Jump to content

AIM 54/Tomcat bans and prohibitions in competitive play due to easily reproducible missile desync


Recommended Posts

Hey guys. Ive had a couple passing conversations with HB folks on here or Reddit and I know they are "aware" of the situation but normally I am told that its either A) the missile api or B) the folks at SATAL/TACT being crazy and that "All missiles suffer from the same problems"

 

Ive also seen multiple people be able to 100% reproduce the missile desyncs by flying high AOA while PH active, but no one seems to acknowledge it or have responded that its actively being worked on. 

 

I'd love for a proper response to what is basically the entire module being banned from competitive play, which is incredibly disappointing. It would also be awesome for someone from Heatblur to be a liaison to the competitive scene 

 

Appreciate it- and thanks in advance 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

War has become sport.....tsk..... 😕

  • Like 4

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

Modules in waiting: MiG-23, A-6, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

Wish list: South East Asia map, F-4J/N, F-15A/C, Su-27, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Mirage III, MiG-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also add the silent unnotchable TCS guided AIM-54s...

  • Like 1

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 6:12 PM, dundun92 said:

Also add the silent unnotchable TCS guided AIM-54s...

 

Please explain? 

Specs: Win10, i9-9900KF@5Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

The what now ? 
This sounds ... problematic to say the least. 
 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Please explain? 

 

Currently if you get a STT + TCS lock then break the lock so only the TCS is slewed to the target you can fire and actually guide the Phoenix without it ever goind active or giving the enemy a spike (as far as we could tell during tests at least). Either way it is unrealistic and some sort of exploit rn. The way it should work is maddog off the rail with the seeker looking at the target (no midcourse guidence).


Edited by Skysurfer
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sucks - at what ranges does it happen?   Does the missile still bite off on chaff?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/5/2021 at 1:37 AM, DoorMouse said:

Hey guys. Ive had a couple passing conversations with HB folks on here or Reddit and I know they are "aware" of the situation but normally I am told that its either A) the missile api or B) the folks at SATAL/TACT being crazy and that "All missiles suffer from the same problems"

 

Ive also seen multiple people be able to 100% reproduce the missile desyncs by flying high AOA while PH active, but no one seems to acknowledge it or have responded that its actively being worked on. 

 

I'd love for a proper response to what is basically the entire module being banned from competitive play, which is incredibly disappointing. It would also be awesome for someone from Heatblur to be a liaison to the competitive scene 

 

Appreciate it- and thanks in advance 
 

 

 

Thanks for the report. The desync is not in our hands, but it is possible it is due to the new API still being implemented, so we will really see how much of that transcends when we are finished with the implementation. We are definitely aware of the issue.

We do have a contact to the competitive scene - me - but by principle I do not mix, nor comment on rule decisions of events or how they are structured and/ or organized. We offer support as well as sponsorship to event hosts, who seek us out and want to collaborate with us, but even then: rules, etc, are all up to them - unless they specifically ask me for advice, as I have personal experience in organizing a plethora of events over the course of more than 10 years. However, I do not take a personal stance regarding the decisions of hosts, because as a developer it is simply not our place to do so. The best we can do is notice bugs and work on them, the rest is really up to the PvP community to decide. This is something that we do not intend to change. We'd thus kindly ask you to voice your concerns about rules/ decisions to the event hosts directly. Thank you for your kind understanding.

As for the TCS issue, we are currently investigating this. Thank you for bringing it up.


Naturally, I hope the issues will be fixed soon, so that event hosts use the Tomcat in its full ability again.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2021 at 9:44 AM, GGTharos said:

That sucks - at what ranges does it happen?   Does the missile still bite off on chaff?

Any range within TCS range, and no it doesnt bite on chaff, nor can it be notched. You cant do anything to counter a TCS guided AIM-54 within the NEZ

  • Like 1

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dundun92 said:

Any range within TCS range, and no it doesnt bite on chaff, nor can it be notched. You cant do anything to counter a TCS guided AIM-54 within the NEZ

What about breaking the TCS lock? That can happen on occasion.

