Hello, I have HP nx6125 notebook with 1400x1050 display and RADEON XPRESS 200M Series Generic card... I also have suse 10.1 and latest ati 8.27.10 driver... Output from flxinfo is in attachment... 3D support is on, but glxgears has terribly slow results.... It is known bug or something else? hlavki@hlavki:~> glxgears 1303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.491 FPS 1333 frames in 5.0 seconds = 266.582 FPS 1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.789 FPS 1307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 261.328 FPS hlavki@hlavki:~> fglrxinfo display: :0.0 screen: 0 OpenGL vendor string: ATI Technologies Inc. OpenGL renderer string: RADEON XPRESS 200M Series Generic OpenGL version string: 2.0.5946 (8.27.10) Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer 687 frames in 5.0 seconds = 137.400 FPS 789 frames in 5.0 seconds = 157.800 FPS 818 frames in 5.0 seconds = 163.600 FPS 787 frames in 5.0 seconds = 157.400 FPS thanks, m.
hlavki@hlavki:~> glxgears 1303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.491 FPS 1333 frames in 5.0 seconds = 266.582 FPS 1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.789 FPS 1307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 261.328 FPS
glxgears is not an indication of GPU power. Jan Engelhardt --
On Friday 04 August 2006 09:20, Michal Hlavac wrote:
hlavki@hlavki:~> glxgears 1303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.491 FPS 1333 frames in 5.0 seconds = 266.582 FPS 1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.789 FPS 1307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 261.328 FPS
I have Radeon X600 and the same FPS in glxgears. Yet, Xgl works fast, games too. So, don't worry.
Hello,
I have HP nx6125 notebook with 1400x1050 display and RADEON XPRESS 200M Series Generic card... I also have suse 10.1 and latest ati 8.27.10 driver...
Output from flxinfo is in attachment... 3D support is on, but glxgears has terribly slow results.... It is known bug or something else?
hlavki@hlavki:~> glxgears 1303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.491 FPS 1333 frames in 5.0 seconds = 266.582 FPS 1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.789 FPS 1307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 261.328 FPS [...] thanks, m. ========== Michal, You should instead be using fgl_glxgears to test for your 3D speed. As another poster mentioned, glxgears is not a good test even if you were not using the ATI drivers, but since you are, use the ATI supplied test
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:20, Michal Hlavac wrote: programs. Also, there is a newer version of the drivers available. 8.28.x regards, Lee
Dňa Pi 4. August 2006 16:29 BandiPat napísal:
========== Michal, You should instead be using fgl_glxgears to test for your 3D speed. As another poster mentioned, glxgears is not a good test even if you were not using the ATI drivers, but since you are, use the ATI supplied test programs.
Also, there is a newer version of the drivers available. 8.28.x
hmm... I don't know where to find 8.28.x version... ati has only 8.27.10 version released on their site... https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=300 m.
On Friday 04 August 2006 10:35, Michal Hlavac wrote:
Dňa Pi 4. August 2006 16:29 BandiPat napísal:
========== Michal, You should instead be using fgl_glxgears to test for your 3D speed. As another poster mentioned, glxgears is not a good test even if you were not using the ATI drivers, but since you are, use the ATI supplied test programs.
Also, there is a newer version of the drivers available. 8.28.x
hmm... I don't know where to find 8.28.x version... ati has only 8.27.10 version released on their site... https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowl edge&folderID=300
m. ============= Sorry Michal, my bad, the 8.27 is newer than what I had. I got confused about the numbers. I just looked at my files which were 8.26.x instead, so they have released a new version.
Sorry for the mixup Lee
I have an nvidia card and glxgears is also displaying painfully slow values however, all the 3D stuff works fast so glxgears is not dealing well with this card. Some friends nvidia card on SUSE 10.1 does will with glxgears just not mine. I nosed around on the DVD for fgl_glxgears and on the WEB looking for it but can't find. Will fgl_glxgears work properly on nvidia and if so where do I get it to test? Cheers, Bob BandiPat wrote:
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:20, Michal Hlavac wrote:
Hello,
I have HP nx6125 notebook with 1400x1050 display and RADEON XPRESS 200M Series Generic card... I also have suse 10.1 and latest ati 8.27.10 driver...
