Jump to content

shaniqua Sahara

Resident
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by shaniqua Sahara

  1. 14 hours ago, TrinityReclusive said:

    How to get this script to trigger on a text chat message. What to trigger it by using chat window. I am stuck i tried different things but i can not get it right.

    Is it possible to do this? I been searching for a way but can not find a clear answer for this.

    The click on touch works fine. But wish to active this script on a chat command such as the word fire.

    I appreciate you help. Thank you.

    default
     {
         touch_start(integer total_number)
         { if(llDetectedKey(0)== llGetOwner())
          {
             vector rootRot = llRot2Euler(llGetRootRotation());
             vector mod = <llFrand(-0.2), llFrand(0.2), 0> + <0, -0.1, 0>;
             rotation rot = llEuler2Rot( rootRot + mod );
             
             integer n = llGetInventoryNumber( INVENTORY_OBJECT );
             integer choice = llFloor( llFrand(n) );
             string name = llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_OBJECT,choice);
             llRezObject(name, llGetPos(), <0,0,15>*rot, ZERO_ROTATION, 12);
         }
     }
     }

     

     

    i don't know if you got a working script going but this worked for me.

     

    default
    {
        state_entry()
        {
           llListen( 0, "", llGetOwner(), "fire" );
    
     vector rootRot = llRot2Euler(llGetRootRotation());
             vector mod = <llFrand(-0.2), llFrand(0.2), 0> + <0, -0.1, 0>;
             rotation rot = llEuler2Rot( rootRot + mod );
             
             integer n = llGetInventoryNumber( INVENTORY_OBJECT );
             integer choice = llFloor( llFrand(n) );
             string name = llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_OBJECT,choice);
             llRezObject(name, llGetPos(), <0,0,15>*rot, ZERO_ROTATION, 12);
            
        }
    }

    hope it helps.

  2. 33 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

    The only playing field BoM leveled for you is making more skins available. Until your body is widely adopted by creators making rigged mesh clothing the field is far from leveled. I understand your optimism though.

    not really, the selling point of my avatar is that you can wear maittreya clothing. but even so. it leveled the field in that there is now an opportunity for that to happen for small creator.

    edit- i also mean though, a level field technologically........having to go to omega was not a level field for everyone............to me BoM as we know it today should have been released when mesh was. then everyone would have been happy with it.

     

    • Haha 2
  3. 16 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    Whilst I would agree with you that it doesn't say obsolete, avoidance still does imply some form of acceptance that onion bodies or appliers aren't needed and at least some bodies would indeed adopt a no onion layer system. That being said currently all of the bodies that have the most market saturation are even now stating the need for onion bodies to continue and even Slink specifically adding another layer to a BoM body that initially didn't have one.

    The only way those stated objectives would be considered achieved is if it is proven that creators are actively avoiding onion layers. Instead we have one that tried (Slink) and is now adding them in and the other major body makers now looking to keep onion bodies albeit in a simplified form for now. Due to this I would consider it a failure as it hasn't "avoided the need" at all as they still exist and aren't being avoided at all but actively re-introduced.

    Sure you are going to have some that will just do full BoM avatars with no onion layers or the need for appliers, however when the competition is offering a better looking product which real life look is what people try to achieve, they will win all the time.

     

    you mentioned reading my posts........you might have read i have an avatar i sell and that BoM instantly leveled the playing field for me, a small, nobody creator...........can you please put a weighted value on that? what is that worth in your opinion?

    if sl implemented everything you wanted............wouldn't invariably want more............wouldn't it still be "yeah they did that and it's good but they didn't do yadda yadda yadda"?

    BoM is good as it is and sl can continue to improve things and add the things you want eventually................since eventually we'll want more anyway-it always feels the same...... why can't it be like that?

    • Haha 1
  4. 22 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    Benefits 

    • Avoid the need for appliers -> easier customization workflow 
    • Avoid the need for onion avatars -> fewer meshes, fewer textures at display time 
    • Avoid the need to sell full-perm meshes. You can customize any mesh you have modify permissions for simply by setting the flags and equipping the appropriate wearables. 

    well i guess here is the departure point.............i think those things have been achieved, by and large. it says  "avoid the NEED for ....", it has done that. but realize "need" is not synonymous with "obsolete". to me it is a fact that these things have been achieved. and no where in there do i see "calculate baked materials" and it sounds like a small project to me.

    i'm guess you are from the UK or Aussie, in America there is an odd phenomena of actually not being able to agree on senator's attendance records, even though it is a matter of record.

    i think it's the same thing here......how are we going to decide whether those stated objectives have been reached? it's not likely we'll find common ground beyond we all seem to want sl to always be better than it is.

