"Really looks shitty and not as good as F12002 at all.." <G>
http://www.drivingitalia.com/f1racer/gp4.htm
Arguing over GP4 screenshot quality
Sarcastic posts about new GP4 screenshots led to a split, with some praising the realistic palette and GPS-based tracks and others criticising flat trackside objects, the black-flag slowdown penalty and the performance cost. The thread became a sniping match over whether GPL's physics were realistic.
Automated summary.
I agree, looks nowhere near as good as F1 2002.
I can't believe they still have that crappy black flag penalty system.
--
Ian P
<email invalid due to spam>
"Mr. F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Really looks shitty and not as good as F12002 at all.." <G>
>
> http://www.drivingitalia.com/f1racer/gp4.htm
>
>
In article <[email hidden]>, Mr. F
<[email hidden]> writes:
>"Really looks shitty and not as good as F12002 at all.." <G>
>
>http://www.drivingitalia.com/f1racer/gp4.htm
I'll guess that you're being sarcastic? The pics look fine to ME...<shrug>
Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Thanks to those of you who made a donation for breast cancer research. The
walkathon is over, but donations are still being accepted. Details on my
webpage.
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote
> I agree, looks nowhere near as good as F1 2002.
> I can't believe they still have that crappy black flag penalty system.
As in the car losing engine power for x seconds if you're a
naughty boy (apparently pushing other drivers off in corners don't
count as naughty, cause I did that to the entire grid just to test last
night)? If so, that's just hilarious. Geoff stated in a PCG interview
that "this is as close as you're gonna get without risking millions
of dollars worth of equipment in a real F1 car".
--
Frode
As if graphics make that much of a difference in evaluating a racing sim?
What do we want here, nice graphics, pretty flags and the rest, or a decent
AI and a nice, realistic driving model? IMHO, I'll take the latter.
Alanb
"Mr. F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Really looks shitty and not as good as F12002 at all.." <G>
>
> http://www.drivingitalia.com/f1racer/gp4.htm
>
>
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote
> As if graphics make that much of a difference in evaluating a racing sim?
> What do we want here, nice graphics, pretty flags and the rest, or adecent
> AI and a nice, realistic driving model? IMHO, I'll take the latter.
Personally I would really like the experience to be as "close to reality as
possible" like Geoff claims it is. What's this "black flag = slowdown for 10
seconds" crap? Where are the stop and go penalties? Drive throughs (hmm on
second thought those might be new of this year)? Safety car?
Those things were missed in GP2. GP3. And now GP4. How hard can it be to
force a drivethrough or stop/go instead of popping up a blackflag and
cutting engine power? Apparently he can't be assed to make the game "real"
and just concentrates (and fails) on delivering better graphics and a few
minutes of "GP Encyclopedia" video footage.
I've played all iterations of GP, starting with World Circuit (GP1). From
GP1 to GP2 I didn't really miss anything. The graphical advances were
staggering, so was the physics modelling. From GP2 to GP3 I felt a bit
ripped off. It looked a bit better, and I'm sure it had better physics under
the hood, but to me as a driver it wasn't a huge leap. Hitting the cerb at
5mph and having the car go nearly vertical isn't my idea of realistic
physics. The promised addons for GP3 (LAN/Inet etc) turned out to be a
bugfixing season update thingie. GP4.. I ain't paying for it. Sorry. Gimme a
$10 patch for GP3 that makes it work nicely in XP instead and I'll be quite
happy untill GP5 comes out to (hopefully) redeem the series.
--
Frode
GP4's graphics look fantastic with current hardware. At 1280x1024 with
everything set on max with a GF4 Ti4600 nothing can touch it.
Johnny.
"Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote
> GP4's graphics look fantastic with current hardware. At 1280x1024 with
> everything set on max with a GF4 Ti4600 nothing can touch it.
Same res with everything on max on my GF3Ti200 says it doesn't look awfully
impressive. It's more than sufficient for the kind of game it is. There's
not time to admire the scenery when doing 300kph. But a radical improvement
over GP3? The graphical improvements aren't anywhere near justifying the
development time. And there's little else different from GP3 to account for
it either. I'm left wondering wtf they've been up to since GP3.
--
Frode
Mr. F wrote:
> "Really looks shitty and not as good as F12002 at all.." <G>
>
> http://www.drivingitalia.com/f1racer/gp4.htm
Man, I can't wait 'til Thursday... great graphics and esp. tracks
that look like the real thing.