Output from flxinfo is in attachment... 3D support is on, but glxgears has terribly slow results.... It is known bug or something else?
hlavki@hlavki:~> glxgears 1303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.491 FPS 1333 frames in 5.0 seconds = 266.582 FPS 1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.789 FPS 1307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 261.328 FPS
[...]
thanks, m.
========== Michal, You should instead be using fgl_glxgears to test for your 3D speed. As another poster mentioned, glxgears is not a good test even if you were not using the ATI drivers, but since you are, use the ATI supplied test programs.
Also, there is a newer version of the drivers available. 8.28.x
regards, Lee
Robert Lewis wrote:
I have an nvidia card and glxgears is also displaying painfully slow values however, all the 3D stuff works fast so glxgears is not dealing well with this card. Some friends nvidia card on SUSE 10.1 does will with glxgears just not mine.
I nosed around on the DVD for fgl_glxgears and on the WEB looking for it but can't find. Will fgl_glxgears work properly on nvidia and if so where do I get it to test?
Cheers, Bob
Me too - but only since I installed the latest ATI driver. Before that I was getting really good FPS rates. Having said that, the gears still seemed to be going at the same speed, so I wonder if something in the new drivers is affecting the FPS output. I found fgl_glxgears already installed, with the new drivers: peter@linux:~> locate fgl_glxgears /usr/X11R6/bin/fgl_glxgears peter@linux:~> which fgl_glxgears /usr/X11R6/bin/fgl_glxgears peter@linux:~> fgl_glxgears Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer 2618 frames in 5.0 seconds = 523.600 FPS 2928 frames in 5.0 seconds = 585.600 FPS 3201 frames in 5.0 seconds = 640.200 FPS 3210 frames in 5.0 seconds = 642.000 FPS 3213 frames in 5.0 seconds = 642.600 FPS 3206 frames in 5.0 seconds = 641.200 FPS 3193 frames in 5.0 seconds = 638.600 FPS peter@linux:~> Still not brilliant, but better than glxgears reports. HTH Peter
Apparently the fgl_glxgears is designed to work with the fglrx driver which is for the ATI cards. At least, that is what I think I am reading but would like confirmation. Therefor, no alternative to glxgears for Nvidia is possible for me. My readings look like: 920 frames in 5.0 seconds = 183.864 FPS 1025 frames in 5.0 seconds = 204.991 FPS 789 frames in 5.0 seconds = 157.792 FPS 972 frames in 5.0 seconds = 194.390 FPS 954 frames in 5.0 seconds = 190.791 FPS 1019 frames in 5.0 seconds = 203.791 FPS Pretty sad, but as I said the 3D games seem to work well anyway. Cheers, Bob Peter Bradley wrote:
Robert Lewis wrote:
I have an nvidia card and glxgears is also displaying painfully slow values however, all the 3D stuff works fast so glxgears is not dealing well with this card. Some friends nvidia card on SUSE 10.1 does will with glxgears just not mine.
I nosed around on the DVD for fgl_glxgears and on the WEB looking for it but can't find. Will fgl_glxgears work properly on nvidia and if so where do I get it to test?
Cheers, Bob
Me too - but only since I installed the latest ATI driver. Before that I was getting really good FPS rates. Having said that, the gears still seemed to be going at the same speed, so I wonder if something in the new drivers is affecting the FPS output.
