Hi there,

Now that POV 3.5 is up and running, I've decided to re-do an old animation
called "Dave Attacks" which I originally entered in the October 2000 IRTC
"Alien Invasion" contest. It received such critical acclaim as "I think you
could have done a little more with it. Where's the animation?"

I've improved the shape of the UFO's (now they look pretty close to the
"Mars Attacks" model - the bottom used to be flat instead of rounded), found
a better image map of the Earth, added cyclical cloud movement, and better
metal textures. Also, there was a bug in POV that caused some of the media
around the UFO's to be grainy, which appears to be fixed now.

I think it's going to take about four months to complete the animation.
(Anybody want to render a few frames for me? Anybody???)

Regards,
Dave Blandston

Here's a preview of the new animation - any comments?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Mars.jpg' (38 KB)

Preview of image 'Mars.jpg'

Dave Blandston wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> Now that POV 3.5 is up and running, I've decided to re-do an old animation
> called "Dave Attacks" which I originally entered in the October 2000 IRTC
> "Alien Invasion" contest. It received such critical acclaim as "I think you
> could have done a little more with it. Where's the animation?"
> 
> I've improved the shape of the UFO's (now they look pretty close to the
> "Mars Attacks" model - the bottom used to be flat instead of rounded), found
> a better image map of the Earth, added cyclical cloud movement, and better
> metal textures. Also, there was a bug in POV that caused some of the media
> around the UFO's to be grainy, which appears to be fixed now.
> 
> I think it's going to take about four months to complete the animation.
> (Anybody want to render a few frames for me? Anybody???)
> 
> Regards,
> Dave Blandston
> 
> Here's a preview of the new animation - any comments?
> 
>  [Image]


Looks cool. And yes, I could do some rendering if you like.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Cool! There are a few image maps so I won't waste space on the server by
posting the source, but I'll send you a download link and an .ini file.
Thanks Remco!

Regards,
-David

"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote in message
news:3D9E59D8.825C1667@onwijs.com...
> Looks cool. And yes, I could do some rendering if you like.
>
> Remco

Post a reply to this message

Dave Blandston wrote:
>Cool! There are a few image maps so I won't waste space on the server by
>posting the source, but I'll send you a download link and an .ini file.
>Thanks Remco!
>
>Regards,
>-David
>
>"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote in message
>news:3D9E59D8.825C1667[at]onwijs.com...
>> Looks cool. And yes, I could do some rendering if you like.
>>
>> Remco
>

it seems like the begin of a new international project from the raytracing
community. can i help too?

Bruno Gimeno

ps. "the raytracing is out there"

Post a reply to this message

I'll send the source code to you. Thanks!
--
-Dave Blandston

"Bruno Gimeno" <gam### [at] mixmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.3d9e9c7018d71381e1b6456c0@news.povray.org...
> it seems like the begin of a new international project from the raytracing
> community. can i help too?
>
> Bruno Gimeno
>
> ps. "the raytracing is out there"

Post a reply to this message

I could do some rendering as well. Don't forget to
distribute the frames and ini-files etc, so that we
all render different frames...

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

But of course... The source and image maps are zipped up here:
http://home.mindspring.com/~grasshoppah/mars/mars.zip (about 8 MB). I'll
send you an .ini file to run that will render the right frames. If you
render all 10 frames and you want to render some more, just let me know and
I'll send you a new .ini file so nobody duplicates the same frames. But
please don't feel obligated to render all 10 frames because they take a few
hours each!

Thanks so much for helping out. I sure hope the animation turns out to be
worth everybody's time! ;>)

Regards,
Dave Blandston

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3d9ed09d@news.povray.org...
> I could do some rendering as well. Don't forget to
> distribute the frames and ini-files etc, so that we
> all render different frames...
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Hm. I've just watched the Toy Story DVD, so 2 hours
of rendering time set to lowest priority resulted in
half an image.

And then I've noticed that you haven't set a gamma in
the ini-file, and no assumed_gamma in the global-settings.

I sure hope that this doesn't mean the frames won't
fit together in the end... But in case, you should
inform yourself what to do if you need to gamma-
correct them (this means that my ten images might
not fit with your images or those of the other volunteers).

