Jump to content

Almdudler

X-Plane Fan
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Almdudler

  1. @Bueb, identifyable over Forum Discussions or Feedback Platforms at some degree, observations, personal favourites, and a long year experience helps a bit. Can not recall an actual dedicated poll ever done, which is surprising. 5 issues to face: The list of aircraft is long, comparing it against platforms and development status huge work. There are online poll tools available but making it work the way it provides good response is challenging, and: there always remains the fact that consumers don't know what they want until they see the product. last issue is that not-so-good developers might pick a project (to make a bug) so excellent developers drop it. I would create a poll if guys wanna help me. @Stephen could facilitate the poll on this site, potentially a community's click booster. Let me know please. both of you. thanks. Due to the multi-role, multi-category, multi-nationality, propulsion variety of aircraft, production time and history (variants and upgrades), the list becomes quickly chaotic and should be published as pivot with filter only. Here a simplified list: 1 Civil aircraft 1.1 Civil air transport 1.2 Civil – general aviation 2 Military aircraft 2.1 Fighters 2.2 Bombers 2.3 Reconnaissance, electronic warfare and Airborne Early Warning 2.4 Carrier-based aircraft 2.5 Air support/attack aircraft 2.6 Training aircraft 2.7 Transport 3 Helicopters and Autogyros 4 Racing aircraft 5 Experimental aircraft 6 Seaplanes and Amphibians
  2. Lionel confirmed the GA and BizJet Segment spilling over while sales numbers remain small. He supports other project holders in their ventures and may eventually look into a different segment himself. There were discussions on other forums. They havn't done a lot of market analyses before they started their projects in the past, it mainly came out of what they thought they like and tackled it. What sounds like a joke for you, maybe the start of a discussion, as developers sometimes need a hint from consumers into the right direction, nothing wrong about it. Laminar started it, Microsoft started it, and others have done it for long. It's called consumer dialogue or "Listening". My comment showed some options. The devs are networking behind our sight, each one cross-contributing in either project with their special knowledge, no matter which label, no matter fixed or rotor wing, mil or civil. You find Aerobask's Lionel's work in other products without knowing. In that context chances we will see some of these aviation icons proposed may rise while you keep doing april jokes. If that helps you understand: Real life Airplanes are also built by a cross network of suppliers. What we see as consumers is the overall assembly. So, dear Stephen, give consumer feedback and suggestions a fair chance and see how paths exist because they were made.
  3. with all their talent, why don't they tackle something more wanted by the community, like the C-130, A-400M, NH-90, AH-1Z, MH-53E, EC-120, and 100 more.
  4. sad they stole my "hub" idea from laminar's feedback forum. i should patent my ideas in order to be safe in this thieves community. i wanted laminar to create a hub - for x-plane. Didn't expect those junkies drive away with it for a different purpose.
  5. re-discovered this plane, and getting happier and happier about it. i think the quality becomes apparent once you try to create a plane ourselves. it's a hell of a work behind, the more i apprciate RW's fantastic work. At his point i would like to ask whether somebody has the hawaiian livery for me, maybe Mahalo Air as well. I think first person pilots being made visible would be an asset, also put some passengers i would love. And the passengers should start crying when i dive down on St.Barts final.
  6. Since version update 1.14 has been released early December 2020 i hope a new review is due. special attention needs to be given to city lights illumination, night sky, sky colour scheme, cloud shapes, real weather data translation, weather effects, overall settings like contrast, gamma, etc. and of course terrain look tweaks. I am a rather happy customer with them, but i also wanna keep pushing them into the right directions if things appear going the wrong way. One thing that terribly disturbs me is the dark horizon, especially at the edges of the day. Their techniques often work "deductive", that means they add something to hide something else. For example you can achieve a better airplane landing light effect if you darken everything around the light cube. The consequence is that you lose the great road lights all around that cube which you may have cultivated to perfection over the years. And i have a feeling the dark horizon is caused by some of that methods. To be on the safe side of interpreting colours right, i have worked out a one to one view between xenviro's sunset colours vs. reality, and i hope they don't take this as a critics but find a way to rectify. What i want to see in their next release is much more realistic sunsets, with a warmly glowing sun and the very right colour definitions along the 10 degree horizon sphere.
