I've started in on a try at making a dust storm on Mars:
 http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-ehc.mpg
and it's 849KB, a 300 frame 320X240 res. @ 24 fps Mpeg.
The turbulent "dust" is media using method 2 in MegaPOV patch.  There is ground
fog used for the thickened haze nearer ground level which also grows thicker and
closer as the storm front approaches.
It's in dire need of better timing (the dust is very fast for it's size) and I
believe it only looks good right now if not scrutinized much.  The escaping
hovercraft has a dust trail which uses a clear container object of course for
it's media and the usual trouble with fog occurs, that being it no longer
remains transparent. So that's a problem to deal with.  To have it moving along
in the wind direction the cone container is just rotated some over the course of
time.
I'll be adding a height field or isosurface (more likely) so the ground isn't a
flat plane anymore too.  And with that comes possible use of trace() to keep the
hover craft from hitting the ground, I hope.
Please use your imagination, you'll need it.

Bob
--
// omniVERSE
// http://users.aol.com/inversez/

Post a reply to this message

This is very good! Just as I imagined it would be on Mars. Most of the
techniques you use I don't know, but who knows..?

--
Regards,
Sander


omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
388044c5@news.povray.org...
> I've started in on a try at making a dust storm on Mars:
>  http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-ehc.mpg
> and it's 849KB, a 300 frame 320X240 res. @ 24 fps Mpeg.
> The turbulent "dust" is media using method 2 in MegaPOV patch.  There is
ground
> fog used for the thickened haze nearer ground level which also grows
thicker and
> closer as the storm front approaches.
> It's in dire need of better timing (the dust is very fast for it's size)
and I
> believe it only looks good right now if not scrutinized much.  The
escaping
> hovercraft has a dust trail which uses a clear container object of course
for
> it's media and the usual trouble with fog occurs, that being it no longer
> remains transparent. So that's a problem to deal with.  To have it moving
along
> in the wind direction the cone container is just rotated some over the
course of
> time.
> I'll be adding a height field or isosurface (more likely) so the ground
isn't a
> flat plane anymore too.  And with that comes possible use of trace() to
keep the
> hover craft from hitting the ground, I hope.
> Please use your imagination, you'll need it.
>
> Bob
> --
> // omniVERSE
> // http://users.aol.com/inversez/
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

That looks good.
-- 
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for taking a look at it.  I have changed the flat plane to a somewhat
flat heightfield now and added weakened wind sound (not uploaded yet), giving up
on trying a isosurface since it never looked good for this, made a nice etched
or erosion cracked surface though which might be good someplace else.
Far as "technique" goes, not much about it really.  Well I don't think of it
that way anyhow.  The dust clouds are simply a couple cylinders with pieces
differenced out with spheres and the media in them is a blend of 4 patterns
which is then rotated with the clock, as well as phased too.  And of course the
whole thing is moved nearer over the duration.  The sky is yet another media
translated and phased on its own.

Bob

"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message news:388048db@news.povray.org...
> This is very good! Just as I imagined it would be on Mars. Most of the
> techniques you use I don't know, but who knows..?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sander
>
>
> omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 388044c5@news.povray.org...
> > I've started in on a try at making a dust storm on Mars:
> >  http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-ehc.mpg
> > and it's 849KB, a 300 frame 320X240 res. @ 24 fps Mpeg.
> > The turbulent "dust" is media using method 2 in MegaPOV patch.  There is
> ground
> > fog used for the thickened haze nearer ground level which also grows
> thicker and
> > closer as the storm front approaches.
> > It's in dire need of better timing (the dust is very fast for it's size)
> and I
> > believe it only looks good right now if not scrutinized much.  The
> escaping
> > hovercraft has a dust trail which uses a clear container object of course
> for
> > it's media and the usual trouble with fog occurs, that being it no longer
> > remains transparent. So that's a problem to deal with.  To have it moving
> along
> > in the wind direction the cone container is just rotated some over the
> course of
> > time.
> > I'll be adding a height field or isosurface (more likely) so the ground
> isn't a
> > flat plane anymore too.  And with that comes possible use of trace() to
> keep the
> > hover craft from hitting the ground, I hope.
> > Please use your imagination, you'll need it.
> >
> > Bob
> > --
> > // omniVERSE
> > // http://users.aol.com/inversez/
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE wrote:
> 

This is a very impressive clip!