Regards,

Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
"Dave Blandston" <gra### [at] earthlinknet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d9f2916@news.povray.org...
> But of course... The source and image maps are zipped up here:
> http://home.mindspring.com/~grasshoppah/mars/mars.zip (about 8 MB). I'll
> send you an .ini file to run that will render the right frames. If you
> render all 10 frames and you want to render some more, just let me know
and
> I'll send you a new .ini file so nobody duplicates the same frames. But
> please don't feel obligated to render all 10 frames because they take a
few
> hours each!
>
> Thanks so much for helping out. I sure hope the animation turns out to be
> worth everybody's time! ;>)
>
> Regards,
> Dave Blandston
>
> "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:3d9ed09d@news.povray.org...
> > I could do some rendering as well. Don't forget to
> > distribute the frames and ini-files etc, so that we
> > all render different frames...
> >
> > --
> > Tim Nikias
> > Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> > Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> And then I've noticed that you haven't set a gamma in
> the ini-file, and no assumed_gamma in the global-settings.
Good point, Tim. If I understand correctly (and I'm not sure I do...), not
setting the gamma results in no gamma correction, which means the images may
not look right on everyone else's monitors, but the final animation will be
consistent. Whereas, if the scene or ini file did contain gamma settings,
the files produced on other computers would not be the same as if my
computer had rendered them, and although the individual frames would like
right on that person's computer, the final animation would not look right.
Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding how gamma correction works?

> I sure hope that this doesn't mean the frames won't
> fit together in the end...
Me too!

> Hm. I've just watched the Toy Story DVD, so 2 hours
> of rendering time set to lowest priority resulted in
> half an image.
You have a pretty speedy computer!

Regards,
-David

Post a reply to this message

AFAIK, POV assumes a display_gamma of 2.2,
which I have set (cause it is the correct value for my
screen), and when using assumed_gamma, correction
is applied.

Reading the docs I came to the conclusion that
not specifying an assumed_gamma, all images should
be the same, as no correction is applied, no matter
the display_gamma I set...

Well, as soon as the first frame is done, I'll send it over,
and you can check.

And regarding the speedy computer:
1.4 GHZ Athlon, Win98, 512 MB RAM

What's yours?

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> > And then I've noticed that you haven't set a gamma in
> > the ini-file, and no assumed_gamma in the global-settings.
> Good point, Tim. If I understand correctly (and I'm not sure I do...), not
> setting the gamma results in no gamma correction, which means the images
may
> not look right on everyone else's monitors, but the final animation will
be
> consistent. Whereas, if the scene or ini file did contain gamma settings,
> the files produced on other computers would not be the same as if my
> computer had rendered them, and although the individual frames would like
> right on that person's computer, the final animation would not look right.
> Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding how gamma correction works?
>
> > I sure hope that this doesn't mean the frames won't
> > fit together in the end...
> Me too!
>
> > Hm. I've just watched the Toy Story DVD, so 2 hours
> > of rendering time set to lowest priority resulted in
> > half an image.
> You have a pretty speedy computer!
>
> Regards,
> -David
>
>

Post a reply to this message

And, another thing: I was just looking through
the source-code...

The media-glow are objects which shouldn't leave a
shadow, right? Why didn't you use no_shadow to avoid
some extra calculation?
Also, the sphere's radius is 8, though the spherical
media inside is just <4.5,2.1,4.5>, so you could've used
only 4.5 (or perhaps 4.6 to be on the safe side), to make
boundary objects smaller and also leave some intense
media-calculations out...
Also, the media uses default sampling/intervals/method,
setting those could've perhaps made the calculations quicker,
but I'm not too sure about that...

If you don't mind, I'll try to use a smaller sphere and render
the next frame that way, if it works, I'll keep it, and otherwise
I'll use your settings again. But using a sphere with media where
the density doesn't fill the entire sphere doesn't make much sense
to me... But perhaps shadowing could interfere with this...

I'll see. 30 lines left for the first image.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

And, another thing: I was just looking through
the source-code...

The media-glow are objects which shouldn't leave a
shadow, right? Why didn't you use no_shadow to avoid
some extra calculation?
Also, the sphere's radius is 8, though the spherical
media inside is just <4.5,2.1,4.5>, so you could've used
only 4.5 (or perhaps 4.6 to be on the safe side), to make
boundary objects smaller and also leave some intense
media-calculations out...
Also, the media uses default sampling/intervals/method,
setting those could've perhaps made the calculations quicker,
but I'm not too sure about that...

If you don't mind, I'll try to use a smaller sphere and render
the next frame that way, if it works, I'll keep it, and otherwise
I'll use your settings again. But using a sphere with media where
the density doesn't fill the entire sphere doesn't make much sense
to me... But perhaps shadowing could interfere with this...