  7. well said John, couldn't agree more with your editorial (despite we have 8 billion people, typo?) Being a Marketing Executive and Aviator myself, i don't spend a second on regrets that this state of evolution became reality. Sometimes visions stand way on top of commercial evaluations, and the A380 was a needed step in bringing the Aviation Industry to its current state. There wouldn't be a 787, nor a 737MAX nor a A350 if the A380 wasn't been built. They are the answer for both, market trends as well as techology. Imagine mankind would never know how big an airplane can make it, we needed to know. I am so anticipating the A380 - a cold manufacturer war's (Boeing vs. Airbus) status symbol - coming to X-plane, so we can preserve its uniqueness virtually and enjoy its extraordinary construction for the rest of time. If we wanted to look for errors, we would have to blame some Asian Airline Managers not Airbus Industrie. Their pressure into building such a sized plane was based on their expolaration/expectation of travel trends and home made status megalomania. I can't help to see similarities to Howard Hughes's H-4 Hercules story. History repeats itself.
  8. X-Trident: Nice graphics over good Flight modelling. Usually being fascinated by 3rd party developments with such nice 3D-modelling i am losing caution when purchasing. The after purchase experience however sometimes feels like waking up in the morning after a heavy nightlong party. X-Trident has given me this kind of awakening, making myself a fool but much more careful for any future investement into such 3rd party products. Something feels weird about these italian developers. They take 2plus years to model their stuff down the road to visual perfection and then they come with this kind of arcade flight physics and flight handling envelope which has nothing to do with how real heli flying feels. Flying this Bell412 is like sitting in an elevator or even a remote autonom flying rail waggon, surely away from a real life experience. Despite adding xprealistic plugin and other improvements to this model, i couldn't connect to their idea of what helicopter flying is supposed to be about. That thing flies like by itself, there is nothing of heli piloting's peculiarities. To be fair, their graphics are excellent, they spend their lives for a nice look, which very much reflects the italian style of easy life. unfortunately flight sims are not a Milano Fashion Show or a Roman allday Cappuchino chitty chat, they are supposed to feature aerodynamics in the first. under complex conditions and with complex responses. X-Trident's product was a disappointment for me, i got trapped by eye-candy too much. We, the users, love to get trapped by eye-candy, that is why the place is filled with amateur developers like x-trident or colimata to mention 2 of those italo-devs, making their bugs on rookie user naivity. And they are famous for not taking critical questions by users, they simply ban such customers from their forums and delete their posts. This terrible practice is ongoing and unfortunately not inhibited by any authority to date. Okay, it's everyone's personal decision and preferences, with what quality level a heli should come with, i am in the rather realistic flight section, expecting such. If you like arcade, you should not even read this review:) For total beginners, this product might be a good jump into x-plane. But the same quality of heliflying could be found in simple ego-shooters like ARMA at a cheaper price. A fair price would be somewhere at 25$. for their effort on the 3D-modelling. There are several italian products out there with a caution-label on them. One is Colimata, always classified as "no buy!". X-Trident's current work on the Boeing CH-46 Chinook seems going the very same way. Lots of candy screenshots and promotional gossip overblending flight facts, i think we can expect the same level of amateur expertise but big noise for this one. Rumors say that developer x-trident is copy-pasting the flight model from other - probably the native S-76 - helicopters without undertaking the complex calculations that come with individual helicopter development. The S-76 covers a wide base of physics for any helicopter type, Laminar's purpose, but does not translate individual characteristics of a specific model's flight characteristics. This may explain the unprofessional flight behaviour of X-Trident's Products. While you think you fly an Agusta Bell 412, in fact you run an S-76 default, on a 412 model mock up. That is called a "Mod", a fake. Even in DCS combat simulator, you can find such "fakes", whereas some freak modiffies an F-15 into an F-22 and promotes it as F-22. Users with no real life flight experience, especially with no flight hours on the specific aircraft type, would never know the difference, how would they possibly. Instead, these nuggets listen to other nuggets, and often tend to overrate the product in their youtube cheerings without knowing, seaking for likes. The easier it is flyable the more they cheer a product, which transfers wrong expectations to other potential customers. As long as many of us customers favourize visuals and easy flying over realistic flight modelling, there will be these kinds of what i would call arcade products hitting the market. You can blend consumers easily with nice graphics and cool content, but that is not simulating flight. And X-Plane's reputation takes the debit. A flight simulator's quality associates through its flyable aircraft, that's how the world rates the sim. Unrealstic flying