    • Haha 1
  5. 39 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

    Don't use llSetRegionPos.

    I assume this script is to go into the child prim to be moved up and down, so you need to use llSetPos, and the position you are going to be getting and varying should be relative to the position of the root prim in the link set.

    Use llGetLocal Pos which gives a vector of the child position relative to the root prim, and after adding to or subtracting from this value, use llSetPos to reposition the child prim.

    i was curious about this script so i tried it......i used llSetPos and llGetLocal Pos. when i put the script in the root prim, the entire linkset floated up and down. when i put the script in a child prim, it floated up, but then just like the happened to the OP, the prim flew out into the universe, god knows where. edit- i should have said the entire object shot away.

  6. 15 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    I never said they should merge as one whole texture nor has any person for that matter. Give us some credibility, it isn't like some of us don't use diffuse, normal or specular maps everyday for our RL professions or anything... 🙄

    Code can be written so that you can 'merge' all diffuse, all normal and all specular maps as separate diffuse, normal and specular maps. I mean come on, the normal maps and specular maps are currently independent of the diffuse texture which would mean that it couldn't be that hard to keep them separate whilst applying the same system they did to diffuse texture to the others. Not sure if I can explain it any different other than the aforementioned or by saying if we have 11 diffuse texture spots now why cant we have 11 normal and 11 specular spots to use as well all independent of each other?

    Like I said, I'm no coding genius but surely that isn't to much to ask for?

    Firstly, it is only code of which the texture system has already been re-written before to introduce materials and even BoM on modern mesh. If we couldn't have anything the users want, we wouldn't have mesh, materials, pathfinding, animesh, bento, the list goes on. All of these didn't exist before but do now because the userbase wanted them so the code was re-written or new code implemented. Also BoM is nothing more than a fancy name of a system that existed from day one in SL. I.E. 2002 adapted to new mesh.

    You say it cant be done? I highly doubt its that issue. As has been said many times, LL have stated that they will be looking into and possibly introducing material updates to BoM in the future. That alone should be evidence enough that it could never be, all it says is that the implemented a half done idea as they have with all their releases.

    As to being a step back, it is, as it means the multi material system we have had for 5 years now is irrelevant on BoM mesh bodies. I never said it was a step backwards because people get stuck with anything. What I did say is that it was one of LL primary goals of BoM to remove or drastically reduce onion layered mesh bodies from SL due to lag (its stated right in the first post on the feedback thread) this hasn't happened and all arrows point to even BoM bodies now re-introducing onion layers due to not having applier or material layers.

    Actually if I wanted SL to cook me dinner I'm sure the right coding could do it. I mean, xCite made an external *blank* do "pleasurable" things to people in RL when avatars '😉woohoo'd😉' in SL at the same time...

    It's not that we are complaining about LL using and old system. We know that they used old baking systems with BoM. What we are complaining about is the fact they used it without modernising it to current SL standards (to include multiple materials) that we have an issue with. We're complaining they haven't changed the onion layer lag issue or the applier issue as it has come to light with even Slink's body now having an additional onion layer because of this very issue raised in this thread.

    We understand where you are coming from and I am sure all in this thread want BoM, I certainly do (mainly to remove onion layered bodies and lag), but not a half done system with promises from LL to improve it later with material support. They should get it right the first time then release it.

    sags my shoulders........basically you are saying sl has not done enough................so what does that have to do with "BoM"?

    i mean jeez.........that is the point..........the project was just a little thing wit the goal of letting a cutom object be ruth..........people are saying that is not ggod and then using the aurgment that sl has not done more to revamp their textering system, but that is a problem you have with LL. why does that make the functionality we do have not worth having?

    explaining about the texture and all is to give context to the point and because other will read this also that may not know somethings. not that i thought you didn't know things like sl uses 3 maps.

    you are making me repeat myself.please read my earlier posts.