Hm. Looking at the first image, I also notice artifacts showing
up. These line up with the size of the containers for the media...

I'll see. 5 lines left for the first image.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Oops - I don't remember, but I'm guessing that when I first added the
glowing media, my first estimate for the sphere radius was 8, and when I
adjusted the size of the media I forgot to adjust the container size as
well. You're right, I don't see any other reason for such a large container.
And the no_shadow keyword would also be an improvement that I didn't think
of.

What kind of artifacts do you see? I see some occasional dark lines in the
green media, is that what you're referring to? I think those are shadows
too. I tried to get rid of them using light_groups, but that didn't help.
But they are minor.

--
-David

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3d9f825a$1@news.povray.org...
> And, another thing: I was just looking through
> the source-code...
>
> The media-glow are objects which shouldn't leave a
> shadow, right? Why didn't you use no_shadow to avoid
> some extra calculation?
> Also, the sphere's radius is 8, though the spherical
> media inside is just <4.5,2.1,4.5>, so you could've used
> only 4.5 (or perhaps 4.6 to be on the safe side), to make
> boundary objects smaller and also leave some intense
> media-calculations out...
> Also, the media uses default sampling/intervals/method,
> setting those could've perhaps made the calculations quicker,
> but I'm not too sure about that...
>
> If you don't mind, I'll try to use a smaller sphere and render
> the next frame that way, if it works, I'll keep it, and otherwise
> I'll use your settings again. But using a sphere with media where
> the density doesn't fill the entire sphere doesn't make much sense
> to me... But perhaps shadowing could interfere with this...
>
> Hm. Looking at the first image, I also notice artifacts showing
> up. These line up with the size of the containers for the media...
>
> I'll see. 5 lines left for the first image.
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Well, as soon as the first frame is done, I'll send it over,
> and you can check.
Sounds good - That should solve the mystery.

> And regarding the speedy computer:
> 1.4 GHZ Athlon, Win98, 512 MB RAM
>
> What's yours?
A 700 MHz Athlon (it was considered fast when it was new...), only 128 MB
RAM. But when I started using POV v1.0, I had a 20 MHz 386 with no math
co-processor, so I guess I shouldn't complain...

--
-David

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3d9f7dc5@news.povray.org...
> AFAIK, POV assumes a display_gamma of 2.2,
> which I have set (cause it is the correct value for my
> screen), and when using assumed_gamma, correction
> is applied.
>
> Reading the docs I came to the conclusion that
> not specifying an assumed_gamma, all images should
> be the same, as no correction is applied, no matter
> the display_gamma I set...
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, I was referring to the dark lines. I hope
you receive the second image, then you can compare
that the resized container results in a somewhat
brighter media (mentioned in email as well).

Those artifacts aren't shadows, its due to sampling
and intervals which are taken between surfaces,
even if they are "invisible", and result in slighty different
approximations.

As mentioned in email, perhaps using the modified, faster
code would be better, although this might mean that
the entire batch needs to rendered with those settings,
otherwise the media will suddenly flare up with my
images...

I'm using no_shadow now and a squashed
sphere (using 0,1 scale <4.6,2.2,4.6> instead
of 0,4.6) as container, and it runs even faster,
line 272 after 13 minutes...

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> Oops - I don't remember, but I'm guessing that when I first added the
> glowing media, my first estimate for the sphere radius was 8, and when I
> adjusted the size of the media I forgot to adjust the container size as
> well. You're right, I don't see any other reason for such a large
container.
> And the no_shadow keyword would also be an improvement that I didn't think
> of.
>
> What kind of artifacts do you see? I see some occasional dark lines in the
> green media, is that what you're referring to? I think those are shadows
> too. I tried to get rid of them using light_groups, but that didn't help.
> But they are minor.
>

