http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8

Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days in 
real time.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days in
> real time.

yes.

while we're at it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h5mRRElXy-w#!

that's sweet real raytracing on nvidia's kepler.

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM

some kind of Final Duty Fantasy that Square-Enix swears is a real-time demo
geared at nextgen platforms.  If that is the future of games, I suspect
Hollywood better embrace the tech.  Why shoot yet another movie that can only be
watched from same old boring angles?

I also question what's the point of povray or Blender these days in the face of
these kind of things.  Particularly in the case of raytracing (or pathtracing
for that matter) I think it's clear that scanline-based techniques won the
industry, be it Renderman (a scanline at its heart) or games (now with possibly
some raytracing for reflections at least).

The end?  No, the beginning of some exciting times ahead!  Now games have fully
convincing human skin, HDR global illumination, DOF and motion blur, plus run at
magnificent 1080+p at 60FPS.  The time of real-time CGs is upon us.

Post a reply to this message

holy crap, the Square demo really is real-time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q9xhFpuIMX4

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
> >
> > Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days in
> > real time.
>
> yes.
>
> while we're at it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h5mRRElXy-w#!
>
> that's sweet real raytracing on nvidia's kepler.
>
> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM
>
> some kind of Final Duty Fantasy that Square-Enix swears is a real-time demo
> geared at nextgen platforms.  If that is the future of games, I suspect
> Hollywood better embrace the tech.  Why shoot yet another movie that can only be
> watched from same old boring angles?
>
> I also question what's the point of povray or Blender these days in the face of
> these kind of things.  Particularly in the case of raytracing (or pathtracing
> for that matter) I think it's clear that scanline-based techniques won the
> industry, be it Renderman (a scanline at its heart) or games (now with possibly
> some raytracing for reflections at least).
>
> The end?  No, the beginning of some exciting times ahead!  Now games have fully
> convincing human skin, HDR global illumination, DOF and motion blur, plus run at
> magnificent 1080+p at 60FPS.  The time of real-time CGs is upon us.

Post a reply to this message

> while we're at it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h5mRRElXy-w#!
>
> that's sweet real raytracing on nvidia's kepler.

Doesn't look... completely right. Is that water deformation really 
volume-preserving? Because it doesn't appear to be. (That's the general 
problem with voxel-based methods, as opposed to particle-based. I don't 
know which this is.)

> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM
>
> some kind of Final Duty Fantasy that Square-Enix swears is a real-time demo
> geared at nextgen platforms.

That would explain the occasional glitches in frame-rate, the obvious CG 
look of the images, and a few other imperfections.

> If that is the future of games, I suspect Hollywood better embrace the tech.

I think they already did, about 20 years ago? :-P

> I also question what's the point of povray or Blender these days in the face of
> these kind of things.  Particularly in the case of raytracing (or pathtracing
> for that matter) I think it's clear that scanline-based techniques won the
> industry, be it Renderman (a scanline at its heart) or games (now with possibly
> some raytracing for reflections at least).
>
> The end?  No, the beginning of some exciting times ahead!  Now games have fully
> convincing human skin, HDR global illumination, DOF and motion blur, plus run at
> magnificent 1080+p at 60FPS.  The time of real-time CGs is upon us.

The time was when all a GPU could do is draw flat texture-mapped 
polygons really, really fast, with simple phong lighting. And, usually, 
pretty low polygon counts and poor texture resolution.

Seriously, look at this stuff:

http://www.unseen64.net/wp-content/gallery/half-life/barney1zu2.jpg

That's HalfLife, the game that won awards and accolades around the table 
for its ground-breaking graphics technology.

/Obviously/ an off-line renderer like POV-Ray can do far better. Even a 
scanline renderer like 3D Studio Max can do better. But what POV-Ray can 
do is render /curved surfaces/. Not to mention physically correct 
reflection and refraction (not texture mapping tricks), and full global 
illumination. (The stuff that's usually pre-computed in games like 
HalfLife. Press a button, watch a door open, and oh look, the light map 
no longer matches the geometry...)

