 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
POV 3.5 b 7 on PII 233 128 MB with NT 4 Sp 6
I had such syntax within isosurface:
max_gradient 10
evaluate 1, 10, 0.99
but renderer said after trace
Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775, but max_gradient of
the isosurface was set to 1988.679. Adjust max_gradient to
get a faster rendering of the isosurface.
IMO 1988.679 <> 10. Expected behaviour, misunderstand or bug ?
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think this is something which has been fixed for the next beta. You should
wait for it and see if the problem still exists.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
See http://news.povray.org/3be10cf9@news.povray.org
>**** Dynamic maximum gradient estimation *****
>max_gradient G_max
>"eval(uate) P0, P1, P2"
>where
> P0 is the minimum max_gradient value in the estimation process,
> P1 should be more than 1 (over-estimation parameter), and
> P2 should be less than 1 (attenuation parameter).
>
>The max_gradient, G_max, is re-calculated for each ray as following
> If (G_max< G*P1)
> then G_max = G*P1*P1
> else if (G_max>P0) then G_max = G_max*P2,
So, the max_gradient value in the scene file is the 'initial' value
and it is re-declared in the estimation (or rendering) process.
"Włodzimierz ABX Skiba" <abx### [at] babilon org> wrote
> Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775, but max_gradient of
> the isosurface was set to 1988.679. Adjust max_gradient to
> get a faster rendering of the isosurface.
I think only the sentense "Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775."
is enough for the evaluatation result.
R. Suzuki
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:29:39 +0900, "R. Suzuki" <r-s### [at] aistgojp> wrote:
> I think only the sentense "Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775."
> is enough for the evaluatation result.
I can't agree. When there are more then one isosurfaces simetimes initial value
is only way to recognize where founded value shuold be applied.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 06:37:43
Message: <3bf8ef07@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <5tfhvt4uj921171obes8j1hfl93eoi64ei@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> POV 3.5 b 7 on PII 233 128 MB with NT 4 Sp 6
>
> I had such syntax within isosurface:
>
> max_gradient 10
> evaluate 1, 10, 0.99
>
> but renderer said after trace
>
> Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775, but max_gradient of
> the isosurface was set to 1988.679. Adjust max_gradient to
> get a faster rendering of the isosurface.
>
> IMO 1988.679 <> 10. Expected behaviour, misunderstand or bug ?
See
From: "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom>
Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
Subject: Isosurfaces *much* slower in beta 7?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:07:31 +0100
Message-ID: <3bdf24b3$1@news.povray.org>
Xref: news.povray.org povray.beta-test:2475
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 06:41:54
Message: <3bf8f002@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bf8df16$1@news.povray.org> , "R. Suzuki" <r-s### [at] aistgojp>
wrote:
>> Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775, but max_gradient of
>> the isosurface was set to 1988.679. Adjust max_gradient to
>> get a faster rendering of the isosurface.
>
> I think only the sentense "Warning: The maximum gradient found was 184.775."
> is enough for the evaluatation result.
The problem is that many people don't read the documentation and then
complain about "holes and other bugs" with isosurfaces (see several messages
in these groups). I would also prefer a shorter message, but as long as
many people who use a free software cannot be asked to read the
documentation before reporting something as a bug this message is a
inconvenience that has to be forced upon all users :-(
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:37:42 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> > IMO 1988.679 <> 10. Expected behaviour, misunderstand or bug ?
>
> See
>
> From: "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom>
> Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
> Subject: Isosurfaces *much* slower in beta 7?
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:07:31 +0100
> Message-ID: <3bdf24b3$1@news.povray.org>
> Xref: news.povray.org povray.beta-test:2475
I don't like bothering but there is nothing about difference between typed value
and outputed value. in that thread :-(
Perhaps it was misunderstand but I reported here that I wrote 10 in script but
report message said I wrote 1988.679. I know meaning of the message. It is
annoing when you are trying find isosurface from many isosurfaces to apply
calculated value.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:41:53 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> The problem is that many people don't read the documentation and then
> complain about "holes and other bugs" with isosurfaces.