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

Modules in waiting: MiG-23, A-6, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

Wish list: South East Asia map, F-4J/N, F-15A/C, Su-27, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Mirage III, MiG-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TCS should be theoretically susceptible to the bloom caused by flares, which could break under some circumstances (basically the bloom could blow out the gate).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We're certainly disappointed in the decision-making process of various tournaments- especially those we have sponsored. We will not be involving ourselves in sponsoring tournaments that do not allow the F-14 for now.

We will continue to push the issue of missile desync with the appropriate people to fix this issue in DCS to hopefully resolve cases of MP desync.

 

For what it's worth; we do not have any direct control over multiplayer synchronization that happens outside of the F-14 at all. This is an engine level issue that may be exacerbated by something unique to the F-14's employment of various weapons. If this was something we could handle unilaterally, it would have been done by now. We will continue efforts to solve this with urgency.
 


Edited by Cobra847
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks Cobra, I appreciate your comment and the position you're in. 

 

There seem to be so many people claiming its broken, but having asked for examples and reviewed a couple of them with even some simple analysis, shows 14/54 are acting in 'reasonable' way.  (I'm obviously not a pilot, so I appreciate that my view of reasonable may be off).

 

Having what I am sure are very frustrating issues on a busy PvP server, with dozens of players, some with very high ping is very different from a controlled PvP comp environment; but that's the way it is.

 

I appreciate your efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cobra847 said:

For what it's worth; we do not have any direct control over multiplayer synchronization that happens outside of the F-14 at all. This is an engine level issue that may be exacerbated by something unique to the F-14's employment of various weapons. If this was something we could handle unilaterally, it would have been done by now. We will continue efforts to solve this with urgency.

 

Thanks for working on this so well Cobra.  There are many of us rooting you on and trying to gather data to best help your team and the ED team to make the tweaks required for a fix to many of these "issues" as claimed.  Just because the phoenix is fast and speed means spacial displacement (in terms of netcode) does not make it a cheat.   In fact, any missile arriving at the 3-4NM range in excess of mach 3 can exhibit the exact same desync rates and magnitudes as the phoenix just due to lag and client server differences.  100ms lag client to server is really around 300-350ms difference target to server to shooter and 350ms at mach 3-5 can be several thousand feet...  It's amazing the netcode is as good as it is.

 

 

How do we make this better?  SCIENCE!

 

There are a multitude of claims, some new to me and some not.  But it's important that we isolate each of these claims, rig up controlled tests to verify if it's merely user perception, server lag or an actual mechanical issue and then isolate that issue.  To date I've gathered the following list of individual issues and deployed around 1200 weapons in controlled tests utilizing server tacview and machine learning techniques on to find answers.

 

  • TWS Target Switch Size exploit
  • PAL Target Switch Size exploit (these are different, because of the type of lock involved, type of test required and type of positive,negative determination required)
  • PAL and ACM Switch Up Target Switch Size exploit claims of "missile not warning" (these are different, because of the type of lock involved, type of test required and type of positive,negative determination required, the ACM switch also effectively makes the missile "Launch Active on Bearing")
  • High AOA Launch with PAL
  • High AOA Launch with PAL and ACM Switch Up
  • TCS Camera launch starting with PAL (new to me as of this thread, however at the ranges involved, it's feasible IRL that this is an intended capability of the tomcat to "launch on bearing" using visual information only at a range under 20NM and the missile would easily find something.  The TCS would barely differ from PAL + ACM Switch in how that would work..   HB - Is this an IRL feature / tactic?)
  • TCS Camera launch starting with STT at range >30nm (new to me as of this thread, but I've imagined this scenario)

 

Of all of these, they have to be divided into tests targeted at the two primary gripes....  Desync (a missile is where it doesn't appear to be, and either misses or hits something that isn't true to the CLIENT), missile does not "warn" (a user perceives that they don't receive an RWR indication prior to impact).

 

Overall, Of the ones I've tested extensively (TWS TSS, PAL TSS, PAL ACM TSS) The RWR indications always happen, and we know this because the F-16 and AI targets both auto deploy at the moment the missile acquires and changes course so the target clearly "knows".   Desync is tougher to test for and I've never seen a repeatable test that consistently shows desyncs being provoked, initiated or reliably exploited with these scenarios.   One or two random match Tacviews (especially from client side) are just anecdotal evidence, but it appears the mass majority of "bans" seem to stem from these non-repeatable incidents. 