--
l8er
ronny
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
yes.... fan - http://geocities.com/n_heusink/gp4sucks.jpg - tastic :P
Rick
"Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aelkp9$e1o$[email hidden]...
> GP4's graphics look fantastic with current hardware. At 1280x1024 with
> everything set on max with a GF4 Ti4600 nothing can touch it.
>
> Johnny.
>
>
"Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On 17 Jun 2002 17:54:52 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP)
> bleeted:
>
>
> >I'll guess that you're being sarcastic? The pics look fine toME...<shrug>
> >
> >Eldred
>
> I'll risk ridicule here and go so far as to say they look excellent.
From time to time I look at them and think "oo - thast doenst look too
bad" - but compare the full 3d experience in GP3/4 to F12k2 - and frankly -
I think Geoff's been in laa laa land a bit too long
Doug
"Rick Osborn" wrote...
> yes.... fan - http://geocities.com/n_heusink/gp4sucks.jpg - tastic :P
>
> Rick
LOL... I wonder what 1200% occupancy looks like.
Jan.
=---
"Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:OPsP8.3304$[email hidden]...
> "Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > GP4's graphics look fantastic with current hardware. At 1280x1024 with
> > everything set on max with a GF4 Ti4600 nothing can touch it.
>
> Same res with everything on max on my GF3Ti200 says it doesn't lookawfully
> impressive. It's more than sufficient for the kind of game it is. There's
> not time to admire the scenery when doing 300kph. But a radicalimprovement
> over GP3? The graphical improvements aren't anywhere near justifying the
> development time. And there's little else different from GP3 to accountfor
> it either. I'm left wondering wtf they've been up to since GP3.
>
>
> --
> Frode
I've play all the simulators, and on my GF4 Ti4600, GP4 looks the best.
Monaco in particular is amazing. I've also got a system with a GF3 Ti500 in
it, and yes it does struggle running GP4 at high res with all effects.
I remember in '96 when GP2 came out, I couldn't run it at highest res with
all options, without the PO going through the roof. GP4 has similar demands
with today's hardware.
Maybe GP4 is one of the first sims to make the Ti4600 worthwhile.
Johnny.
>"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote
> As if graphics make that much of a difference in evaluating a racing sim?
> What do we want here, nice graphics, pretty flags and the rest, or adecent
> AI and a nice, realistic driving model? IMHO, I'll take the latter.
Oh wait, you mean the same way people say about GPL Alan? LMAO Pot, meet
kettle ;-)
Anyway, the problem is that GP4 doesn't have the rest of the stuff you
wrote...
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:XrwP8.1794$[email hidden]...
> >"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > As if graphics make that much of a difference in evaluating a racingsim?
Dude, what are you doing, stalking me? How many times must I explain this.
Because you and a few other fairly frequent posters here think that GPL is
the best that doesn't make it the best. That's the point I'm trying to
make. I never said GPL was not a good game; I never said that GPL was a
good game despite its outdated graphics; I never said GPL was a bad game
because of its outdated graphics.
So let me stress-- without mundane cliches-- GPL may be a good game but it
is not the greatest game because you and your elite say it is. Simple. To
the point. Easy to understand. Nothing more need be said.
And I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities.
Alanb
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > What do we want here, nice graphics, pretty flags and the rest, or a > decent > > AI and a nice, realistic driving model? IMHO, I'll take the latter. > > > Oh wait, you mean the same way people say about GPL Alan? LMAO Pot, meet > kettle ;-) > >Quoted text (13 lines)
> Anyway, the problem is that GP4 doesn't have the rest of the stuff you > wrote... > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:IIyP8.68410$nZ3.27969@rwcrnsc53...
this.
To
> the point. Easy to understand. Nothing more need be said.
>
> And I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities.
>
> Alanb
>
You are absolutely right about GPL not being the greatest game just because
they say so.
"The reason it is the greatest game is just because IT IS." * ;o)
Elrikk
* The above quote is from "Zen and the Art of Racing Sim Maintenance"
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:XrwP8.1794$[email hidden]... > > >"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > As if graphics make that much of a difference in evaluating a racing > sim? > > > What do we want here, nice graphics, pretty flags and the rest, or a > > decent > > > AI and a nice, realistic driving model? IMHO, I'll take the latter. > > > > > > Oh wait, you mean the same way people say about GPL Alan? LMAO Pot, meet > > kettle ;-) > > > > > Dude, what are you doing, stalking me? How many times must I explainQuoted text (8 lines)
> Because you and a few other fairly frequent posters here think that GPL is > the best that doesn't make it the best. That's the point I'm trying to > make. I never said GPL was not a good game; I never said that GPL was a > good game despite its outdated graphics; I never said GPL was a bad game > because of its outdated graphics. > > So let me stress-- without mundane cliches-- GPL may be a good game but it > is not the greatest game because you and your elite say it is. Simple.