Post a reply to this message

I've got a P4 1.7gig 1 gig ram and a TBirb 1.2 gig 768 meg if you would like
some help.
   Buke
Remco de Korte <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote in message
news:3D9E59D8.825C1667@onwijs.com...
> Dave Blandston wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Now that POV 3.5 is up and running, I've decided to re-do an old
animation
> > called "Dave Attacks" which I originally entered in the October 2000
IRTC
> > "Alien Invasion" contest. It received such critical acclaim as "I think
you
> > could have done a little more with it. Where's the animation?"
> >
> > I've improved the shape of the UFO's (now they look pretty close to the
> > "Mars Attacks" model - the bottom used to be flat instead of rounded),
found
> > a better image map of the Earth, added cyclical cloud movement, and
better
> > metal textures. Also, there was a bug in POV that caused some of the
media
> > around the UFO's to be grainy, which appears to be fixed now.
> >
> > I think it's going to take about four months to complete the animation.
> > (Anybody want to render a few frames for me? Anybody???)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave Blandston
> >
> > Here's a preview of the new animation - any comments?
> >
> >  [Image]
>
>
> Looks cool. And yes, I could do some rendering if you like.
>
> Remco

Post a reply to this message

Hey there Buke9! LTNS.

I'd like to get in on this too, Dave. I could leave my old 233MHz PC going
on it 24/7 without interference, would that be feasible? It sounds like a
slow-go on even the faster machines. I use my 800MHz notebook so much it'd
bog me down I fear.
--
Farewell,
Bob

Post a reply to this message

Hi there Buke,

I tried to send you a file but the e-mail couldn't be delivered. :( But
thanks very much!

Regards,
-Dave Blandston

"buke9" <buk### [at] igloucom> wrote in message news:3d9fb0d1@news.povray.org...
> I've got a P4 1.7gig 1 gig ram and a TBirb 1.2 gig 768 meg if you would
like
> some help.
>    Buke

Post a reply to this message

Sorry forgot to change my settings in OE buk### [at] alltelnet will get here.
"Dave Blandston" <gra### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:3d9f8a9c$1@news.povray.org...
> > Well, as soon as the first frame is done, I'll send it over,
> > and you can check.
> Sounds good - That should solve the mystery.
>
> > And regarding the speedy computer:
> > 1.4 GHZ Athlon, Win98, 512 MB RAM
> >
> > What's yours?
> A 700 MHz Athlon (it was considered fast when it was new...), only 128 MB
> RAM. But when I started using POV v1.0, I had a 20 MHz 386 with no math
> co-processor, so I guess I shouldn't complain...
>
> --
> -David
>
> "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:3d9f7dc5@news.povray.org...
> > AFAIK, POV assumes a display_gamma of 2.2,
> > which I have set (cause it is the correct value for my
> > screen), and when using assumed_gamma, correction
> > is applied.
> >
> > Reading the docs I came to the conclusion that
> > not specifying an assumed_gamma, all images should
> > be the same, as no correction is applied, no matter
> > the display_gamma I set...
> >
> > --
> > Tim Nikias
> > Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> > Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Damn. I was already gone when POV wanted
to start the 60-frame batch, but it gave an error
message (somehow it mixed up some files, the
original copy in my own documents folder and the
one I fiddle with when tracing, and thus it couldn't
combine ini and file properly), so all the time spent
on working was lost, though my PC was running.

Damn damn damn.

Ah well. I'll still finish them, of course.

Another thing: How should I send the files? Can you
give me someplace to upload them? Each image is
1.9 MB and I can only send one per email (GMX-limits)
and I'm not sure if your email-client would like 70x1.9 MB
emails...

Though I do have a webpage, its not my own, and the
guy hosting me has clearly pointed out that this kind of
action (uploading 140 MB and them you downloading
them) wasn't what he had in mind when hosting me. I'm
already using much of his space with my animations...

Thats totally okay with me, its his site, not mine, and I'm
greatful to have a site at all without banners etc.

So, if you mail me the access to your place, I can upload
everything there, or I can mail you the images one by one,
just tell me. I'm not sure if this might interest the other
render-farmers as well, which is why I posted here.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

No problem, Tim. I've made more mistakes than anyone lately!

E-mail is probably the best method, my website has a cheesy 5 MB limit, and
so not everyone could upload at once. But if you need to, I'll send you the
password and stuff. The zipped files should be around 400 -420 kb, anyway.
By the way, the .png files that POV creates on my machine are much smaller
than the ones you're producing - I wonder why? Each frame my computer
generates is about 400 kb. Isn't that strange?
--
-David