 

I'm happy to collaborate with whomever to try and rig up peer reviewed tests on these subject matters, as only this will lead to concise and actionable bug tickets for either HB or ED.  It's extremely likely that when the Eurofighter starts lobbing mach 5 meteors everywhere we're going to see lots more of this, and we already see plenty from Jeffs and the SD-10 when it's launched from fast parameters as it can easily arrive on target at mach 3.5+.

On 6/4/2021 at 4:37 PM, DoorMouse said:

Ive also seen multiple people be able to 100% reproduce the missile desyncs by flying high AOA while PH active, but no one seems to acknowledge it or have responded that its actively being worked on. 

 

 

I would love server side tacviews of this being done multiple times and provoked. Is this available for me to look at? 


Edited by DroptheHammer

9900KS @ 5.2, EVGA FTW3 3090. 32GB of DDR3866, 3x 1TB ADATA NVME, HP Reverb G2, Virpil Alpha, Virpil Throttle v3, Monolith External Amp, Philips X2HR Headphones, TrackIR v5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The examples I was shown, after being told it happened 'all the time', were:

 

* a perceived 54 reacquiring issue after being spoofed off target by chaff. The 54 appearing to weave towards the target ... but to me this again seems 'reasonable' in a tacview that was shown to me as a good example of an issue.

 

* a 54 suddenly 'reacquiring' after going stupid at launch; but this seems to me to be the 54 flying straight after launch and then starting to track the target after a few seconds ... its easy to see because of the massive bent smoke trail, but some people claimed this was an issue. Is this expected behaviour? 

 

Nobody could show me an example from the current TACT comp ... examples using recent DCS builds in a stable environment.

 

I know you have an established trusted testing team, but I'm also happy to assist in any testing if you need numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 10:46 PM, dundun92 said:

Any range within TCS range, and no it doesnt bite on chaff, nor can it be notched. You cant do anything to counter a TCS guided AIM-54 within the NEZ

 

I'll have to rig up something specifically for this.  Maybe a left to right pass at around 21-14nm, need a human rio... acquire with STT, cancel STT lock, ensure TCS still there, fire weapon, tell target to maneuver vertically and then see if the missile continues to the pure launch bearing first before going active and turning up (which would be working just perfect, no explot at all) or if the missile begins to turn up immediately (TCS acting as an STT and telling the missile to maneuver, but even this would only really be an exploit if the missile was taking an intercept instead of a pure course).  If the missile in the second output is "pure", that would seem feasible since you'd just be doing basic trig between the missile, the plane and the plane's "bearing to target".  Similar to a sub torpedo shot where you dont have ranging information, it would be plenty to guide the weapon.

 

Very interesting....

2 minutes ago, Kula66 said:

I know you have an established trusted testing team, but I'm also happy to assist in any testing if you need numbers.

 

Given how much this has blown up in the last couple weeks, I've been doing less time testing and more time figuring out how I can make this process scalable but still trustable...  Also, in the past I was doing the testing much for myself and our squad.. but now making the data easily packaged and distributed to ED or HB in a way they can utilize it has been an engineering challenge....

9900KS @ 5.2, EVGA FTW3 3090. 32GB of DDR3866, 3x 1TB ADATA NVME, HP Reverb G2, Virpil Alpha, Virpil Throttle v3, Monolith External Amp, Philips X2HR Headphones, TrackIR v5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DroptheHammer said:

 

Thanks for working on this so well Cobra.  There are many of us rooting you on and trying to gather data to best help your team and the ED team to make the tweaks required for a fix to many of these "issues" as claimed.  Just because the phoenix is fast and speed means spacial displacement (in terms of netcode) does not make it a cheat.   In fact, any missile arriving at the 3-4NM range in excess of mach 3 can exhibit the exact same desync rates and magnitudes as the phoenix just due to lag and client server differences.  100ms lag client to server is really around 300-350ms difference target to server to shooter and 350ms at mach 3-5 can be several thousand feet...  It's amazing the netcode is as good as it is.

 

 

How do we make this better?  SCIENCE!

