solution imaginable. I just don't get it. Luckily, I don't have to get it - I have my solution.

 

You never make the user have to be knowledgeable about the internal workings of data structures, when all they want to do is have some fun playing a game. That's just unreasonable, with no benefit whatsoever.

 

Why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, kb1 said:

In my post, "old port" refers to any port with the MBF-skip-1st-line code, but without a check for the absence of line 0 in the blockmap. So, yeah, it's probably what most people today use.

 

I don't want to "use a new port to play a new map". I want my port to know how to render a map. Your suggestion is ridiculous: Should everyone be required to open up each and every BLOCKMAP in a WAD editor, and then use that info to dictate which port to use?

 

You say "Nothing stops people from updating an older port with a fix anyway." How about ports where the user can't find the exact source code to compile. How about non-programmers?

 

I'm not confused - the bug does occur on other lines, but avoiding an erroneous line 0 obviously reduced the occurrence of the bug significantly when it was being debugged and tested. The article mentions line 0 because the inclusion of it makes this bug occur more so than any other line.

 

I am bewildered: Here I am trying my best to support your map builder and your discovery of this bug. I am trying to raise awareness of the issue. And, I am trying to support programmers by presenting a solution that allows maps to be properly loaded and handled, whether they are built with or without the line-0 bug, in a manner that causes no issues for the player. And, here you are doing everything you can to provide the user with the worse possible solution imaginable. I just don't get it. Luckily, I don't have to get it - I have my solution.

 

You never make the user have to be knowledgeable about the internal workings of data structures, when all they want to do is have some fun playing a game. That's just unreasonable, with no benefit whatsoever.

 

Why?

 

As far I know, most people do NOT use a port that struggles with the no-zero-header-blockmaps.

First of all, after the issue came up, several ports have already fixed the skip-first-entry-fix, or they already had a fix due to demo compatibility or has abandoned this code ages ago. It's not a problem in Eternity, Prboom+, GZDoom, 3dge, etc . In some cases a compability switch is needed. Someone made a list a while ago. It's only really affecting a few older ports that aren't maintained any more.

I'm in no way suggesting people should look at the blockmap. You need to read my posts more carefully. People should look at the accompanying text file that tells people what ports are supported for a map. Newer maps require new ports sometimes. I really doubt a lot of people are using old unmaintained ports and also demanding to be able to run newer releases in ancient software. I made that point very clear.

If a mapper makes a map set that he/she/zee/they/etc tests and certifies works in 4 ports, it's not really the mapper's problem if a different port doesn't handle it. Just like some projects require a minimum version of GZDoom or only works in EE or requires a limit removing port etc.

If the port has the faulty skip-first-line optimization and has fixes for the various collission detection bugs, the only change reverting the faulty optimization will do is a slight slowdown when running maps with the extra entry. The skip-fix wasn't meant as a bug-fix it was meant primarily as an optimization.

The real reason for the bullets hitting the air like that is an integer overflow when certain lines are long. Fixing that, something I think just about every modern bug-fixing port does, removes that error.

If it works in Eternity, chocolate doom, gzdoom, prboom+, doom2.exe, 3dge, doom legacy, etc, that probably covers 99% of the single player community. As for the closed source multiplayer ports, those seem to be maintained as well.

The bug was in no way discovered by me, it was known about for a long time. All I did was to add a proper fix to it. I also fixed some problems in ZenNode and added some novel algorithms to make it possible to have even smaller blockmaps.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would I need to read your post more carefully, when I've read enough to see that you contradict yourself from post to post, to always appear to have the right answer?

 

First, you say that the fix should be taken out of ports, and moved to the map building tools exclusively. Later, you claim that, because the fix is already in many ports, it's only a problem for older ports.

 

Problem is, that was *my* point as to why you should not be advocating for moving the fix exclusively to the map building tools.

 

To quote you on this: "Long story short, do this in the tool chain, and just skip detecting a need for a fix runtime." You can't advocate removing this test in ports, and later claim that, because the test is in new ports, there's no need to worry about it.

 

I don't know what your goal is here, but, at least, you're no longer saying that the port-side check should be moved into the toolchain. There's no reason that anyone should have to read a map's "tested with" text file, to play a vanilla map. The proper goal is for all ports to be able to handle a map, regardless of how it was built.

 

@zokumYou've done some fantastic work with ZokumBSP. I'm not trying to fight with you. Quite the opposite, actually: I'm trying to help make your advanced settings viable and bug-free for players, as much as is possible. That's why I originally came to you for a proper detection method.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/9/2018 at 7:23 PM, galileo31dos01 said:

Here's something odd I found while playing Good Morning Phobos, if I position myself looking to that room, any hitscan ammo I shoot hits an invisible something, it isn't a solid wall because I can walk and nothing blocks me. 

[...] What could cause that? 

 

Usually this happens when linedef #0 is very long, but on this map it's only 16 units (see picture below). It's strange and would be nice to investigate. Either it's another linedef that's included in the block (on the blockmap) where you were standing that's not supposed to be there or it's that linedef #0 that's still causing an overflow even though it's length is very short. The invisible bullet barrier will always be parallel to linedef #0.

 

After testing with Russian-Doom, which skips linedef #0, I conclude that the bug still occurs and that thus it's not the same bug as described in the section that deals with linedef #0 of the "Hitscan attacks hit invisible barriers in large open areas" wiki article linked above. I have never seen it happen with another wall than linedef #0 before. It would be very helpful to have a source port that prints the index of the wall that was hit in order to debug this. The bug may be similar, but linedef #0 is not the cause of the problem.

 

0e2CMh2.png

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, kb1 said:

Why would I need to read your post more carefully, when I've read enough to see that you contradict yourself from post to post, to always appear to have the right answer?