I found fgl_glxgears already installed, with the new drivers:
peter@linux:~> locate fgl_glxgears /usr/X11R6/bin/fgl_glxgears peter@linux:~> which fgl_glxgears /usr/X11R6/bin/fgl_glxgears peter@linux:~> fgl_glxgears Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer 2618 frames in 5.0 seconds = 523.600 FPS 2928 frames in 5.0 seconds = 585.600 FPS 3201 frames in 5.0 seconds = 640.200 FPS 3210 frames in 5.0 seconds = 642.000 FPS 3213 frames in 5.0 seconds = 642.600 FPS 3206 frames in 5.0 seconds = 641.200 FPS 3193 frames in 5.0 seconds = 638.600 FPS peter@linux:~>
Still not brilliant, but better than glxgears reports.
HTH
Peter
On Friday 04 August 2006 12:53, Robert Lewis wrote:
Apparently the fgl_glxgears is designed to work with the fglrx driver which is for the ATI cards. At least, that is what I think I am reading but would like confirmation. Therefor, no alternative to glxgears for Nvidia is possible for me. My readings look like: 920 frames in 5.0 seconds = 183.864 FPS 1025 frames in 5.0 seconds = 204.991 FPS 789 frames in 5.0 seconds = 157.792 FPS 972 frames in 5.0 seconds = 194.390 FPS 954 frames in 5.0 seconds = 190.791 FPS 1019 frames in 5.0 seconds = 203.791 FPS
Pretty sad, but as I said the 3D games seem to work well anyway.
Cheers, Bob ===========
That's correct Bob, that program comes with the ATI drivers, so is not available any other way. As long as your 3D is working well in the programs, don't bother with glxgears, you'll almost never find it accurate. The real test is a good 3D game or something. regards, Lee
Robert Lewis wrote:
I have an nvidia card and glxgears is also displaying painfully slow values however, all the 3D stuff works fast so glxgears is not dealing well with this card. Some friends nvidia card on SUSE 10.1 does will with glxgears just not mine.
I nosed around on the DVD for fgl_glxgears and on the WEB looking for it but can't find. Will fgl_glxgears work properly on nvidia and if so where do I get it to test?
Cheers, Bob
Me too - but only since I installed the latest ATI driver. Before that I was getting really good FPS rates. Having said that, the gears still seemed to be going at the same speed, so I wonder if something in the new drivers is affecting the FPS output.
I found fgl_glxgears already installed, with the new drivers:
peter@linux:~> locate fgl_glxgears /usr/X11R6/bin/fgl_glxgears peter@linux:~> which fgl_glxgears /usr/X11R6/bin/fgl_glxgears peter@linux:~> fgl_glxgears Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer 2618 frames in 5.0 seconds = 523.600 FPS 2928 frames in 5.0 seconds = 585.600 FPS 3201 frames in 5.0 seconds = 640.200 FPS 3210 frames in 5.0 seconds = 642.000 FPS 3213 frames in 5.0 seconds = 642.600 FPS 3206 frames in 5.0 seconds = 641.200 FPS 3193 frames in 5.0 seconds = 638.600 FPS peter@linux:~>
Still not brilliant, but better than glxgears reports.
HTH
Peter ============== Peter, This actually doesn't sound bad using that program. You are getting
On Friday 04 August 2006 12:42, Peter Bradley wrote: direct rendering and using the GLX on the card. fgl_glxgears really pounds the 3D engine on the card, so don't expect high numbers. Again, your real test is the games & other 3D stuff you can run. Also, use 3dinfo and/or 3Ddiag to double check the card and if you are using the GL on the card, not Mesa rendering. Lee
BandiPat wrote:
Peter, This actually doesn't sound bad using that program. You are getting direct rendering and using the GLX on the card. fgl_glxgears really pounds the 3D engine on the card, so don't expect high numbers. Again, your real test is the games & other 3D stuff you can run. Also, use 3dinfo and/or 3Ddiag to double check the card and if you are using the GL on the card, not Mesa rendering.
Lee
Hey! Thanks for that Lee. Good advice. Peter
I have an nvidia card and glxgears is also displaying painfully slow values however, all the 3D stuff works fast so glxgears is not dealing well with this card. Some friends nvidia card on SUSE 10.1 does will with glxgears just not mine.