  7. please don't take offensive to how i may word some things, my intent is only to be as clear as possible, not to talk down to you or insult you.

     

     

    3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

    Does BoM have a use? Sure it does, but the main issue is that for 5 years the userbase as well as content creation has gone down one path expanding on possibilities and brining SL to a reasonable quality standard, yet all BoM has done is taken it a step back from there. The very fact Teagan posted someone has a work around for non-features in BoM doesn't surprise me at all and even predicted it in my first post of the thread. It will only get worse and 5 years down the track another quick fix from Lab will be introduced to deal with some unfriendly workaround just like onion bodies now.

    this literally means nothing.

    BoM does not lack any feature, it can't, because it is only a collection of preexisting processes. this indicates you don't understand what BoM is. you think you do, but you don't.

    i swear this is a case of people being so close to something they are not seeing what is right under their nose.

    3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

    You basically answered your own question, albeit very basically. If as you say all BoM does is flattens diffuse textures together, why didn't LL look at the same process for Normal and Specular Maps. Theoretically they are the same, just a texture, so why didn't they just apply the same process to the Normal and Specular Channels as they did to the diffuse channel.

    Would the above work, no idea (can't see why not though), I'm not that tech savvy, though it does make me wonder if it was even looked into. From what I can see all LL did is move one old system to a new completely incompatible system, gave themselves a pat on the back and said done.

    no i did not answer my own question and what you wrote shows you do not understand BoM or maps. 

    you said "Theoretically they are the same, just a texture,"............no, that is faulty understanding. they are not the same. first the use of the word "texture" is just a label sl choose to use to refer to images. so while they are all "textures" they are not all equal, they do not carry the same information and actually are "maps". these "maps" are made to work in conjunction with one another, seperately. these maps called "diffuse", "Specular" and "normal". they all work together by laying one on top of another, then the entire "stack" of textures is rendered as one composite texture, which is a JPG.2000 image format.

    now when the stack is rendered in sl, as it has been before and after BoM, the diffuse maps get flattened together because they are of the same type. the normal and spec maps are not and have never been rendered as part of the composite texture. sl simple does not have the framework to render the specular and normal maps as part of that composite texture. in sl's frame work, you need maps to hold the information. those maps can be composited of their own kind, but while you can flatten green with purple, you can't flatten purple with a brick, just as you cannot flatten a brick with sunlight. they are 3 separate maps that work separately and apart from each other. all this thing called "BoM" is doing is flattening the diffuse maps. that's it. BoM a name so we can refer to a process. that is where is ends. diffuse maps have nothing to do with spec or normal maps....... BoM is only a process that pertains to how diffuse textures behave. so can you now also understand why "BoM"  cannot be lacking features? it's just squashing paint together.

    you see when you open a model in a 3d program and you automatically see highlights and shadows, that is what everyone wants........you think that BoM could have been that?

    no, because merging a paint layer down just like you do in photo shop is just a process of merging down a paint layer.

    it does not have any other magic or code or tags that can be used and are not.

    now that i have explained that. can you see a way for the spec maps be flattened into the color maps and have it work as expected? i don;t meae give me code. i mean can you see, in some way, a .jpg can hold that information and sl's current engine can render it?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TLDR: textures are not all the same. sl works with 3 separate textures. these 3 types of textures cannot be merged together, think of them as 3 different entities that do their own thing. that is how sl set it up to work. BoM is just the act of flattening the color textures and directing the functionality of Ruth to a custom object. period.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ok so lets say BoM had never been done.........none of the things you people want could have been done anyway. the only way to get what you want to write a new texturing system. so whether BoM was done or not, still you'd never get what you want. BoM effects nothing.

    this is no step back Drayke........ you actually are just saying that because you contradict yourself, you said it was a step back because mulit-material creators are either stuck with onion bodies or "flat" as you say, bodies.........so if they are "stuck" with, then their is no step back. nothing is lost. everything thing is exactly the same.........only better.