 

First, you say that the fix should be taken out of ports, and moved to the map building tools exclusively. Later, you claim that, because the fix is already in many ports, it's only a problem for older ports.

 

Problem is, that was *my* point as to why you should not be advocating for moving the fix exclusively to the map building tools.

 

To quote you on this: "Long story short, do this in the tool chain, and just skip detecting a need for a fix runtime." You can't advocate removing this test in ports, and later claim that, because the test is in new ports, there's no need to worry about it.

 

I don't know what your goal is here, but, at least, you're no longer saying that the port-side check should be moved into the toolchain. There's no reason that anyone should have to read a map's "tested with" text file, to play a vanilla map. The proper goal is for all ports to be able to handle a map, regardless of how it was built.

 

@zokumYou've done some fantastic work with ZokumBSP. I'm not trying to fight with you. Quite the opposite, actually: I'm trying to help make your advanced settings viable and bug-free for players, as much as is possible. That's why I originally came to you for a proper detection method.


No, I am NOT contradicting myself. I obviously meant to stop skipping the first linedef blindly. They've fixed the bad optimization. Skipping the first linedef was never a proper fix for anything, it was a dodgy speed optimization that broke demo compatibility etc. It reduced the chance of a two bugs occurring, but didn't eliminate it.

You're confusing what I mean by fix, and that is why it doesn't make sense to you. Reread my posts and it should be clearer.

After I fixed the tool chain, several ports have changed the code inherited from the bad mbf-optimization or is not using code similar to it anyway.

I don't really see a point in having it in ports, it's fairly pointless, but if they want to optimize for a tiny amount of speed, they're free to do so. The actual bugs with regard to collissions at slow speed and the overflow is are found in two other places. Fixing them makes the first-linedef-skip a pure optimization, which can be faulty if there isn't a solid check whether to use it or not. I advocate just simplifying the code and optimizing the maps instead if need be.

Edited by zokum

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, axdoomer said:

 

Usually this happens when linedef #0 is very long, but on this map it's only 16 units (see picture below). It's strange and would be nice to investigate. Either it's another linedef that's included in the block (on the blockmap) where you were standing that's not supposed to be there or it's that linedef #0 that's still causing an overflow even though it's length is very short. The invisible bullet barrier will always be parallel to linedef #0.

 

No, it can also happen with a linedef that is inside the block and is very long. The error applies to any long linedef that is on the blocklist for that block. Since many tools added linedef 0 to all blocks, it's the common culprit if its also happens to be long.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, zokum said:

No, it can also happen with a linedef that is inside the block and is very long. The error applies to any long linedef that is on the blocklist for that block. Since many tools added linedef 0 to all blocks, it's the common culprit if its also happens to be long.

It totally makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, axdoomer said:

It totally makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.

It should be possible to code a blockmap algorith to actually reduce/remove these to make doom2.exe play the maps better. This would be extremely nieche, but it is doable :)

There are two ways of doing it.

1. Align the blockmap in such a way that long lines do not end in the middle of a block, but near / at the edge.
2. Programmatically split a linedef into two or more lines that exist only in the blockmap. Let segs be based on the existing line(s).
 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, zokum said:

Skipping the first linedef was never a proper fix for anything, it was a dodgy speed optimization [...]

FWIW, boomsrc/log_rsp.txt entry for 01/30/98

Quote

2. Delimiter 0 bug in P_BlockLinesIterator in p_maputl.c
--------------------------------------------------------

 

The lines list carried in each block of the blockmap always starts with a 0 and ends with a -1. These are the delimiters, and the linedef values of lines that appear in a block are inserted between the 0 and the -1. I.e. 0,330,332,-1 means that linedefs 330 and 332 appear in this block. The code in P_BlockLinesIterator was treating the delimiting starting 0 as linedef 0 and applying whatever function was passed to it to this line. I bumped the 'list' pointer ahead of time to get past the 0 delimiter before applying the function. BTW, a block with linedef 0 in it looks like 0,0,n,...,-1.

 

(Later on, Lee wrapped it in the compatibility flag because it threw the crusher demo out of sync. Go figure.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, RjY said:

FWIW, boomsrc/log_rsp.txt entry for 01/30/98

 

It depends on the point of view. The engine doesn't recognize the 00-delimiter and having it adds nothing of value. From the engine POV the data it gets is 'wrong'.

My point of view is that the doombsp/id toolchain is doing it wrong, not the engine. These things happen when you develop a game, small bugs, inefficiencies, quirks. For the iwad data it didn't cause any noticable problems during their Q&A and was never caught. The game is full of these little things. If we'd simply changed the way wadtools built blockmaps back in 1998 when it was discovered/verified, we wouldn't have had this mess. And many maps would have been bigger!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It takes a special kind of crazy to add thousands of unused headers to a severly size constrained data lump which is always discarded countless times during runtime. The code in boom was a minor speed optimization that applied to all maps built with the current tools, but broke demo compatibility and made it "impossible" to add a highly efficient size-optimization to the blockmap tools (skipping the nonsensical header).

In hindsight I think we can clearly say it was a bad choice. It limited map size in favor of an extremely minor speed improvement. Building the blockmaps "properly" should give us even better performance, since you could remove the code that skips the 'header' AND not parse linedef 0 as in every block.

It doesn't actually end with -1, it ends with FFFF. It just happens to be that if you specify -1 and converts that to unsigned 16bit it ends up as the value 65535 (0xFFFF). It's a programming hack that is a bit nonsensical for people that aren't aware of how integer numbers are stored in C etc. Exactly why this convention is in use here is a bit odd. If you view a wad in a hex-editor, it's obviously FF FF in those two bytes..

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed that in the Doom menu, "New Game" and "Quit Game" have capital G's, whereas "Load game" and "Save game" do not.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×