In fact, there is a strange thing: - nv and Mesa => above 1000 FPS in glxgears - nvidia-1.0-4496 => 800 FPS - nvidia-1.0-87xx => 213 FPS and yet, UT is slowest with nv/Mesa, and remains the same between 4496 and 87xx. Jan Engelhardt --
* Jan Engelhardt
- nv and Mesa => above 1000 FPS in glxgears - nvidia-1.0-4496 => 800 FPS - nvidia-1.0-87xx => 213 FPS
and yet, UT is slowest with nv/Mesa, and remains the same between 4496 and 87xx.
08:03 wahoo:~ > glxgears 15073 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3014.521 FPS 15196 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3039.057 FPS 15048 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3009.472 FPS 15088 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3017.439 FPS 15073 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3014.508 FPS direct rendering: Yes server glx vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation server glx version string: 1.4 OpenGL renderer string: GeForce 7300 GS/PCI/SSE2 OpenGL version string: 2.0.2 NVIDIA 87.62 -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On Aug 06, 06 11:48:59 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I have an nvidia card and glxgears is also displaying painfully slow values however, all the 3D stuff works fast so glxgears is not dealing well with this card. Some friends nvidia card on SUSE 10.1 does will with glxgears just not mine.
In fact, there is a strange thing:
- nv and Mesa => above 1000 FPS in glxgears - nvidia-1.0-4496 => 800 FPS - nvidia-1.0-87xx => 213 FPS
and yet, UT is slowest with nv/Mesa, and remains the same between 4496 and 87xx.
So what is strange about those numbers?
glxgears basically only tests the speed of glxSwapBuffers() - anything
above 60 FPS is syntactic sugar and doesn't tell you anything.
So maybe glxSwapBuffers() is highly optimized in Mesa, but that doesn't
count. It's totally irrelevant, as it will not be called more than 60
times per second.
The nv driver does not support *any* hardware acceleration, so no wonder
UT is slow.
Matthias
--
Matthias Hopf
In fact, there is a strange thing:
- nv and Mesa => above 1000 FPS in glxgears - nvidia-1.0-4496 => 800 FPS - nvidia-1.0-87xx => 213 FPS
and yet, UT is slowest with nv/Mesa, and remains the same between 4496 and 87xx.
So what is strange about those numbers?
That a lot of people think that these numbers are indication that their card has become slow all of a sudden.
The nv driver does not support *any* hardware acceleration, so no wonder UT is slow.
I tend to believe that glxgears cheats. Because the framerate of the "gear" program demo (from http://jengelh.hopto.org/f/GLtest.tar.bz2) seems proportional to the driver/hardware power, i.e. gear with Mesa will get you some 4 FPS, with NVGL your usuall manyFPS. UT has a software renderer, and runs ... somewhat decent on a PII 233 MHz (tested on Windows, though). Jan Engelhardt --
On Aug 14, 06 20:04:23 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
So what is strange about those numbers? That a lot of people think that these numbers are indication that their card has become slow all of a sudden.
People also believe that a processor is faster than another if it has more MHz...
I tend to believe that glxgears cheats.
It does not. How could it? It just renders a few triangles and does a glxSwapBuffer(). The drivers can 'cheat'. E.g. by default sync-to-vb is on for DRI drivers, but off for glxgears (/etc/drirc) (because people would complain only getting 60fps).
Because the framerate of the "gear" program demo (from http://jengelh.hopto.org/f/GLtest.tar.bz2) seems proportional to the driver/hardware power, i.e. gear with Mesa will get you some 4 FPS, with NVGL your usuall manyFPS.
I don't know that one. Does it use textures? Then the software solution will be dramatically slower than w/o textures.
UT has a software renderer, and runs ... somewhat decent on a PII 233 MHz (tested on Windows, though).