    none of the things you want, is sl capable of doing and BoM did not prevent any of them from happening. sl is making the best of it's current system, you can want it to cook your dinner, but there simple is no apparatus to do it..........you want to calculate baked specularity........then build a new system, but why are you complaining about what is being done with the old system?.......oh and btw.........they did not "drag" "any" system" into anything else. ruth could already do what she could do..............THAT is the system, all they did was let your object now be ruth. that is all........the texturing engine and framework remains the same and in that framework spec maps and color maps cannot be merged.

    if you car only has 4 gears, you can never put in 5th gear no matter how much you beg or complain. you simply have to build a new car with 5 gears.........so why beat up on the the 4th gear when it's not it's fault?

    the big thing about BoM. the best and coolest thing, is that it lets your object be ruth. that is a big deal and should be seen in that light, because that is what it is.

    i know you did not read my earlier posts.

    anyhows..........i am tired of writing............if someone doesn't get it by now, i will never be able to explain it better. so i am pretty much going to leave it here.

     

    • Haha 2
  8. 23 minutes ago, Silas Merlin said:

    There is something I don't get, can someone explain ?

    The left leg and left arm slots are apparently regular auxiliary slots,  which means if you use them on your body, then the system skin doesn't come through if you remove your universals.
    I thought one of the aims of BOM was so that people could use their old skins ?

    Anyway, I was wondering what was preferable.
    1. To have a body that can show the system skin, but then you can't have "tattoos" on your left arm and left foot.
    2. To be able to have "tattoos" on your left arm and left foot, but then you can't use your system skin at all because it wouldn't bake to the arm and foot.

    I believe that none of the two is acceptable.

    So, the only solution I see is to take option one and add an onion skin layer that uses the left arm and left leg slots......

    I think this is very wrong, but it's the only solution I see. And it works.
    image.thumb.png.e737ec1a291dcdf202f77e07d9c656b7.png

    that is what occurred to me. i also have gut feeling that onion layers are still going to have there place. there are too many interesting things that a inventive, creative mind will come up with for them to be totally forgotten.

    i have been thinking of adding a left arm and leg onion layer to my commercial avi. but i have held off working it out until i fully scoped out what BoM can do and hearing about what other people are experiencing.

  9. 8 minutes ago, Teagan Tobias said:

     

    Your first sentence, your right, makes no sense.

     

    Your second sentence, I am making no demands, I am saying that is something I don’t like about it, I’m demanding nothing. As of right now I can just not use it, and if that does not change...

     

    Your third sentence, well, now you get it, if it can’t make my dinner, what good is it. /s

     

    Your next paragraph, I’m not saying anything about how it should have been done or how it should work, only that it is appearing to me to be very invasive into what does work, and I would regret that.

     

    And next, naysayer, I did say “I do see some good to it, but only in addition to what we have”, I just don’t want to be forced into using it. It does fix some problems, alphas clashing I hear, if I don’t half to use it then its a good thing.

     

    And the last part, you appear to be addressing the OP. (?)

    But your last line, “the whole problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what BoM is”.

    Don’t stop there.

     

     

    that wasn't all directed at you. only the first line.

    the "demand" thing was a general statement meaning people complaining about BoM, ask for functions that aren't capable of being delivered by BoM.

    if you re-read it without thinking it applies to you, you will see i was not insulting you.

  10. 9 hours ago, Teagan Tobias said:

    That is my major dislike of BoM, no materials.

    please understand that does not make any sense. it is the same as saying "Silk or cotton or leather.....has no light". it does not make sense.

    BoM flattens diffuse textures together, that's all. how can anyone make demands of something that doesn't have that capability?

    BoM sucks because if can't cook my dinner. that is basically what is being said.

    all you critics and complainers of BoM cannot state or explain how things could have been done different working under the constraints of the actual system in use.......how do you fix the car that you actually drive to work, not some theoretical car that maybe one day you can have........ not one person is going to saying anything that speaks to how BoM could otherwise have been implemented without changing the entire !@#$$  system that sl uses, because there is nothing to be said. they can only confuse and obfuscate the issue by saying all kinds of things should have been done with BoM but don't make it clear that those things could only be done in a system that doesn't actually exist.