Viewing tip: view it full screen.
It makes the mpeg-artefacts a bit more obvious but also increases the
effect of the animation.

This is (among) the best short POV-animation(s) I have seen sofar.

> I've started in on a try at making a dust storm on Mars:
>  http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-ehc.mpg
> and it's 849KB, a 300 frame 320X240 res. @ 24 fps Mpeg.
> The turbulent "dust" is media using method 2 in MegaPOV patch.  There
> is ground
> fog used for the thickened haze nearer ground level which also grows
> thicker and
> closer as the storm front approaches.
> It's in dire need of better timing (the dust is very fast for it's
> size) and I
> believe it only looks good right now if not scrutinized much.  The
> escaping
> hovercraft has a dust trail which uses a clear container object of
> course for
> it's media and the usual trouble with fog occurs, that being it no
> longer
> remains transparent. So that's a problem to deal with.  To have it
> moving along
> in the wind direction the cone container is just rotated some over the
> course of
> time.

I don't really see the problems you bring up here. The hovercraft isn't
really escaping or running in front of the storm but it obviously runs
away from it diagonally, I imagine with a certain other destination.
The dust storm doesn't seem to go to fast. I have never seen one in real
life, and will probably never see one on Mars (is there such a thing?)
but I thought this looked very convincing.
That is my  reaction to the other things you mentioned here as well:
probably if you study this up close you'll see a couple of things that
may be unrealistic, but on the whole this looks more then acceptable. In
these type of scenes I think realism isn't really an issue, it's more
about effect (FX). The fact that you have the duststorm move in
diagonally, the hovercraft escaping from it also diagonally (in both
ways) gives this a disturbing dynamic feel, which is what this is about.

> I'll be adding a height field or isosurface (more likely) so the
> ground isn't a
> flat plane anymore too.  And with that comes possible use of trace()
> to keep the
> hover craft from hitting the ground, I hope.
> Please use your imagination, you'll need it.

Nope. I have a feeling that the things you want to add here may look
cool in stills but in such a short scene they might be redundant. On the
other hand: YOU are the artist so you decide :)
> 
> Bob
> --
> // omniVERSE
> // http://users.aol.com/inversez/

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Gee, thanks, except now I'm regretting not keeping the original pov script I
used to make it.  I went on to try and get a more realistic sky for Mars
(anybody's guess there) and turbulent dust without such a fast motion clear and
semi-opaque media pattern in the same file and saved over the old file.  I can
only hope it gets better and not worse then.  At least I now have a height_field
now (isosurface didn't work out) and the hovercraft dust trail isn't causing
trouble with the ground fog because the fog is no longer used.
I sure wish I had saved the previous file under another name.  I might be
getting this other one uploaded in a day or two if all goes well.