IMO you misunderstand this bug report. I wrote 10 but report said I wrote more
than 1900. I understand inner behaviour, I just pointed out is says false.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:01:41
Message: <3bf902b5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <8duhvto4s52070im27o3fkomaif4cms34e@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
>> The problem is that many people don't read the documentation and then
>> complain about "holes and other bugs" with isosurfaces.
>
> IMO you misunderstand this bug report. I wrote 10 but report said I wrote more
> than 1900. I understand inner behaviour, I just pointed out is says false.
I was not refering to you or the bug report at all. I was only pointing out
the need for the additional parts of the message that appear unnecessary for
those who did read the documentation.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:05:40
Message: <3bf903a4@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <k0uhvt4l9ppp8pgs655obeirbedjovd74n@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> I don't like bothering but there is nothing about difference between typed
> value and outputed value. in that thread :-(
> Perhaps it was misunderstand but I reported here that I wrote 10 in script but
> report message said I wrote 1988.679. I know meaning of the message. It is
> annoing when you are trying find isosurface from many isosurfaces to apply
> calculated value.
Here it is:
>From: "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
>Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
>Subject: Re: Isosurfaces *much* slower in beta 7?
>Date: Mit, 31. Okt 2001 10:27 Uhr
>Message-ID: <3bdfc402@news.povray.org>
>Xref: news.povray.org povray.beta-test:2503
>
>> That's really sad, i was just starting to use it intensively.
>
> That is part of beta testing. It is not really a serious problem, it is
> just very slow...
>
>> Apart from
>> being incredibly slow it also seems to produce wrong results.
>
> No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
> value is still correct.
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:05:38 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> > No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
> > value is still correct.
But I didn't wrote about 'found' value but about initial value!!!
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:16:27
Message: <3bf9062b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <sv0ivt0suh5ra8oni81ipqs75871j849ln@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
>> > No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
>> > value is still correct.
>
> But I didn't wrote about 'found' value but about initial value!!!
Yes, I say it "changes your max_gradient", so if it *changes* your
max_gradient, how can it report *your* max_gradient? - It cannot and thus it
will report the *changed* max_gradient!
Anyway, just take my word for it: This has long ago been fixed for the
_next_ beta.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:22:54
Message: <3bf907ae@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <sv0ivt0suh5ra8oni81ipqs75871j849ln@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
>> > No, it only changes your max_gradient. The reported found maximum gradient
>> > value is still correct.
>
> But I didn't wrote about 'found' value but about initial value!!!
BTW, why do you try to convince me that it is a bug when I have already
*acknowledged* that it is a bug? (Rhetoric question only, no answer
expected!) Somehow communication failed completely...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:16:26 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> Yes, I say it "changes your max_gradient", so if it *changes* your
> max_gradient, how can it report *your* max_gradient?
Can't it be remembered in local variable? It can report isosurface line within
source. Why it can't remember initial value? It shows line and then says 'value
was set to ...'
> Anyway, just take my word for it: This has long ago been fixed for the
> _next_ beta.
Ok. I don't like bothering so sorry for this long bothering :-)
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:22:52 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> BTW, why do you try to convince me that it is a bug when I have already
> *acknowledged* that it is a bug?
Becouse I thought all the time you're talking about different thing.
> (Rhetoric question only, no answer expected!)
Please don't read above answer ;-)
> Somehow communication failed completely...
The easiest explanation for me is my english
but I don't know if it is good enough :-(
Sorry again for bothering, really sorry.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:56:39
Message: <3bf90f97@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <8p1ivtseldt44no1iddgo697vlkuqqpnt2@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> Can't it be remembered in local variable?
Because it is a ***bug*that*it*changes*the*user*supplied*max_gradient***!!!
It was never supposed to change it the way it does and then output that as
the user supplied max_gradient!!!
> It can report isosurface line within
> source. Why it can't remember initial value? It shows line and then says
> 'value was set to ...'
It has nothing to do with the *algorithm*, but a ***bug*** in the
*implementation* of the algorithm. This obviously has to be fixed by
changing the *implementation* of the algorithm, not by *changing* the
*algorithm* itself!!! And as I said: It *has* been fixed this way already,
so any suggestion on how to change the *algorithm* to fix it is completely
unnecessary because the *algorithm* is correct, only its *implementation* is
*not* correct in beta 7!!!