"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:XrwP8.1794$[email hidden]...
> >"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote
> > As if graphics make that much of a difference in evaluating a racingsim?
GPL doesn't have a realistic driving model. Too slippery wippery.
DGF
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > What do we want here, nice graphics, pretty flags and the rest, or a > decent > > AI and a nice, realistic driving model? IMHO, I'll take the latter. > > > Oh wait, you mean the same way people say about GPL Alan? LMAO Pot, meet > kettle ;-) >Ian, I agree with you that F12001 and probably 2002 (haven't played
the full version yet) are more realistic but I dunno if we're looking
at the same screenshots here. I see a few things of interest:
1. A palette of colors that resembles what I see when I look outside,
instead of a video game.
2. That whole "ball of incandescent gas in the sky causing light to
reflect off of things" thing is pretty neato.
3. Whoa, locking brakes! (actually, I'm just saying that to be a
bastard =)
It's very unlikely I'll be buying GP4 (I'll be picking up F12k2
whenever my checks come, despite my reluctance to do so), but it's
certainly not on the quality of the screenshots. Now the quality of
the driving is another thing...
Jason
"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<ael3tm$d25$[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (16 lines)
> I agree, looks nowhere near as good as F1 2002. > I can't believe they still have that crappy black flag penalty system. > > -- > > Ian P > <email invalid due to spam> > > > "Mr. F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Really looks shitty and not as good as F12002 at all.." <G> > > > > http://www.drivingitalia.com/f1racer/gp4.htm > > > >it seems the people in here can only be 100% in favour of gp4 or 100%
against gp4...that really makes me wonder ;)
why don't you just pick your favourite game and go racing ?
stefan.
"Rick Osborn" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:aelm6f$atk$[email hidden]...
> yes.... fan - http://geocities.com/n_heusink/gp4sucks.jpg - tastic :P
>
> Rick
>
David G Fisher wrote:
> GPL doesn't have a realistic driving model. Too slippery wippery.
Don't be silly! There's loads of grip, you just have to be skilful in
your driving technique to exploit it. I find GPL really easy to drive,
and I'm only an average pace driver.
Maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with the way you drive?
Maybe.
Or maybe even the developers admitted that its' wrong. Just like in N4 (but
not N2002). Some of us could see this immediately after the game was
released, and some others argued that it was correct up until about a year
ago. Some others still.............
David G Fisher
"Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > GPL doesn't have a realistic driving model. Too slippery wippery. > > Don't be silly! There's loads of grip, you just have to be skilful in > your driving technique to exploit it. I find GPL really easy to drive, > and I'm only an average pace driver. > > Maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with the way you drive?
David G Fisher wrote:
Oh sorry, I forgot you only drive sims that are 100% accurate. Like EVO
4X4?
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > Maybe. > > Or maybe even the developers admitted that its' wrong. Just like in N4 (but > not N2002). Some of us could see this immediately after the game was > released, and some others argued that it was correct up until about a year > ago. Some others still............."Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote
> I've play all the simulators, and on my GF4 Ti4600, GP4 looks the best.
> Monaco in particular is amazing. I've also got a system with a GF3 Ti500in
> it, and yes it does struggle running GP4 at high res with all effects.
Difference in opinion then. I feel the trackside objects look so artificial
I'd be quite happy without them. They're not even close to being detailed.
On tree tracks the trees look like cardboard cutouts. Ie, flat textures
pasted onto a flat box. It's sufficient, like I said, but it sure doesn't
account for the performance hit as opposed to GP3 though. My GF3Ti200 can
run it just fine with everything at max on an empty track (in fact, CPU is
the limiter in my system, not the GPU), and I've been doing so just to peek
a view. Heck I didn't even notice a difference when I went back to my
regular (calibrated) graphical setup.
> I remember in '96 when GP2 came out, I couldn't run it at highest res with
> all options, without the PO going through the roof. GP4 has similardemands
> with today's hardware.
Didn't you just say with today's hardware it runs great with everything at
max? When GP2 came out you couldn't buy a machine able to run it at max. The
CPU needed didn't exist yet.