Bob

"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote in message
news:388223C1.D94C73BE@xs4all.nl...
> omniVERSE wrote:
> >
>
> This is a very impressive clip!
>
> Viewing tip: view it full screen.
> It makes the mpeg-artefacts a bit more obvious but also increases the
> effect of the animation.
>
> This is (among) the best short POV-animation(s) I have seen sofar.
>
> > I've started in on a try at making a dust storm on Mars:
> >  http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-ehc.mpg
> > and it's 849KB, a 300 frame 320X240 res. @ 24 fps Mpeg.
> > The turbulent "dust" is media using method 2 in MegaPOV patch.  There
> > is ground
> > fog used for the thickened haze nearer ground level which also grows
> > thicker and
> > closer as the storm front approaches.
> > It's in dire need of better timing (the dust is very fast for it's
> > size) and I
> > believe it only looks good right now if not scrutinized much.  The
> > escaping
> > hovercraft has a dust trail which uses a clear container object of
> > course for
> > it's media and the usual trouble with fog occurs, that being it no
> > longer
> > remains transparent. So that's a problem to deal with.  To have it
> > moving along
> > in the wind direction the cone container is just rotated some over the
> > course of
> > time.
>
> I don't really see the problems you bring up here. The hovercraft isn't
> really escaping or running in front of the storm but it obviously runs
> away from it diagonally, I imagine with a certain other destination.
> The dust storm doesn't seem to go to fast. I have never seen one in real
> life, and will probably never see one on Mars (is there such a thing?)
> but I thought this looked very convincing.
> That is my  reaction to the other things you mentioned here as well:
> probably if you study this up close you'll see a couple of things that
> may be unrealistic, but on the whole this looks more then acceptable. In
> these type of scenes I think realism isn't really an issue, it's more
> about effect (FX). The fact that you have the duststorm move in
> diagonally, the hovercraft escaping from it also diagonally (in both
> ways) gives this a disturbing dynamic feel, which is what this is about.
>
> > I'll be adding a height field or isosurface (more likely) so the
> > ground isn't a
> > flat plane anymore too.  And with that comes possible use of trace()
> > to keep the
> > hover craft from hitting the ground, I hope.
> > Please use your imagination, you'll need it.
>
> Nope. I have a feeling that the things you want to add here may look
> cool in stills but in such a short scene they might be redundant. On the
> other hand: YOU are the artist so you decide :)
> >
> > Bob
> > --
> > // omniVERSE
> > // http://users.aol.com/inversez/
>
> Remco

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE wrote:

> Gee, thanks, except now I'm regretting not keeping the original pov script I
> used to make it.  I went on to try and get a more realistic sky for Mars
> (anybody's guess there) and turbulent dust without such a fast motion clear and
> semi-opaque media pattern in the same file and saved over the old file.  I can
> only hope it gets better and not worse then.  At least I now have a height_field
> now (isosurface didn't work out) and the hovercraft dust trail isn't causing
> trouble with the ground fog because the fog is no longer used.
> I sure wish I had saved the previous file under another name.  I might be
> getting this other one uploaded in a day or two if all goes well.
>
> Bob

Time for my 'software engineer' to pop out.

Use source control. It's very very very good. Especially for POV-Ray stuff.

You can get CVS or RCS for free. I use RCS. It's a little more low-level, but it's
fine for a single developer. Also, if you are in Windows and check something in,
then reboot to Linux and check stuff out, RCS & CVS will handle the line-end
conversions for you.

Also, you can then see what you changed from any saved version to the other, you'll
be able to get back old versions that might be interesting, and you can backup work
more easily.

They also handle binary files, so you can keep all your source image maps, etc.
under source control also.


Plus you happen to know someone who can help you get up and running for free. (me
:-)

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message

I just happened to think... I didn't explain the story behind this.  The
"escaping" hovercraft is going the diagonal direction for a reason actually.
The home base is where it's headed and that means flirting with disaster to get
there before being overwhelmed by the dust clouds.  The robot-controlled vehicle
was a long ways off when this storm popped up almost between the two positions.
No people, so nothing to fret too much about.
I started on this in part because of a mini-movie being conceived of over at
AOL's POV-Ray Chat room and in part because I always wanted to do this
particular thing yet was never motivated to try.  Other POVers are endlessly
good to have around.
Yes, dust storms on Mars are common during seasonal changes.  There's one on
record which essentially covered the entire planet but started out as a small
stirred up area.  In fact I probably have this dust storm too small in height
believe it or not.  I went through a volcanic ash storm (guess you'd call it)
one time while motorcycling along I-5 freeway west of Mt. St. Helens in
Washington, USA one of the few times I had gone there to see the mountain.  It
was only wind-blown ash, no eruption at the time but was impressive enough
itself.  My little 100cc Yamaha motorcycle didn't last much longer after that,
lost compression from the eroded piston cylinder and rings.
I've seen video of a dust storm in Melbourne Australia, think it was, nice view
showing it roll into the city.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