In the POV-Ray forum, a perennial question was "why doesn't POV-Ray use 
the GPU to do this stuff faster?" To which the answer was always 
"POV-Ray does stuff that the GPU is simply incapable of doing". Games 
like HalfLife used all sorts of convoluted tricks to fake something that 
looked vaguely realistic, while POV-Ray actually /directly/ simulates 
the actual physical effects, achieving photo-realism without tricks or 
workarounds.

Fast-forward 15 years or so, and things have changed. GPGPU is here. And 
now, we find that the GPU can actually do all the effects that POV-Ray 
does AND MORE, and it can do it in real-time or near real-time.

In the old days, it was scanline for speed, ray-tracing for realism. 
Today "unbiased rendering" seems to be the new ray-tracing. And to get 
that kind of quality in POV-Ray, you seen to have to work really hard 
for it. You need complicated photon maps, clever material design, and 
ultimately endless tweaking of radiosity settings.

Or you could just fire up an unbiased renderer running on the GPU, which 
directly simulates /everything/, without effort and faster than POV-Ray.

Le roi est mort, vive le roi!

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 04:47 AM, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> in real time.

I wonder if we'll ever see this in games in my own lifetime.

I have no idea how many GPUs it took to do that. I'm guessing it was 
expensive though...

Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that?? 
It looks really slick...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 04:47 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
> >
> > Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> > in real time.

> I wonder if we'll ever see this in games in my own lifetime.

> I have no idea how many GPUs it took to do that. I'm guessing it was 
> expensive though...

> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that?? 
> It looks really slick...

  I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
on your own, just so that you could ask here?

  Fine, I'll do the googling for you, as you seem to be incapable:

http://www.unrealengine.com/features/editor/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that??
>> It looks really slick...
>
>    I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
> you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
> on your own, just so that you could ask here?

You can't Google an image. I figured somebody here would probably 
recognise it on sight.

> http://www.unrealengine.com/features/editor/

Oh, right. So he's demonstrating the Unreal engine using the Unreal 
engine. I guess I should have seen that one coming...

So much for game development tools always being lame, eh?

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 1:41 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> You can't Google an image.

It is not your day ;-)

https://www.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&authuser=0

click on the camera in the search bar


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 04:22 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 1:41 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> You can't Google an image.
>
> It is not your day ;-)
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&authuser=0
>
> click on the camera in the search bar

I rephrase: It's generally not /useful/ to Google an image.

See attached. Not one single image of Unreal Editor.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'google1.jpg' (102 KB)

Preview of image 'google1.jpg'

On 6/9/2012 7:41 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that??
>>> It looks really slick...
>>
>> I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
>> you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
>> on your own, just so that you could ask here?
>
> You can't Google an image. I figured somebody here would probably
> recognise it on sight.
>
>> http://www.unrealengine.com/features/editor/
>
> Oh, right. So he's demonstrating the Unreal engine using the Unreal
> engine. I guess I should have seen that one coming...
>
> So much for game development tools always being lame, eh?

I think it's a case of the developers not only having to use the tools 
themselves, but also having the time to work on the tools.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

These things are geared at next generation game consoles due in about 1-2 years.

You know E3 was running these days, right?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM

> > If that is the future of games, I suspect Hollywood better embrace the tech.
>
> I think they already did, about 20 years ago? :-P

I still watch movies, even computer generated ones from same old boring angles
as last time I watched.

There was a supposed feature of bluray that allow one to watch a few scenes from
other selected camera angles.  Too little, too late.


> Fast-forward 15 years or so, and things have changed. GPGPU is here. And
> now, we find that the GPU can actually do all the effects that POV-Ray
> does AND MORE, and it can do it in real-time or near real-time.
>
> In the old days, it was scanline for speed, ray-tracing for realism.
> Today "unbiased rendering" seems to be the new ray-tracing. And to get
> that kind of quality in POV-Ray, you seen to have to work really hard
> for it. You need complicated photon maps, clever material design, and
> ultimately endless tweaking of radiosity settings.
>
> Or you could just fire up an unbiased renderer running on the GPU, which
> directly simulates /everything/, without effort and faster than POV-Ray.
>
> Le roi est mort, vive le roi!