When GP3 was released it ran quite happily on medium/high-end computers with
everything at max.
GP4 will only run with everything at max on the best you can get in the
stores today. I don't see how the (supposedly) new graphical engine is so
improved it justifies that change in performance. It just doesn't look that
freakin' good compared to GP3.
--
Frode
"Stefan Roth" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> it seems the people in here can only be 100% in favour of gp4 or 100%
> against gp4...that really makes me wonder ;)
Not true. I think it's got the best feel of the F1 games I've played. I just
think its limited new graphics sucks compared to the performance hit it's
taken over GP3. I also think it's crap to claim a game is as close to
reality as you can get, yet penalties are still dealt via instant cutoff in
engine power for x seconds. GP4 to me = GP3 fixed for XP and with some new
buzzwords added to its graphical merit. Not worthy of the number "4" but
rather 3.5.
--
Frode
It LOOKS good atleast :)
"Mr. F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Really looks shitty and not as good as F12002 at all.." <G>
>
> http://www.drivingitalia.com/f1racer/gp4.htm
>
>
Sabbatical Melon wrote:
> Wassa matter? Poor baby doesn't like seeing his faourite sim
> criticized? Awww....poor Gerry-Werry. GPL is accurate if they are
> driving on iced up roads, but they ain't!
'Iced up roads'?! Tell you what, son, try MS Train Simulator, I'm told
there's a 3rd party train racing track! Should suit you... no turning
required! ;)
BTW, GPL's not my favourite sim. Now back to the bottom of the pond with
you. <SNIDE GRIN>
Yours sneeringly
GA
"Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:vWCP8.3601$[email hidden]...
> Difference in opinion then. I feel the trackside objects look soartificial
> I'd be quite happy without them. They're not even close to being detailed.
> On tree tracks the trees look like cardboard cutouts. Ie, flat textures
> pasted onto a flat box. It's sufficient, like I said, but it sure doesn't
> account for the performance hit as opposed to GP3 though. My GF3Ti200 can
> run it just fine with everything at max on an empty track (in fact, CPU is
> the limiter in my system, not the GPU), and I've been doing so just topeek
> a view. Heck I didn't even notice a difference when I went back to my
> regular (calibrated) graphical setup.
Yes, we'll have to disagree ! I have my two systems side-by-side, and if I
start a race on GP3 on one, and GP4 on the other, the improvements are
immediately apparent.
And the fact that the tracks are modelled from GPS data in GP4 is also
evident, not just for the general circuit layout, but also for varying
surface width and altitude/camber changes throughout the lap.
> > I remember in '96 when GP2 came out, I couldn't run it at highest reswith
> > all options, without the PO going through the roof. GP4 has similar
> demands
> > with today's hardware.
>
> Didn't you just say with today's hardware it runs great with everything at
> max? When GP2 came out you couldn't buy a machine able to run it at max.The
> CPU needed didn't exist yet.
Clearly I was referring to the sort of hardware in people's homes today.
(Much of which is far from current).
Also, the CPU doesn't exist yet to run GP4 at maximum either. There's an
enticing little "1600x1200" option there in the display settings :)
> When GP3 was released it ran quite happily on medium/high-end computerswith
> everything at max.
I had a high-end system back in summer 2000, (Athlon 1000 T'Bird/Voodoo5
5500) when GP3 was released, and I couldn't run at the max res of 1280x1024
with full fps and detail. I wasn't able to do this until I upgraded to an
Athlon 1400 T'Bird and GeForce3 (original version) almost 1 year later.
> GP4 will only run with everything at max on the best you can get in the
> stores today. I don't see how the (supposedly) new graphical engine is so
> improved it justifies that change in performance. It just doesn't lookthat
> freakin' good compared to GP3.
I disagree.
Johnny.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:46:01 -0400, Sebastion Melmoth
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Well, I don't have F12002 so can't really compare. But I do have
>F12001. Are the graphics in F12002 a lot better than F12001?
>One thing screen shots don't show is the level of shimmering and the
>F12001 graphics have some bad shimmering in parts (fences).
Shimmering.. you mean those flickering textures? Just like in F1 2001,
I still have those texture problems in F1 2002. Don't know if it's
something with my computer or if that's 'normal', but the textures
look quite ugly here while driving.
Andre
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:22:42 GMT, "Frode"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Not true. I think it's got the best feel of the F1 games I've played. I just
Uhm.. have you tried F1 2002?
Andre
"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote
> >Not true. I think it's got the best feel of the F1 games I've played. Ijust
> Uhm.. have you tried F1 2002?