That one is specially tuned and e.g. does only nearest neighbor texture
filtering.
Matthias
--
Matthias Hopf
Because the framerate of the "gear" program demo (from http://jengelh.hopto.org/f/GLtest.tar.bz2) seems proportional to the driver/hardware power, i.e. gear with Mesa will get you some 4 FPS, with NVGL your usuall manyFPS.
I don't know that one. Does it use textures?
It is a sample program I wrote myself. It just draws some solid-color objects, just glVertex() and glutSwapBuffers(), no textures. Jan Engelhardt --
Matthias Hopf wrote:
On Aug 06, 06 11:48:59 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I have an nvidia card and glxgears is also displaying painfully slow values however, all the 3D stuff works fast so glxgears is not dealing well with this card. Some friends nvidia card on SUSE 10.1 does will with glxgears just not mine. In fact, there is a strange thing:
- nv and Mesa => above 1000 FPS in glxgears - nvidia-1.0-4496 => 800 FPS - nvidia-1.0-87xx => 213 FPS
and yet, UT is slowest with nv/Mesa, and remains the same between 4496 and 87xx.
So what is strange about those numbers?
glxgears basically only tests the speed of glxSwapBuffers() - anything above 60 FPS is syntactic sugar and doesn't tell you anything.
So maybe glxSwapBuffers() is highly optimized in Mesa, but that doesn't count. It's totally irrelevant, as it will not be called more than 60 times per second.
The nv driver does not support *any* hardware acceleration, so no wonder UT is slow.
Matthias
You wanna be *really* impressed with how fast your card is? :-) When running glxgears, minimise it and let it run for a minute or so. Boy, ain't your card the fastest one on the block! :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:41, Basil Chupin wrote: You wanna be *really* impressed with how fast your card is? :-) When running glxgears, minimise it and let it run for a minute or so. Boy, ain't your card the fastest one on the block! :-) . Cheers. ************************************************************************** Interestingly enough, resizing the window smaller actually runs faster than minimized! I guess if you demand high frame rates from glxgears, just size the window as small as it will go (till gears are just couple of mm in diameter) <---------- Standard output ----------> 7919 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1583.581 FPS 8605 frames in 5.1 seconds = 1688.833 FPS 9108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1820.550 FPS 9424 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1884.307 FPS 9341 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1868.083 FPS <---------- Maximized Window ---------> 1020 frames in 5.0 seconds = 203.955 FPS 1042 frames in 5.0 seconds = 208.312 FPS 1043 frames in 5.0 seconds = 208.533 FPS 1027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 205.317 FPS <---------- Smaller Window ---------> 28704 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5740.718 FPS 27364 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5472.787 FPS <-------- Smallest Window ---------> 31087 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6217.303 FPS 32454 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6490.670 FPS 33724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6744.711 FPS 32738 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6547.488 FPS <----------- Minimized Window ---------> 19837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3967.316 FPS 24185 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4836.887 FPS 24263 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4852.458 FPS 24204 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4840.727 FPS
Wade Jones wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:41, Basil Chupin wrote:
You wanna be *really* impressed with how fast your card is? :-)
When running glxgears, minimise it and let it run for a minute or so. Boy, ain't your card the fastest one on the block! :-) .
Cheers.
**************************************************************************
Interestingly enough, resizing the window smaller actually runs faster than minimized! I guess if you demand high frame rates from glxgears, just size the window as small as it will go (till gears are just couple of mm in diameter)
[pruned]
<-------- Smallest Window ---------> 31087 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6217.303 FPS 32454 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6490.670 FPS 33724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6744.711 FPS 32738 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6547.488 FPS
[pruned] This could turn into a new Linux fad :-) . I get 15522 fps with the smallest window, but!....... then try to minimise this smallest window :-) . Doing this I now get 15805 fps. Statistics! Who needs them? :-) As my father used to tell me, "Statistics work great. For example, if I have a chicken and you have no chicken, statistics will show that we have half a chicken each so we just CANNOT go hungry". (BTW, you will get different results, even in normal mode, when you reposition the gears window on the screen.) Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
Wade Jones wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:41, Basil Chupin wrote:
You wanna be *really* impressed with how fast your card is? :-)
When running glxgears, minimise it and let it run for a minute or so. Boy, ain't your card the fastest one on the block! :-) .