I couldn't put it better.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 4:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> I rephrase: It's generally not /useful/ to Google an image.

I agree.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:47:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> in real time.

The whole thing is just jaw-droppingly incredible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Le roi est mort, vive le roi!
>
> I couldn't put it better.

That's because I'm awesome. 8-D

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 07:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> The whole thing is just jaw-droppingly incredible.

No.

The thing that's jaw-droppingly incredible is that in 10 years' time, 
all of this stuff will look laughably fake compared to the technology 
cheaply available for purchase. (!)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that??
> >> It looks really slick...
> >
> >    I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
> > you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
> > on your own, just so that you could ask here?

> You can't Google an image. I figured somebody here would probably 
> recognise it on sight.

It's Unreal Engine, and there's an editor. The search keywords should be
rather obvious.

"Love with you heart, use your head for everything else."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:37:36 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 09/06/2012 07:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> The whole thing is just jaw-droppingly incredible.
> 
> No.

I found it to be so.  You can't disagree with my subjective opinion of 
something.  (Or rather, you can hold a contrary opinion, but that doesn't 
make my opinion invalid for me on something that's subjective).

> The thing that's jaw-droppingly incredible is that in 10 years' time,
> all of this stuff will look laughably fake compared to the technology
> cheaply available for purchase. (!)

You may find it so, but I don't.  Having watched computer technology 
since the 70's, what would surprise me is if in 10 years this /isn't/ 
possible on inexpensive hardware.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9-6-2012 5:47, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> in real time.
>

It looks great. The downside of having so much detail and so much 
flexibility is that for a reasonable world someone has to provide that 
detail.
On the one hand: think of what Thomas de Groot could do with this for 
his Gancaloon. On the other hand, he'll need to put in a lot of detail 
in every place that might be visited, not just the ones he makes a 
closeup for. That will mean many years of work. There will be no way to 
justify that expense. Unless someone is going to shoot a holywood 
blockbuster in his town.



-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/9/2012 11:35 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 9-6-2012 5:47, Darren New wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>>
>> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
>> in real time.
>>
>
> It looks great. The downside of having so much detail and so much
> flexibility is that for a reasonable world someone has to provide that
> detail.
> On the one hand: think of what Thomas de Groot could do with this for
> his Gancaloon. On the other hand, he'll need to put in a lot of detail
> in every place that might be visited, not just the ones he makes a
> closeup for. That will mean many years of work. There will be no way to
> justify that expense. Unless someone is going to shoot a holywood
> blockbuster in his town.
>
>
>
The next step in 3D is going to have to be auto-blending of stock 
elements, so that you limit the level of detail the designer needs to 
do, to make the game. Sort of Grebling, on steroids. lol

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 9-6-2012 5:47, Darren New wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
> >
> > Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> > in real time.
> >
>
> It looks great. The downside of having so much detail and so much
> flexibility is that for a reasonable world someone has to provide that
> detail.
> On the one hand: think of what Thomas de Groot could do with this for
> his Gancaloon. On the other hand, he'll need to put in a lot of detail
> in every place that might be visited, not just the ones he makes a
> closeup for. That will mean many years of work. There will be no way to
> justify that expense. Unless someone is going to shoot a holywood
> blockbuster in his town.

I see you have not been playing games lately.  The amount of detail these days
that goes into what amounts to be essentially background scenery is staggering
in games like Assassin's Creed.  Though I agree procedural grebling with stock
models should be a must.

And to me personally hollywood was surpassed back in 1998 with Metal Gear Solid
and Half-Life.  It's a far older media than Roger Ebert himself...

Post a reply to this message

On 11-6-2012 17:13, nemesis wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 9-6-2012 5:47, Darren New wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>>>
>>> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
>>> in real time.
>>>
>>
>> It looks great. The downside of having so much detail and so much
>> flexibility is that for a reasonable world someone has to provide that
>> detail.
>> On the one hand: think of what Thomas de Groot could do with this for
>> his Gancaloon. On the other hand, he'll need to put in a lot of detail
>> in every place that might be visited, not just the ones he makes a
>> closeup for. That will mean many years of work. There will be no way to
>> justify that expense. Unless someone is going to shoot a holywood
>> blockbuster in his town.
>
> I see you have not been playing games lately.  The amount of detail these days
> that goes into what amounts to be essentially background scenery is staggering
> in games like Assassin's Creed.  Though I agree procedural grebling with stock
> models should be a must.