tells the sim is unrealistic or untrustworthy. If they ever knew the difference. Insisting on a one week trial for new products is always a good idea to protect demanding customers from disappointment. Some customers of the Colimata F/A-18 even forced their money back from the .org-store. I don't think promoting any level product is an actual problem, as long as it is admitted that it does not come with real life telemetrics/physics. Pay half the price if a dev comes on you without confirmed and licensed label by its real life manufacturing counterpart. Misdirecting consumers should be treated as such. I happened to notice that the italian developers were in a dialogue with users on a forum, asking questions about such real life manufacturer's official licence label to give reference for their claim of providing realistic flight models, like some other developers do (Toliss-Airbus, FlightFactor-Boeing, etc). These users got banned instantly from their (.org) forum, their posts disappeard secretly. It's like they never existed. Well, if you believe that's only how the mafia works, or some chinese or north korean regime, then i have bad news. it happens here and now. In the x-plane world. Conclusions: Beware, this review is based on my own personal experience and observations, and may not necessarily be representative. Everyone out there should make his/her own expierience. if you like purchasing x-trident products, go ahead and enjoy anyway. If you expect a simulation of real life flight characteristics, stick to quality developers only. Never give money to unknown or bad reputation vendors. You find reference lists of developers and their quality rankings on the internet. Maybe i find a good source, i'd certainly post it here on xplanereviews.com
  9. progress and updates on http://www.facebook.com/groups/flyblackhawk this connects developing team with users, pilots and contributors.
  10. An overview of the upgrade works is available now. it includes cockpit, crew, sounds, external attachments, model and texturing, ui and animations, as well as the digital variants.
  11. Before going to the updates, here some Flight dynamics issues or axes instabilities that need re-verification: 1. Uncontrollable Side Skip / Slip (Overeffect) Pulling collective with the BFDG UH-60 has a high tendency of skipping the fuselage along its vertical axe to the right, a quick and hard yaw, while flight vector remains forward ("Wag the Dog-Effect"). Can result in continous rotation of the fuselage until crash, if not stabilized. Right Pedal to compensate this overrotation remains without effect, because the sideslip is hard and quick. Only reduction of lift power normalizes the attitude. 2. Roll and Skip Tendency at heavy Weight The heavier payload and fuel, the more instabile yaw and roll gets with the BFDG UH-60 . Controlling the helicopter becomes a bit languorous, which is correct. However, The BHDG UH-60 will try to roll over Longitude to the left, while trying to skip Latitude to the right. Adding speed increases the effect. I am not sure whether this reaction is realistic or wether it is worth to have another look at the dynamics modelling. Related Parameters: These parameters in combination are related to these effects to happen: - Trim (centered or nose up) - AOA (leveled and pitch up) - Speed (regular to low) - Collective (main cause for this overreaction) Further related and of primary importance: - Weight - Balance (CG) assumable values: empty weight 11517 lbs (5224 kg) maximum weight 24500 lbs (11113 kg) possible payload 12000 lbs (6Tons) Response Table (input value vs. response): Input Response Y Pitch use of collective 0 - 100% 0 - Ym/s Climb/Descend Z Yaw use of pedal 0 - 45° 0 - Z°/s X Roll use of cyclic stick -23° 0 +23° 0 - X° Turn Possible sources causing conflicts in the flight modelling: - stall behaviour - wrong inertia settings - trim vs. AOA - unknown Yes, in real life you can make the cabin rotate to the other direction than the main rotor's. This is compensated by the tail rotor and the electronis stabilization program. The hard slip experienced with the BHDG UH-60 should not happen. Current method of avoidance: To avoid these hard responses from happening, follow these tips: 1. never push collective over 50%, always lift gently, keep controlling left pedal 2. control trim and AOA equally at take off sequence as well as at various cruise speeds. must be trimmed down immediately after lift off the ground in coordination with smooth reduction of pedal work to avoid slip away 3. for advanced pilots: Avoid high AOA (Angle of Attack) at low speed, unless used for aerobatic over the top turn, reverse flying or fast reduction of speed when inbound. When doing these manovres keep left pedal pushed and keep collective as low as possible while constantly adjusting Trim down. 4. Create the right response curves in X-Plane's hardware controller setup menu. Responses should have a certain amount of fatigueness, in order to avoid aggressive axes behaviour. Save the profile exclusively as 'Blackhawk', so it will dedicate to this middle weight class helicopter. 5. Load not more than 80% of allowed MTOW. Summary: Other than overtorque, blade stall fatigueness or similar known physical effects, the 2 behaviours listed above need to be investigated and possibly corrected. Weight alone should affect perfomance, not cause such axes instabilities. The help of a licensed and experienced blackhawk instructor may be needed to analyse these parameters and translate them eventually in a more complex way to x-plane.