Cheers.
**************************************************************************
Interestingly enough, resizing the window smaller actually runs faster than minimized! I guess if you demand high frame rates from glxgears, just size the window as small as it will go (till gears are just couple of mm in diameter)
<---------- Standard output ----------> 7919 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1583.581 FPS 8605 frames in 5.1 seconds = 1688.833 FPS 9108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1820.550 FPS 9424 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1884.307 FPS 9341 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1868.083 FPS <---------- Maximized Window ---------> 1020 frames in 5.0 seconds = 203.955 FPS 1042 frames in 5.0 seconds = 208.312 FPS 1043 frames in 5.0 seconds = 208.533 FPS 1027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 205.317 FPS <---------- Smaller Window ---------> 28704 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5740.718 FPS 27364 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5472.787 FPS <-------- Smallest Window ---------> 31087 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6217.303 FPS 32454 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6490.670 FPS 33724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6744.711 FPS 32738 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6547.488 FPS <----------- Minimized Window ---------> 19837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3967.316 FPS 24185 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4836.887 FPS 24263 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4852.458 FPS 24204 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4840.727 FPS
It is interesting how people like high frame rates. We need only 30 for smooth motion, all over that serves nothing. -- Regards, Rajko.
On Aug 15, 06 20:37:42 -0500, Rajko M wrote:
It is interesting how people like high frame rates. We need only 30 for smooth motion, all over that serves nothing.
False statements don't get right by repeating them. OTOH frame rates for
glxgears certainly don't matter, right.
Note that the following numbers are very individual dependent.
The eye will receive motion as relatively smooth with about 15fps.
That's why film was 24fps in the beginning (have a save margin + side
dependencies).
You need frame rates well above 50fps in order to have really smooth
motion. IMAX movies are filmed in 50fps, and I personally still feel the
stuttering when watching one.
The eye will stop to notice flicker at about 60fps.
That's why in movie theaters film images are shown three times each
(approx 72fps). Some people tend to notice montior flicker upto 100fps.
The human brain will still be prone to motion sickness if the update
frequency is less than 200fps.
This has been experimentally verified in caves (multiside VR projection
environments). Needless to say that this is only possible with extremely
expensive projectors (neither LCD nor DLP). Yes, it sort-of works with
lower frequency (typically you cannot recreate the graphics at 200fps
anyway, I've seen cave applications with 8fps...), but you tend to feel
dizzy after 15min or so. Been there, tried that.
Additionally, for games the frame rate also influences response time.
Typically there was a lag of 3-5 frames from input to reaction, so for
60 fps that would be a minimum of 50ms delay - which is quite long.
Modern games tend to have less coupled input routines, but also lower
frame rates.
Matthias
--
Matthias Hopf
It is interesting how people like high frame rates. We need only 30 for smooth motion, all over that serves nothing.
I have to object. Maybe your brain can't process more than 30 fps ;-) Doom capped at 35fps (yes, you can do that) feels distinctly different from 60+ fps it can do nowadays. But above 60, yes, it does not really serve anything. Too bad few games actually limit themselves to <enter value here> to give up some CPU%, but rather pull everything they got (most are simply a busy loop with GL drawing and buffer swapping). Jan Engelhardt --
participants (11)
-
BandiPat -
Basil Chupin -
Jan Engelhardt -
Matthias Hopf -
Michal Hlavac -
Patrick Shanahan -
Peter Bradley -
Rajko M -
Robert Lewis -
Silviu Marin-Caea -
Wade Jones