 

There are a multitude of claims, some new to me and some not.  But it's important that we isolate each of these claims, rig up controlled tests to verify if it's merely user perception, server lag or an actual mechanical issue and then isolate that issue.  To date I've gathered the following list of individual issues and deployed around 1200 weapons in controlled tests utilizing server tacview and machine learning techniques on to find answers.

 

  • TWS Target Switch Size exploit
  • PAL Target Switch Size exploit (these are different, because of the type of lock involved, type of test required and type of positive,negative determination required)
  • PAL and ACM Switch Up Target Switch Size exploit claims of "missile not warning" (these are different, because of the type of lock involved, type of test required and type of positive,negative determination required, the ACM switch also effectively makes the missile "Launch Active on Bearing")
  • High AOA Launch with PAL
  • High AOA Launch with PAL and ACM Switch Up
  • TCS Camera launch starting with PAL (new to me as of this thread, however at the ranges involved, it's feasible IRL that this is an intended capability of the tomcat to "launch on bearing" using visual information only at a range under 20NM and the missile would easily find something.  The TCS would barely differ from PAL + ACM Switch in how that would work..   HB - Is this an IRL feature / tactic?)
  • TCS Camera launch starting with STT at range >30nm (new to me as of this thread, but I've imagined this scenario)

 

Of all of these, they have to be divided into tests targeted at the two primary gripes....  Desync (a missile is where it doesn't appear to be, and either misses or hits something that isn't true to the CLIENT), missile does not "warn" (a user perceives that they don't receive an RWR indication prior to impact).

 

Overall, Of the ones I've tested extensively (TWS TSS, PAL TSS, PAL ACM TSS) The RWR indications always happen, and we know this because the F-16 and AI targets both auto deploy at the moment the missile acquires and changes course so the target clearly "knows".   Desync is tougher to test for and I've never seen a repeatable test that consistently shows desyncs being provoked, initiated or reliably exploited with these scenarios.   One or two random match Tacviews (especially from client side) are just anecdotal evidence, but it appears the mass majority of "bans" seem to stem from these non-repeatable incidents. 

 

I'm happy to collaborate with whomever to try and rig up peer reviewed tests on these subject matters, as only this will lead to concise and actionable bug tickets for either HB or ED.  It's extremely likely that when the Eurofighter starts lobbing mach 5 meteors everywhere we're going to see lots more of this, and we already see plenty from Jeffs and the SD-10 when it's launched from fast parameters as it can easily arrive on target at mach 3.5+.

 

 

Thank you. Can you explain what the exploit is? How it works? What it exploits? Thank you! Particularly regarding target size switch.

TCS camera launch was a thing irl, the complaint atm here is that it does not give you an RWR warning - we are currently investigating that.

Not sure what PAL and AOA have to do with each other, and ofc there is no difference between PSTT and PAL, unless you meant PDSTT.

 

Generally a good approach, and thank you for that. But apart from an RWR warning missing with TCS, and maybe some target size switch exploit I do not know of yet, I am pretty sure the rest is just "perception" or "tomcat-angst".

As we said, we are not happy with the approach taken and we will not be sponsoring any events anymore, where the Tomcat is restricted beyond restrictions that apply to all participating aircraft in the same way. Especially since the desync is not endemic to the Tomcat/ aim54. Unfortunately this is where our influence stops, as everyone is free to run their events as they see fit. All we can do, is choose with whom we will partner in the future and with whom we will not.

There are many claims out there that are owed to a wrong or limited understanding, and we would of course expect from our partners to not just accept them, but proof them and share with us their findings, as well as finding a plethora of other solutions that would let the Tomcat crowd both participate and enjoy such events alike. We understand that issues with desync are being addressed as organizers see fit, what we do not understand is if then only the Tomcat is affected by restrictions and other modules are not.

 


Edited by IronMike

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So I am unconvinced it is an "exploit" But basically Target Size Small will often give you very little, or sometimes no RWR. I think if you fly hot into a TGT SMALL phoenix, it hits you before your client can be told it has pitbulled sometimes.  You should always get some warning, but I also think a lot of people dont understand that they are flying into a mach 3 missile at 700 knots, so you  only get 1-2 seconds before it hits you.

The high AOA ACTIVE phoenix thing is real however.  Essentially, if you fire a phoenix while pulling VERY HIGH (20+aoa) violently. The missile will on the CLIENT SHOOTER computer, correct and go to target. However on the CLIENT TARGET the missile looks like it is going off into space, crashing into the ground, etc.... And then you suddenly die.  This is reliably reproducible. 