I don't play, but I have seen enough to know they do. So that was not 
the point. The point was that you need a large team and a large amount 
of money just to build a game using such an engine. (And that is without 
a story or gameplay yet.)
If such an engine is stable enough for a significant time you might get 
communities to develop something together. Giving the current evolution 
speed I am not sure if this engine will be useable by any other than a 
few major player in the games industry. But I'll ask my games students 
what they think about it when I see them after the summer holidays.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/8/2012 10:47 PM, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> in real time.

There is much more processing power under the hood of that machine than 
I have when I'm rendering, and there are clearly a number of tricks in 
play to replace long, expensive visual computations with down-and-dirty 
calculations that deliver acceptable results.  I doubt, for instance, 
that the glow and shadow effects in the smoke involved more than a few 
dozen particles at most.  The shadow cast by the smoke isn't something 
we can see with much clarity, so it just needs to move in a way that 
agrees with the motion of the smoke.  And so on.

The amount of pre-calculation going on here is probably much larger than 
the fellow in the video has let on; it is the ability to do *that* 
quickly that has made it possible for the editor to display the WYSIWYG 
results.

Those who remember editing .WAD files for DOOM may remember the step 
during saves where the BSP tree had to be calculated.  This took some 
time for larger maps.  Now that desktop machines run three hundred times 
faster, these intermediate calculations aren't as noticeable.

It looks like making a good story and good game play are going to be the 
remaining challenges going forward.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 6/12/2012 5:13, John VanSickle wrote:
> It looks like making a good story and good game play are going to be the
> remaining challenges going forward.

They've always been the challenge. Heck, the original Deus Ex was more fun 
and had more twists to the plot than the new one, even tho it looked like 
crap by today's standards. And I haven't found a sneaky game that's anywhere 
as good as Thief.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:35:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 6/12/2012 5:13, John VanSickle wrote:
>> It looks like making a good story and good game play are going to be
>> the remaining challenges going forward.
> 
> They've always been the challenge. Heck, the original Deus Ex was more
> fun and had more twists to the plot than the new one, even tho it looked
> like crap by today's standards. And I haven't found a sneaky game that's
> anywhere as good as Thief.

I was wondering how the new Deus Ex was - saw it's out on the PS3, and 
now that I've played through MW3, I'm looking for something else once we 
have some spare cash again.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6/16/2012 14:51, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I was wondering how the new Deus Ex was - saw it's out on the PS3, and
> now that I've played through MW3, I'm looking for something else once we
> have some spare cash again.

It's fun. Very replayable. I went the whole game the first time thinking 
that augments were very limited because I didn't know some of your energy 
slowly grows back, so I used mostly weapons.

It has the same problem as 90% of the sneaky games out there, in that the 
difficulty level doesn't really go up. It's way, way easier to be sneaky 
than to fight through it.

Plus, of course, as usual in such games nowadays, there are (like) three 
ways to accomplish a goal, but each is really obvious. You can fight in thru 
the front door, or sneak around the back, or climb up on the roof and avoid 
the bad guys altogether. That sort of thing.  In Thief, for example, I never 
got the feeling "well, there must be a way to go in thru here, because it's 
a game." I.e., the level design seemed rather game-ish, unlike (say) the 
original Deus Ex. So far I've found an air vent with no purpose but to 
connect Meeting Room 2 with the men's room, a corridor full of stored boxes 
and paperwork with no doors at all (you have to break through the wall to 
get into it), and all the guards manage to patrol *right* to the edge where 
if they took another step, they could actually look around the corner and 
see you hiding there in wait.