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3da0b16c$1@news.povray.org...
> Damn. I was already gone when POV wanted
> to start the 60-frame batch, but it gave an error
> message (somehow it mixed up some files, the
> original copy in my own documents folder and the
> one I fiddle with when tracing, and thus it couldn't
> combine ini and file properly), so all the time spent
> on working was lost, though my PC was running.
>
> Damn damn damn.
>
> Ah well. I'll still finish them, of course.
>
> Another thing: How should I send the files? Can you
> give me someplace to upload them? Each image is
> 1.9 MB and I can only send one per email (GMX-limits)
> and I'm not sure if your email-client would like 70x1.9 MB
> emails...
>
> Though I do have a webpage, its not my own, and the
> guy hosting me has clearly pointed out that this kind of
> action (uploading 140 MB and them you downloading
> them) wasn't what he had in mind when hosting me. I'm
> already using much of his space with my animations...
>
> Thats totally okay with me, its his site, not mine, and I'm
> greatful to have a site at all without banners etc.
>
> So, if you mail me the access to your place, I can upload
> everything there, or I can mail you the images one by one,
> just tell me. I'm not sure if this might interest the other
> render-farmers as well, which is why I posted here.
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Hm. When loading the image with Paint Shop Pro
and saving it again, the image becomes 400kb as well.

And even a BMP shouldn't be that...

Wait a minute.

I think I got it. I've set the bit-depth for color-coding
higher in my povray.ini in order to get the maximum
available for my BMPs (which is my old-time favorite
image-type, easily to be used as background for windows
and widely known), perhaps the PNG save too much extra
data...

Hm. I'll experiment with that with a second instance running,
that might be the cause...

Anyways, I'll ZIP some images and send them to you after
a batch-processing of load-save... (20 frames left)

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
"Dave Blandston" <gra### [at] earthlinknet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3da1d783@news.povray.org...
> No problem, Tim. I've made more mistakes than anyone lately!
>
> E-mail is probably the best method, my website has a cheesy 5 MB limit,
and
> so not everyone could upload at once. But if you need to, I'll send you
the
> password and stuff. The zipped files should be around 400 -420 kb, anyway.
> By the way, the .png files that POV creates on my machine are much smaller
> than the ones you're producing - I wonder why? Each frame my computer
> generates is about 400 kb. Isn't that strange?
> --
> -David
>
> "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:3da0b16c$1@news.povray.org...
> > Damn. I was already gone when POV wanted
> > to start the 60-frame batch, but it gave an error
> > message (somehow it mixed up some files, the
> > original copy in my own documents folder and the
> > one I fiddle with when tracing, and thus it couldn't
> > combine ini and file properly), so all the time spent
> > on working was lost, though my PC was running.
> >
> > Damn damn damn.
> >
> > Ah well. I'll still finish them, of course.
> >
> > Another thing: How should I send the files? Can you
> > give me someplace to upload them? Each image is
> > 1.9 MB and I can only send one per email (GMX-limits)
> > and I'm not sure if your email-client would like 70x1.9 MB
> > emails...
> >
> > Though I do have a webpage, its not my own, and the
> > guy hosting me has clearly pointed out that this kind of
> > action (uploading 140 MB and them you downloading
> > them) wasn't what he had in mind when hosting me. I'm
> > already using much of his space with my animations...
> >
> > Thats totally okay with me, its his site, not mine, and I'm
> > greatful to have a site at all without banners etc.
> >
> > So, if you mail me the access to your place, I can upload
> > everything there, or I can mail you the images one by one,
> > just tell me. I'm not sure if this might interest the other
> > render-farmers as well, which is why I posted here.
> >
> > --
> > Tim Nikias
> > Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> > Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>

Post a reply to this message

What's going on, any email I send you gets returned
with a Daemon Failure Notice, that the email-client gave
up...
You lost your email or what?

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3da1f6e8$1@news.povray.org...

Post a reply to this message

> You lost your email or what?

David, don't know if you got my email, if not, please tell me... the frames
you asked me to render are finished and I'm waiting for a new batch :)
Daan

Post a reply to this message

Thanks to my ISP Earthlink, I have a 10 MB e-mail limit (I just learned
that).  Images 100 - 128 arrived ok. I'll have to download my e-mail a
couple times a day to avoid that limit. As soon as I download all my e-mail,
it frees up my allotment on the server. Thanks, Earthlink!
--
-David

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3da20465$1@news.povray.org...
> What's going on, any email I send you gets returned
> with a Daemon Failure Notice, that the email-client gave
> up...
> You lost your email or what?
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3da1f6e8$1@news.povray.org...
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Okay, I've finished the 100 - 160 batch
and the 221 - 230 batch. I'll send some of
them via email and wait until you give me notice
the send the remaining parts.

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message