  12. i am glad to help. let me work on some and see how far we can take this bird
  13. @Chuck if you allow suggestions for the UH-60: a design issue i wanted to bring up as primary element. The cockpit has always felt kind of really wide, and it took me a while to understand what creates this impression: it is the front panel plate which seems requiring some re-dimensioning and the instruments need some work.
  14. glad to hear that Chuck, this helicopter can be taken to a new level. will help out whereever needed.
  15. just activate gunners (gui panel) and pull the red clack on the middle console, second from front. development seemed aborted unfortunately. this chopper has so much potential for extensions and functionalities.
  16. despite the overall fantastic work, i have serious doubts about its handling parameters to be realistic. not even an Extra300 aerobatic airplane has this level of nervous sensitivity on the stick. moving the jrollon sf260 feels like this airplane even ignores the airstream working against the surfaces that try to initiate the roll, pitch or turn, and the SF260 is not a lightweight plane ! i can hardly notice the mass of the plane in the air. there should always be 2 forces working against each other, one is produced by the airstream p1 and the way ailerons react to it p2 (parameter of its counterforce and what it does with the airframe as a consequence), this p2 is the resistance produced by shape and size of the object(s) standing against this p1 airstream. this airplane weighs around 1000 kg when loaded with a pilot and fuel, so when flying at a speed of 200 knots, i should feel a certain indolence caused by the mass of the plane. While the extra300 has even servo support (additional movable mini-surfaces) to create nervous movements, the SF260 is a rather slow cow among the aerobatics, considering its shape and size, and should behave accordingly. Seeing users manipulating core settings for their joysticks gets me more than irritated, since that is not the root cause of their problems, the missing piece here is a patch being owed by the developer correcting its flight model. To current stage this product remains a visual goodie, but it needs a complete overhaul of its physics. and someone tell me why i start a plane with flat tyres ??? not being able to taxi ??? you should boycott the .org and let the guys from Laminar know! the guy behind the .org practices active censorship against users in the forums and this behaviour is unacceptable. rumors say he has been banning hundreds of users to date from its forums. he does not make himself recognizable so i don't have a name unfortunately. Unfortunately there is a lack of competition, since x-plane never had many users at the time FSX was existing. Today, x-plane has 120'000 users, which should encourage other stores and forums to get alive. But the revival of microsoft flight simulator will probably cut x-plane's success back to its original niche and size. the .org's owner and laminar's founder seem "old buddies", there is no other explanation for that he carries the same brand name without being dragged to court and for not being sued to mishandle its consumers with abstruse bans. i once received a warning (unsigned) because i stated critic on an add-on product, my contributions are being monitored since, and need authorization. While not being banned so far, i am supporting everyone's idea of seeking alternatives to this kind of mad .org practices.
  17. Yes, i think we expect that the main elements are done properly. This is not a down- or upgradable thing, nor should the price relate to whether things are done sloppy or professionally. At least not in X-plane. Just aim for the professional level or keep away from the stores. Most customers have this plane in mind when it comes to steep landings like the world famous St. Bart, which you probably are familiar with. And there is plenty of similar places most and for all in the caribbean. If you are a developer, and you decide to pick this very special plane, you gotta face this particular expectation customers have when they buy it. To make sure, i am understood right: The plane is not bad, i like it. But there is these issues i mentioned which to tackle should be have been a next step. To people who look at it for a potential purchase, yes, i would buy it again. I hope the developer - who as Stephen mentioned - had to be hospitalized, is recovering to well, that should be in our all minds. As there is no information on his status, here My very best wishes and prays.