Some of it is pretty funny. The music the in-game radios play is the music 
from the original Deus Ex, for example, and the names of bosses in Deus Ex 
show up as grunt-level workers in emails in this one, and you meet as kids 
some of the people JC Denton interacts with as adults, since it's set a 
couple decades earlier. Some of the dialog is amusing as well, especially 
between the cyber-security guy and the physical security guy.

There's attempts to make your decisions have consequences, but most people 
you interact with that come back to haunt you make relatively little 
difference. There is one or two characters where for most of the game you're 
going "Is this guy part of the conspiracy? Or is he just a really bad voice 
actor?"

I'm slowly working my way through it on pacificst mode, meaning you don't 
kill anyone and indeed try not to get seen at all. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTOxcWR1y6E (Maybe a teeny spoiler in there, 
in the sense that you see where one of the boss fights takes place, but you 
know that well in advance story-wise.)

Maybe some time I'll go thru and see how many people I can kill on the way 
too. :-)

I good, solid, enjoyable game with lots of different ways to play it. But 
maybe my standards are too high, because it seems pretty average, with 
average level design, average visuals, average gameplay, etc. Bioshock was 
much prettier, Batman was much cooler, etc.

Having been through it and seen what all the weapons are, the upgrades, how 
the augs get used, it's somewhat easier the second time. I can say "No, I 
don't need to horde that ammo, as I will never use that gun anyway." Stuff 
like that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

That said, the weapons are pretty normal. The powerful stuff has little ammo 
and takes up a lot of space in your inventory, and vice versa. The aug 
upgrade system is interesting and well done, and even has some in-game 
justification as to why XP gives you more abilities. There's no melee weapon 
except your instant-takedown augmented punch (or stab), which takes time or 
resources to recharge, so yah, basically, no melee weapon. Hacking is very 
nicely done (note that hacking a red node gives you all the rewards at once, 
which was poorly explained in the tutorials). Third-person sneak mode is 
well done too. Lots of the conversations you overhear are rather grin-worthy.

If you're willing to spend the time, you can up your resources tremendously. 
For example, you can go thru the entire level, mug everyone (police, gang 
members, etc), sell all the weapons to the arms dealers, and come out of the 
first open-world level with like 20x as much cash as if you just play 
through it like a normal person, simply by running back and forth dozens of 
times across the city with your arms full. But given the only thing to spend 
cash on is a little bit of XP and a little bit of other weapons and ammo, 
you wind up with way, way more cash than you can spend.

It has the typical "everyone calms down 30 seconds after seeing you murder 
someone" trope, and the "don't mind me, I'm just cracking your wall safe 
while you're sitting there watching TV" trope. Also, the "why does a 
newspaper reporter keep a frag grenade in her desk drawer" trope and a "why 
does the commando SWAT team member carry a revolver with two shells in the 
cylinder and one more bullet in his pocket" trope.

Definitely read all the emails at Sarif HQ and piece together what's going 
on there. It's quite amusing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:12:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 6/16/2012 14:51, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I was wondering how the new Deus Ex was - saw it's out on the PS3, and
>> now that I've played through MW3, I'm looking for something else once
>> we have some spare cash again.
> 
> It's fun. Very replayable. I went the whole game the first time thinking
> that augments were very limited because I didn't know some of your
> energy slowly grows back, so I used mostly weapons.

Cool, replay value is a positive thing.

> It has the same problem as 90% of the sneaky games out there, in that
> the difficulty level doesn't really go up. It's way, way easier to be
> sneaky than to fight through it.

Interesting.  I think I'd enjoy that, I find in MW2 and MW3 I prefer the 
stealth missions.

> I good, solid, enjoyable game with lots of different ways to play it.
> But maybe my standards are too high, because it seems pretty average,
> with average level design, average visuals, average gameplay, etc.
> Bioshock was much prettier, Batman was much cooler, etc.
> 
> Having been through it and seen what all the weapons are, the upgrades,
> how the augs get used, it's somewhat easier the second time. I can say
> "No, I don't need to horde that ammo, as I will never use that gun
> anyway." Stuff like that.

Fantastic, thanks for the review, definitely on my list.

Jim

Post a reply to this message