I tested the WIP demo thingie briefly, yes. I'll give it another go in time,
but it just felt so weird I didn't wanna have another go at it at the time.
Could just be that I've gotten too used to how GPx feels over the years, so
it deserves a second chance. Not to mention it ran perfectly smooth with
everything set to max, something GP4 ain't close to. It sure doesn't look
any worse either.
--
Frode
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote
> Dude, what are you doing, stalking me?
You are the new DGF of this newsgroup. He's cool, now ;)
> How many times must I explain this.
As much as how much we must explain it to you about GPL.
> And I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities.
Absolutely not, au contraire.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> GPL doesn't have a realistic driving model.
Yeah, compared to NR2002. And perhaps, but personally I think not, ISI's
F12002. I'm walking on eggs with that last sentence.
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:51:36 -0400, Sebastion Melmoth
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>I'll risk ridicule here and go so far as to say they look excellent.
Too bad it doesn't look anything like that on my computer, runs like
crap, has an ancient CPU-utilization architecture, and an outdated
physics model. But other than that I love it!
And Douglas Ellison is the new David Gary (if you can remember that far
back )
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:17:27 GMT, Joe62
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Too bad it doesn't look anything like that on my computer, runs like
>crap, has an ancient CPU-utilization architecture, and an outdated
>physics model. But other than that I love it!
Yup, the intro movie is kind of nice :)
Andre
Joe62 wrote:
Dump your Voodoo2, get a decent CPU and get the retail version when
it's out.
--
l8er
ronny
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
Quoted text (11 lines)
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:51:36 -0400, Sebastion Melmoth > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>I'll risk ridicule here and go so far as to say they look excellent. >> > > Too bad it doesn't look anything like that on my computer, runs like > crap, has an ancient CPU-utilization architecture, and an outdated > physics model. But other than that I love it! >
Andre Warringa wrote:
Hehe, like this picture displayed while waiting for 'Revs' to load off
cassette, all those years ago?
Gerry
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:17:27 GMT, Joe62 > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Too bad it doesn't look anything like that on my computer, runs like > >crap, has an ancient CPU-utilization architecture, and an outdated > >physics model. But other than that I love it! > > Yup, the intro movie is kind of nice :)On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:23:24 +0200, Ronald Stoehr
<[email hidden]> wrote:
And then GP4 will have a decent physics model?
Andre
Quoted text (7 lines)
>> Too bad it doesn't look anything like that on my computer, runs like >> crap, has an ancient CPU-utilization architecture, and an outdated >> physics model. But other than that I love it! >> > >Dump your Voodoo2, get a decent CPU and get the retail version when >it's out."David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<ktCP8.295146$[email hidden]>...
> Or maybe even the developers admitted that its' wrong. Just like in N4 (but
> not N2002). Some of us could see this immediately after the game was
> released, and some others argued that it was correct up until about a year
> ago. Some others still.............
When N2002 came out I had to keep N4 installed for OSCAR. So I ended
up running them side-by-side a lot.
As far as concrete differences between the sims, after thousands of
laps in each I'll be damned if I can tell you what changed in the base
physics model, aside from the tire compound, more realistic effects of
camber on tire temp/wear, and a tweaked drafting model. I run the
same lines as N4, I have the same level of car control, I can catch a
sliding car with the same degree of ease in either sim... The sound
is better, the high-res textures are nice, the damage model is better
if not perfect, but...I mean, is there something obvious in the
handling that has profoundly changed? People have said that N2002 is
easier to control in some respects (I remember someone from Papy
saying this in an interview, too), but I don't see it at all. It
feels like the same old GPL-engined stockcar sim to me. Is it changes
in force feedback implementation maybe? That is one thing I can think
of that I wouldn't be able to really appreciate.
That's ok, Nascar Thunder 2003 will make all Papy sims obsolete
(before you get offended, my saying this will more than likely cause
the game to implode upon release...I'm just making this statement in
order to guarantee that it will be a horrible failure, if you follow).
Jason
Andre Warringa wrote:
Well, I like its physics a lot more than what ISI thinks is a decent
physics model, and I dislike their graphics and tracks.
I only did about 20 laps now, and I like it. Probably it's just me
being used to the arcade physics of GPx, so: ignorance is bliss... ;)
But new hardware (GF4) can make an amazing diff with sims. Most of my
favorite sims improved a lot just by having better performance, including
N4 and GPL.
--
l8er
ronny
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