     

    the logic of the naysayers here is this: SL's texturing system has a carburetor, sl changed the gas filter surrounding the carburetor so it could breath easier. people then come along and say "that was stupid, that gas filter is worthless, instead of changing the filter, you should have rebuilt the engine to use fuel injection.............so you see now why changing the gas filter is a stupid thing to do?"

    the title of this thread is "

    BOM needs to auto-calculate Normal and Spectral layers like Sansar"

     

    let the OP explain how "BoM" can do that? he said BoM needs to do something.........explain how that can be done OP.

    he can't. he can only explain how it can be done without "BoM". because BoM, like so many other things in sl, doesn't have anything to do with materials at all.

    it's true. read this entire thread carefully, you'll see it is all there.

    the whole problem is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what BoM is.

  11. 11 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

    Alpha cuts shouldn't be bismissed just because something slightly "better" exists, because obviously BOM has pretty big downsides of its own but excessive texture usage is not one, which is why it's a good iteration over what currently existed.

    absolutely.  i've had people convey to me the impression they believe BoM is in part meant to replace alpha cuts.

    that is thinking that BoM is something much more than it actually is.

  12. 1 hour ago, OptimoMaximo said:

    Sure, like if I have another uv arrangement that goes far beyond the 3 materials of a system avatar that forces to use, say, 10 materials, with the auxiliary channels not supporting alphas, BoM is very usable... 

    but Optimo what you are failing to bare in mind is that all LL did was flip a switch, polished up a few things, tossed in a dozen skittles and that's it. they didn't plan a big project. what you want was outside the scope of what they planned. changing how things work is a majoring undertaking, BoM was not. BoM was already there, they just had to touch it up.

    you making the case for a better texturing system is irrespective to BoM because BoM is merely a logical step given the way actual system currently in place works.

    and how one also can know this is true is because you could make your case before BoM was even conceived and you can still make the same case after BoM has been implemented.

    that demonstrates your argument is independent of BoM and so you can't criticize BoM itself because it is just a part of the system you want to replace. 

    to put it another way..........if your argument is to replace the current texturing system with a new one, then that is a criticism of the system itself, so criticizing BoM is redundant.   

  13. BoM= assign a tag to an object and now all the functionality ruth has will be directed to that object..........oh and here about a dozen or so extra layers............that's all folks.

    nothing more than that..........it is that simple.

    now what can be done with that....a lot and a lot still unknown i'm sure...........but one thing that cannot be done is to somehow magically add speculate values to diffuse layers. to add specular reflection, sl system requires a map..............but BoM is already maps. so it can't be done.......only revamping the texturing system could such a thing be entertained.

    those are facts. regardless any potential claims to the contrary.

  14. 3 hours ago, OptimoMaximo said:

    The thing is that BoM wearables do not take any normal or specularity at all, they aren't even aware of such a feature. So basically the baking happens only on the color texture, while normal and specular stay the same.

    i don't understand how that can be the case. regardless the layer worn, in the end the result is one (composited) texture. that is the diffuse texture the avi ends up wearing.

    separately the spec map that is set for the body works as it always does......it can't tell the composited bra section from the rest of the skin, it will apply the spec values across the entire diffuse texture, including the bra, certainly the the bra will be glossy.

    now to me, that actually sounds like something that should not be, the body spec and norm maps should exclude the bra section because obviously a bra is different material than organic skin, it should not be reflecting light the same.....i should be testing these things.

    in any case though. you say "BoM wearables do not take any normal or specularity at all, they aren't even aware of such a feature"

    that doesn't make any sense to me....they can't be aware of any such feature. why would a diffuse map be aware of a spec map, it's illogical.......all "BoM wearables"  are is a series of texture layers, that's all. those layers are in essence texture layers..........you can't add a spec map to another map...........and that is essentially what you are saying...........what logic can allow an underwear layer to be given spec values? the underwear "layer" is a diffuse texture itself, you can't add a texture to a texture. uni/aux layers are the same thing as original clothing layers..............there is no way to add spec and norm maps to those original layers, hence they cannot be applied to any of the other layers(BoM wearables).

    EDIT- it seems to me the only case you can be making is that a whole completely brand new system of texturing be invented, rather than implementing features in a pre-existing system.