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 08:59:05
Message: <3bf91029@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <s52ivt885j48ckodtdit0dtseqp7u8fekn@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> The easiest explanation for me is my english
> but I don't know if it is good enough :-(
Try reading more English and using it actively whenever you a chance. It
really helps!
> Sorry again for bothering, really sorry.
No problem.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Włodzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
: I don't like bothering but there is nothing about difference between typed value
: and outputed value. in that thread :-(
Really? Did you actually read the whole thread? More precisely, this
article of mine:
From war### [at] tagpovrayorg Mon Nov 19 16:05:26 2001
Message-ID: <3be0175a@news.povray.org>
From: Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
Subject: Re: Isosurfaces *much* slower in beta 7?
Newsgroups: povray.beta-test
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: * Warp: Do a sync (get change 1235) to try it.
Ok, I did it, and there clearly is a difference.
I tested with this small example:
#include "functions.inc"
camera { location -z*5 look_at 0 angle 35 }
light_source { <100,200,-300>, 1 }
isosurface
{ function { x^2+y^2+z^2-(1-.2*f_noise3d(x*8,y*8,z*8)) }
contained_by { sphere { 0,1 } }
max_gradient 2
evaluate 1,10,.99
pigment { rgb x } finish { specular .5 }
}
The older version (ie. beta7) rendered that in 1 min 30 seconds in this
computer. The report was a bit odd:
Warning: The maximum gradient found was 3.555, but max_gradient of
the isosurface was set to 310.201. Adjust max_gradient to
get a faster rendering of the isosurface.
The newer version renders the example above in 13 seconds, which is a clear
improvement.
Warning: The maximum gradient found was 3.477, but max_gradient of the
isosurface was set to 2.000. The isosurface may contain holes!
Adjust max_gradient to get a proper rendering of the isosurface.
The max_gradient value of 3.477 seems to be correct. When I set max_gradient
to that, the isosurface renders ok.
It seems that now 'evaluate' doesn't actually change the max_gradient, but
just calculates the correct one and reports it. The example above renders
equally whether or not the 'evaluate' is there.
This behaviour seems logical to me.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: wrong report about max_gradient
Date: 19 Nov 2001 09:08:54
Message: <3bf91276@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <lunhvt07a7gg1ffmln18bmq6pvug3ftn88@4ax.com> , W„odzimierz ABX
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> I can't agree. When there are more then one isosurfaces simetimes initial
value
> is only way to recognize where founded value shuold be applied.
You do realize that it outputs the line number of the isosurface, don't you?
So there is absolutely no need to use the max_gradient to identify different
isosurfaces...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:08:52 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> You do realize that it outputs the line number of the isosurface, don't you?
Yes, before I missed this.
> So there is absolutely no need to use the max_gradient to identify different
> isosurfaces...
Yes, I agree now. Congratulations of your patience :-)
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2001 09:07:45 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Really? Did you actually read the whole thread? More precisely, this
>article of mine:
Please, stop. I repeat it was my wrong perception of words. Should I repeat 100
times "I'm guilty"? Sorry again and again.
ABX
--
#declare _=function(a,b,x){((a^2)+(b^2))^.5-x}#default {pigment{color rgb 1}}
union{plane{y,-3}plane{-x,-3}finish{reflection 1 ambient 0}}isosurface{ //ABX
function{_(x-2,y,1)|_((x+y)*.7,z,.1)|_((x+y+2)*.7,z,.1)|_(x/2+y*.8+1.5,z,.1)}
contained_by{box{<0,-3,-.1>,<3,0,.1>}}translate z*15finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Włodzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
: Please, stop. I repeat it was my wrong perception of words. Should I repeat 100
: times "I'm guilty"? Sorry again and again.
Your punishment: Write 100 times "I will not do it again".
Just kidding ;)
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2001 09:17:59 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Włodzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
>: Please, stop. I repeat it was my wrong perception of words. Should I repeat 100
>: times "I'm guilty"? Sorry again and again.
>
> Your punishment: Write 100 times "I will not do it again".
Without using a #while loop!
:)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