I have also seen this reacquiring/weaving behavior where the missile in TWS AND/OR PSTT will pourpose up and down and weave toward the target


Edited by DoorMouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DoorMouse said:

So I am unconvinced it is an "exploit" But basically Target Size Small will often give you very little, or sometimes no RWR. I think if you fly hot into a TGT SMALL phoenix, it hits you before your client can be told it has pitbulled sometimes.  You should always get some warning, but I also think a lot of people dont understand that they are flying into a mach 3 missile at 700 knots, so you  only get 1-2 seconds before it hits you.

The high AOA ACTIVE phoenix thing is real however.  Essentially, if you fire a phoenix while pulling VERY HIGH (20+aoa) violently. The missile will on the CLIENT SHOOTER computer, correct and go to target. However on the CLIENT TARGET the missile looks like it is going off into space, crashing into the ground, etc.... And then you suddenly die.  This is reliably reproducible. 


I have also seen this reacquiring/weaving behavior where the missile in TWS AND/OR PSTT will pourpose up and down and weave toward the target

 

 

Thank you!

The first isn't an exploit likely, although ofc you still should get a warning, that is if the missile is not in your RWR deadzone ofc, which with maneuvering targets at 6nm pitbull is also very likely. I'd have to see reproduceable tests with head on shots to believe it to be an exploit. So far it is only rumors, but we will investigate.

Thank you for the second one. It is tracked and we will see if it is on our side and we can fix it.

As for the weaving: this is likely owed to the fact that the aim54 still uses the old missile fm. However I dont think this is an issue, as a missile that os porpoising or weaving is basically defeating itself. If it does not lose energy through the weaving though, then ofc this is a bug affecting not the shooter but the guy being shot at. However, until we have the new FM up and running, there will be little for us to do against that.

thanks again.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding TSS small... Any missile which is going mach 5 and then only goes pitbull in the last 3-4 NM will only have 1-2 seconds at most of warning before hitting.  First of all, an IRL RWR doesnt "instantly" light up, it does take some time for it to register a real threat, identify it and present it to a user.  Next, there's human lag, once you hear something, it takes time for your senses to perceive it and classify that.  On top of all of this is netcode lag.  So yes, things can work completely as intended, and if it takes 3/4 of a second for the RWR to classify it and 1 second for you to react, that leaves about .250 second before the missile impacts you.   It feels "instant". But typically it means you made a mistake much earlier in the fight (see below)....

 

TSS small is avoidable however, because if you're within 70NM of a tomcat, you should be maneuvering in a preventative manner anyway, and that means the tiny cone the missile makes at 4NM Pitbull is only 4NM across (60 degree acquisition cone).  So if you've displaced yourself more than 2NM or so from where the AWG 9 thought you were at launch, the missile will never acquire you.  Dont fly straight is the lesson to learn...  As a T-cat pilot or RIO, your tradeoff is to either cast a larger net with TSS Large, where your acquisition cone is 12NM across at PB, but you warn many seconds earlier, or warn much less but catch much less in the narrower cone from a shorter pitbull.

 

I only toss TSS Small at targets I believe are not aware of my presence, or are doing something stupid like flying along straight and level at 50-70NM, where they dont believe i'm a threat.  In all other cases against aware targets, TSS Large yields a higher PK since it's more likely to catch a bandit inside the larger net that occurs with an earlier activation.

9900KS @ 5.2, EVGA FTW3 3090. 32GB of DDR3866, 3x 1TB ADATA NVME, HP Reverb G2, Virpil Alpha, Virpil Throttle v3, Monolith External Amp, Philips X2HR Headphones, TrackIR v5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, IronMike said:

Thank you for the second one. It is tracked and we will see if it is on our side and we can fix it.

 

Thanks IM.

 

Is this something you were aware of previously? I ask because its been mentioned for quite a while; should we bring things like this to this forum for your attention?

 

I was very surprised that all these 'major' issue being banded about, have little or no posts either here or in the ED/Missile bug forums. I guess most of them aren't issues at all, but lack of understanding.


Edited by Kula66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...