At first I thought you had posted to the wrong place.
I figured out what you meant and looked around on the 'net.  Ended up at a GNU
RCS web page and bookmarked it.  If it's what I think it is might be useful
alright.  I never "program" anything, only used to do some Basic language, but
if I get what this RCS can do then it might be worthwhile to have around instead
of trying to save a current file with a new name (I have many of those and often
lose track of which is the best or latest).  Really not sure, I'm filling my PC
up so much all the time as it is the computer is slowing up on me, no harm in
checking it out though.

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/trinkle/RCS/index.html  is the one I came across.

Thanks for that offer of help too.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

One word:

WWWAAAAAAAOOOOOOOWWWWWW !!!!!!!!!!!

Bouf.

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE wrote:

> At first I thought you had posted to the wrong place.
> I figured out what you meant and looked around on the 'net.  Ended up at a GNU
> RCS web page and bookmarked it.  If it's what I think it is might be useful
> alright.  I never "program" anything, only used to do some Basic language, but
> if I get what this RCS can do then it might be worthwhile to have around instead
> of trying to save a current file with a new name (I have many of those and often
> lose track of which is the best or latest).  Really not sure, I'm filling my PC
> up so much all the time as it is the computer is slowing up on me, no harm in
> checking it out though.
>
> http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/trinkle/RCS/index.html  is the one I came across.
>
> Thanks for that offer of help too.
>
> Bob

Here is one location you can get CVS and RCS from:

http://www.cyclic.com/pub/

Here is where RCS is on their servers:

http://www.cyclic.com/pub/rcs/

That includes Windows NT versions. (This also works for Windows 9X, since it's
really just a Win32 version)


Quickstart:
* make a C:\bin directory
* add it to your PATH
* go there
* extract rcs57nt.zip
* extract diff27nt.zip
* read some docs   :-)
* go to where you are working on stuff
* create a 'RCS' directory (all caps, if you can)

* ci -l *.pov

Now each one should ask you to enter a description.
the "-l" option makes it check back out a locked version after the check-in is
done. A locked version is one that you can edit.

And whenever you finish editing a .pov file and are at a stage that you might want
to keep around, or just before you start doing strange experiments in it...

ci -l myfile.pov

voila! you have source control.

the command
rcsdiff myfile.pov
will show you what has changed since your last check-in.

the command
rcslog myfile.pov
will show you a history on that file.


--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message

Too late, I had already downloaded the RCS from the Cyclic site and just didn't
mention I did.  Reason I went looking elsewhere was because they said no
document came with the zip files but that didn't stop me from doing the two
D/L's.
Thanks to your little tutorial here I might be able to use those zips after all.
I just didn't go looking for the reading material for them.  Interesting concept
it is, now I'll end up wondering how this could be a good feature in POV-Ray
itself.

Bob

"Jon A. Cruz" <jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote in message
news:388### [at] geocitiescom...
> Here is one location you can get CVS and RCS from:
>
> http://www.cyclic.com/pub/
>
> Here is where RCS is on their servers:
>
> http://www.cyclic.com/pub/rcs/
>
> That includes Windows NT versions. (This also works for Windows 9X, since it's
> really just a Win32 version)
>
>
> Quickstart:
> * make a C:\bin directory
> * add it to your PATH
> * go there
> * extract rcs57nt.zip
> * extract diff27nt.zip
> * read some docs   :-)
> * go to where you are working on stuff
> * create a 'RCS' directory (all caps, if you can)
>
> * ci -l *.pov
>
> Now each one should ask you to enter a description.
> the "-l" option makes it check back out a locked version after the check-in is
> done. A locked version is one that you can edit.
>
> And whenever you finish editing a .pov file and are at a stage that you might
want
> to keep around, or just before you start doing strange experiments in it...
>
> ci -l myfile.pov
>
> voila! you have source control.
>
> the command
> rcsdiff myfile.pov
> will show you what has changed since your last check-in.
>
> the command
> rcslog myfile.pov
> will show you a history on that file.
>
>
> --
> "My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
> But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Jon A. Cruz" wrote:

> Quickstart:
> * make a C:\bin directory
> * add it to your PATH
> * go there
> * extract rcs57nt.zip
> * extract diff27nt.zip
> * read some docs   :-)
> * go to where you are working on stuff
> * create a 'RCS' directory (all caps, if you can)
> 
> * ci -l *.pov
> 
> Now each one should ask you to enter a description.
> the "-l" option makes it check back out a locked version after the check-in is
> done. A locked version is one that you can edit.
> 
> And whenever you finish editing a .pov file and are at a stage that you might want
> to keep around, or just before you start doing strange experiments in it...
> 
> ci -l myfile.pov
> 
> voila! you have source control.
> 
> the command
> rcsdiff myfile.pov
> will show you what has changed since your last check-in.
> 
> the command
> rcslog myfile.pov
> will show you a history on that file.

That sounds like an aweful lot of work when you can just hit the "save as"
button once in a while to save your work. Source control in a pov file is
almost pointless unless you have an image to go with it to compare the
visual output differences between the two files. <g>


-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:38838122.8ACABBF5@pacbell.net...
>
> "Jon A. Cruz" wrote:
>
> > And whenever you finish editing a .pov file and are at a stage that you
might want
> > to keep around, or just before you start doing strange experiments in it...
> >
> > ci -l myfile.pov
> >
> > the command
> > rcsdiff myfile.pov
> > will show you what has changed since your last check-in.
> >
> > the command
> > rcslog myfile.pov
> > will show you a history on that file.
>
> That sounds like an aweful lot of work when you can just hit the "save as"
> button once in a while to save your work. Source control in a pov file is
> almost pointless unless you have an image to go with it to compare the
> visual output differences between the two files. <g>
>

That was my point though, I have done the File/Save as... routine many times
before and get lot's of similar files that have to be deciphered at a later date
to tell which is which.  Not easy to do, esp. when the rendered image alone
isn't altogether simple to compare.  I may have deleted the good ones and kept
the bad ones trying to go by the most recent date.
Besides, there isn't a "Save as" button, would be a very good idea though.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Here it is again with a different perspective, the camera pans more and the dust
clouds have changed (for the worse? better?).  Well, it's like I've been walking
backward as I try to improve this scene anyway.
The height field helps it I think.  I know I'm going to need blobs or something
like that to use as container objects for the media, the CSG'd cylinders/spheres
are failing me here.
Btw, the clouds are a considerable distance away from the camera, just doesn't
look that way.  The sun is behind them and to the right when the panning stops,
to give an idea about how the shadow is there.  In POV units the hovercraft is
about 0.5 units across and the dust starts about 1000 units away then ends at
about 200 units away from the camera.  So in reality (blurb) still very far off.
If the hovercraft object were 15 meters across that makes the cloud-front 6
kilometers away or approx. 4 miles, if I've figured this right.  Ooooo, it's
vast...!
Without further ado, trial #3 (no one ever saw #2) and then back to work on it.

 http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-hc2.mpg

440KB, 150 frames, 320X240 res. @ 24 fps Mpeg.

Happy viewing!
Bob

Post a reply to this message

> trial #3 (no one ever saw #2)

Mistaken... Very few people, one or two people probably, saw #1.  #2 was the
animation you probably have seen, if at all, and it's still there at:
 http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-ehc.mpg

Bob

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE schrieb:
> 
> > trial #3 (no one ever saw #2)
> 
> Mistaken... Very few people, one or two people probably, saw #1.  #2 was the
> animation you probably have seen, if at all, and it's still there at:
>  http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-ehc.mpg
> 
> Bob

Yo Bob!