     

  15. 47 minutes ago, OptimoMaximo said:

    Sorry, but what's at hand is not having a baked in shininess of the texture, rather a combined set of material layers, where for example the specular map of, say, a scar is baked on top of the skin, and obviously so for its normal map. At current state of functionality, just the scar diffuse texture gets baked on top of the skin, leaving whatever specular and normal map underneath basically unvaried. Now, if for a scar might not be a problem, guess the look of a texture bra that has skin pores normal map and the same specularity that the skin has. Nice. Leave alone that people would rather wear a mesh bra, but the principle is the same. Whereas a suit might have a bakes on mesh shirt under the jacket to avoid mesh poking through, I certainly doubt that a fabric would have any semblance of a skin's specularity, not to mention skin pores and defined nipples from the normal map. 

    let me understand something.....are you saying that for example, a person makes an undershirt layer bra........the body itself has a spec map to give the skin gloss..........the user wears the bra, the bra gets baked into the texture and in so doing gets the same gloss values as the skin because the skin and bra are baked together and the spec is not?

    if i understand that correctly then i do see your point and i concede that scenario did not occur to me............still i think over all it is a step forward.......and that depends on how much value one places on the different aspects. for me the fact that applier are no longer needed is huge and so i am grateful they implemented at least this much and can live with the shortcomings for now . i know LL is often very slow to move on things, but that seems to have improved over the last year, i would bet the real issues being brought up will be addressed by LL within 6 months. obviously i am guessing.

  16. why can't a bom mesh maker assign a spec and norm map t their object? obviously they can and do......why is baked on mesh a step back, but leaving the system as it was is better, was spec values baked into the the applier textures? no. so it was not any better prior to BoM. now applier are not needed.......the entire community is not beholden to one regular user in creating they own commercial Avatar if they want wide spread compatibility. more people can now create a lot easier...........i know because i am a creator who has benefited. it automatically put my own commercial avi on par with maitreya/ slink and the rest...........because now a person can wear any sl skin or tattoo on my avi where before they couldn't because i did not make it omega compatible..... before for you to where any sl skin on my avatar, either you or i had to pay a 3rd party or tough. creators, like me can put spec maps in our products just as it has always been.......and that takes care of that. why would something that is "live" be baked at all? after the spec info is baked into the composite texture, all that has been eliminated is the map..........what gain is that and how would someone change the map, by setting another map and then that map gets baked into the composite?

    the only accomplished 1 out of 3 things? while that is debatable,still one thing is more than 0 thing. 

    it was not better before and nothing has been lost only functionality has been gained and the best news of all is EVEN MORE can be added as life goes forward.

    if baking specs is really a better way to go, then it will happen. really all we are talking about is time.

    • Haha 2
  17. as far as i know the aux/uni layers can only be set using a script and enabling BoM through the edit panel, you can only assign one layer to a group.

    so lets say you assigned BAKED_LOWER to your lower section of your mesh, then when a texture is set it is going to effect the entire lower part, if you assign a aux layer to the lower, then a texture meant to use the lower won't work.

    so how i imagine it is done is by scripting something like LEFT_ARM_BAKED.......... LEFT_LEG_BAKED...........the server knowing set a texture to the upper or lower but only part of it.

    basically an applier using new tags.

  18. 38 minutes ago, CelticBells said:

    Hiya shaniqua. :) Thank you for writing a valuable opinion.

    I knew the existence of ''Avastar'' but I didn't know what effect the plug-in would have on Blender.

    The reason I created this topic this time was to understand why my avatar transforms into this shaped form and why the 3D rigmesh model becomes huge. But, I couldn't find any topics related to them because of my poor language skills.

    As you say, if about over 95% of SL rigmesh creators use Avaster, how do the remaining 5% of people work on rigging? I am very interested about them method.

    Of course, it is possible to purchase Avaster for $20 US now, but I'm concerned that it may be a “loss of opportunity to think for myself and discover the answer”.

    "Use AVaster to solve problems quickly" 
    "Improve knowledge and understanding of SL rig mesh creation and solve problems myself"

    I think,, although these results look the same, they do not necessarily mean the same. And more that knowledge and understanding should improve the quality of my create work in future SL.

    If Avaster can solve all my worry and problems, I may need to buy it right now. However, I want to leave it as a last resort. I thank you for your kindness. ;)*

    nods. i understand. you want the actual answers to the issues you are experiencing rather than just working around them.

    i hope someone can help you.

    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...