  18. The UH-60 Blackhawk has a considerable basic quality and the fun factor is high. it is a popular product tha gained much appreciation at this level already. Nevertheless user complaints piling quite a bit and by the latest update to 2.5 has there is yet a list of things worth to look for improvements. I learned that the developer is a one man venture, which on one hand is adminrable, on the other hand a limitation of resources that deserves better for this iconic helicopter platform. The developer lacks of time, so the product is not intended to become further updates unfortunately. I am listing the most relevant missing elements here: 1. Some Panel knobs and Thrust/Power Lever don't seem to rotate, which makes it hard to assign and verify proper hardware mapping functionality. Probably only animation to the knobs need to be added in the 3d-program 2. analog instrumentation, hard to read needles, Night Illumation and and glass reflection needs a look at. 3. Textures need an overall improvement. so is the 3D-airframe works in all its details. The work has been done quite sloppy and is not looking good. The shape of the entire front panel is wrong. And many users complain about the dark texturing. Reading the panel is hard. 4. Seahawk variant: cargo door and gunner window mismatch. Some exterior equipment missing for the naval variant. Whole interior equipment for the Seahawk is missing. The nose flir bowl also seems inaccurate. 5. Some systems or functionalities on the lower panel and on the upper panel have not been modeled to date or do not work. Some functionalities are entirely missing, like Chaffs and Flares, there is no Radar or FLIR implemented, and there is no Navigational Display. The ipad which is hidden in the rear console box, is not working. It could have been set up for checklist or even avitab functions. 6. i miss a proper understanding of levers or knobs transition animations. Lighting knobs click zero to one instead of rotating, So are the upper panel fuel levers which move inaccurately and from zero to front in one go, letting the engines jump like an explosion at start up getting the whole helicopter nose jump aside. This is done so badly, it kills the startup procedure and experience. 7. adding equipment is done over a little ingame control menu instead of when loading the aircraft initially. As a consequence weight and balance are not updating, neither is the aerodynamic model. You don't see a difference in flight behaviour. 8. Engine Performance handling can be a challenge, overheats quickly with a Fire Alarm if you don't manage power, thrust and collective as desired. This is also a result of bad designed levers and incomprehensive weight vs. performance management. These things should translate much better from the helicopter towards the pilot's understanding of how to keep best control. In fact this part of flying the blackhawk is the most sophisticated experience and deserves special training videos to train up new users. Only trained pilots can fully enjoy the blackhawk. The worst part is to overtorque the engine at a certain level of weight, the aircraft won't lift while the cabin would start to rotate and swing off to the right like crazy. To be honest, X-Plane's native Weight and Balance Circle Design (ipod style) is not very helpful when trying to do things realisticly. 9, Using emergency fire extinguisher procedure means you can no longer re-establish the engine after power down. You have to re-load the flight. 10. pilot models are not animated, model is not connected to flight controls. While Co-Pilot model exists, there is no first person pilot. 11. the gunnery sergeant can be activated by 2 steps, but the gun is not working, and you can not move around the guns. 12. There is no crew chief. 13. Sling is not moving. That part of operations is undone. You can not drop the seals or cargo to ground. 14. The aircraft does not load in its desired configuration. Doors should be open when loading a flight, crew chief should stand outside, attachements like tanks etc. should already be mounted, and the passenger, oh well, not sure what to do with these un-armed fellows. 15. There are no armoury attachements 16. upper panel. power lever instantly clacking from 0 to 100 instead of smooth tansition from back to forth, RPMs should increase softly. the power lever is not bindable to the users's pc hardware. (thrust and collective are good). This issue is the most relevant and deducts most from the overall product quality. 17. The BFDG blackhawk represents the UH-60A and L-variants only, while texturing and external attachments promise newer or specialized variants like the Seahawk or the Pavehawk or the Coast Guard's Jayhawk. None of these other variants are designed in the interior. Nor are their panels. Instead of delivering so many external paints, i would have expected variation design on the panel and in the cabin. 18. Position of Flight Control Stick is incorrect, should be further up and forth. Besides these issues, the BFDG UH-60 performs perfectly once you figured out its limitations, and is a beloved asset in any x-plane user's hangar. It is definetly worth to keep it on the watchlist for potential buyers as well as those who seek future upgrades, which will need to come from experts creating a modification or re-release this bird. I am listing the positive asects here: 1. choice of platform: The blackhawk is represented in many armys around the world and a very attractive bird to fly. 2. Making it available in many liveries is nice. 3. The flight behaviour in general is nice, considering the right setup and handling. 4. The suspension is cool. Landing really feels like landing. 5. The file structure combined with some of the gui-functionalities is done nicely. Even though there is negative points listed here. 6. Sounds are acceptable. 7. Object hirarchay is modelled well, some parts are wobbling around when stressing the airframe.