I just saw both versions of this incredible animation. There are two
things that I think are better in the first one.
First: the scene darkens slowly. This is very good seen on the ground
plane.
Second: also concerning the ground is the fact that shadows are forecast
which makes it more believable (I don't know if the shadows come from
the clouds (sky) or the storm)

The storm itself is better in the second version.

Waiting to see #3 ;-]

Karl

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE wrote:
> 
> Here it is again with a different perspective, the camera pans more
> and the dust
> clouds have changed (for the worse? better?).  Well, it's like I've
> been walking
> backward as I try to improve this scene anyway.
> The height field helps it I think.  I know I'm going to need blobs or
> something
> like that to use as container objects for the media, the CSG'd
> cylinders/spheres
> are failing me here.
> Btw, the clouds are a considerable distance away from the camera, just
> doesn't
> look that way.  The sun is behind them and to the right when the
> panning stops,
> to give an idea about how the shadow is there.  In POV units the
> hovercraft is
> about 0.5 units across and the dust starts about 1000 units away then
> ends at
> about 200 units away from the camera.  So in reality (blurb) still
> very far off.
> If the hovercraft object were 15 meters across that makes the
> cloud-front 6
> kilometers away or approx. 4 miles, if I've figured this right.
> Ooooo, it's
> vast...!
> Without further ado, trial #3 (no one ever saw #2) and then back to
> work on it.
> 
>  http://members.aol.com/persistenceofv/m_ds-hc2.mpg
> 
> 440KB, 150 frames, 320X240 res. @ 24 fps Mpeg.
> 
> Happy viewing!
> Bob

The dust in the storm is much better but in this version it seems the
containers are more visible which is a pity.
There's a quirk in the camera movement that is very distracting.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

"Karl Pelzer" <Kar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3884C113.B56699A7@t-online.de...
> First: the scene darkens slowly. This is very good seen on the ground
> plane.
> Second: also concerning the ground is the fact that shadows are forecast
> which makes it more believable (I don't know if the shadows come from
> the clouds (sky) or the storm)

Dust cloud shadow, and it could use breaking up some I think.  It became
apparent that it was going to mess up the whole thing when I wanted to have the
dust roll in slower, it had to be closer for a longer time then.  That meant the
faked realism of it tends to lose credibility, or at least that's how I see it.
I had neglected to do anything about the dust trail of the hovercraft after
getting the height field in, it needs to follow the terrain better but I haven't
found a way to have puffs of dust showing only on the hilltops as it moves yet.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote in message
news:388### [at] xs4allnl...
> The dust in the storm is much better but in this version it seems the
> containers are more visible which is a pity.
> There's a quirk in the camera movement that is very distracting.
>

You don't like the camera panning either huh? :-)  I'm going to smooth it out
more yet leave it generally the same.  It's using the clockmod.inc deceleration
right now with a late start and early finish so it kind of jumps quickly into
motion at the beginning.
I've looked at using blobs for the dust containers now and it isn't pretty, even
more container edges than before.  The attempt at improving the dust patterns
started showing the cylinder/sphere object a lot in  m_ds-hc2.mpg.  Not good...
Btw, I hope everyone who takes a look at these get the whole animation, when I
tested that the upload was okay the first time it chopped away the final part so
the hovercraft never passed by.  On another click of the URL link it all came
through.  It takes time anyway to view as you D/L of course but it had actually
quit too soon before.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE wrote:

> I've seen video of a dust storm in Melbourne Australia, think it was, nice view
> showing it roll into the city.
>
> Bob

Late reply.
Your interpretation of the Martian dust storm was very close to the actual events
here in Melbourne back in 1984 or 86, I think.  You may get a chance to see it
again, conditions in the south eastern part of Australia, are similar to the
conditions that caused the dust storm all those years ago. 8-)

--
  ,-._|\  Alex McMurray
 /  Oz  \ ale### [at] melbpcorgau               Melbourne PC User Group.
 \_,--.x/ P.O. Box 215 Melton. Vic.  3337                     Australia
       v

Post a reply to this message