  19. Vicsim, You must put Nimbus on top of DD Miami City in the scenery.ini for that both products are visible. (sorry for the correction Stephen). This way DD's rather simple airport will disappear below by the much better Nimbus airport, but DD's other 2 regional airports will still show. From this point you can add or remove objects as mentioned by Stephen via the Overlay Editor Tool. You don't want to change things with Nimbus as that one is perfect already, so make sure you open DD_Miami_City_XP's .dsf file. The Autogen you may need to look over and revise, as some 1000 feet tall skyscrapers will eventually pop up along the Beach, so use the exclusion zones function in the overlay editor to organize forests, residentials, roads and office facades. it's a bit of a work to simulate the real thing, if that is what you want. I did want it caus i love flying MIA. I have reworked most of DD's Miami for my own purpose, added Night Bridges over the bay, created the Stadiums (e.g. Merlin Park) to make this area timeless, or lets say independant from the need of future updates. DD's Miami off the box is a sloppy conversion from their previous FSX release and all the 3d-buildings were stolen from Google, that's why the Drzwiecky thing looks so terribly outdated and bad coloured when it comes to the textures. I talked to the guy from the polish developer , and it does not look like they have big interest in releasing updates on Miami. To get a good Miami Feeling, the buildings must be repainted to white and nice and the beach areas require a lot of corrections. I ran all the building textures thru a photoshop emulator to whiten and contrasting them to a more realistic look. I also created the Miami Seaplane Base which was forgotten and which is being revived in real life with a complete overhaul and with new superdesign terminals. I highly recommend using Level19 Bing Ortho4XP for the entire Miami area (Palm Beach down to Key Biscane) or even the whole of Florida down to key West, the flight experience is breathtaking, if the geo-visuals are done nicely. DD's package does not show the beautiful sandbanks in the bay or in the outer beach sections. But when using ortho over DD's own terrain you need to do a little delete-job on their own terrein tiles and that can cause errors if not done right. Let me know when you reach this point. Here a few pics of how the result should look like (x-plane 11.30+), some water areas work in progress and number of objects slider on medium, autogen works in progress:
  20. don't fly this in XP11 without updating the .xpl plug-in file first. With the update, this heli has become my favourite, and i am angry no one told me there is an xpl-file to update. here is a video and the download link:
  21. the internal feather sound is horrible, should be to like when the doors are open. miss a bit response of individual prop power, which according to pilots flying this type in real life is a key experience in the twin otter. Yes, the graphics i do like, it's extremely well nicely and the aircraft type has potential to be a favourite among all. despite my initial critics, i love the work on this plane and i can recommend it for purchase. could not find the windshield wiper though, and i am still testing some of the power parameters, is it not slowing down when it should, and does it speed up when it should. Reverse thrust is hardly noticeable, but it should create tremendous prop noise and shake the frame and get a fast rest. A paint kit would have been nice or some more liveries like the hawaiian operators. Releasing benchmark planes like the DHC6 means special responsibility and dedication and i think we can be happy with this one. overall feedback: graphics great noise horrifying physics ok power managent to look at
  22. i am very disappointed by this product. it is not told in the reviews how bad the flight model is. This has nothing to do with flying. some of the graphics and mostly of how this thing flies reminds me of the 1980's Atari game over products. The external look of the F/A-18 is so attractive that most of us tend to lose control over our minds when developing a purchase behaviour like with this product. X-plane has not a single fighter jet in its program. There is basic models like X-15, F-4, B52, but these serve as file source only i believe. Nobody would fly these really. So, Colimata comes at the right time with the right promise, and there is no competitor. What i would classify as typical freeware after having purchased and tested it, comes with an arrogant price on the .org. USD 30,00 for this low quality is pure robbery. I don't understand why they don't kick this from the shelf to protect consumers. This damages X-Plane as a whole and discredits the .org as qualified sales point. There is no money back guarantee it seems, so be careful with what you buy. if you can not test a product before purchase, you are going to end up with this kind of chunk. The truth is hard, sorry Colimata.
×
×
  • Create New...