Jump to content

KSP Weekly: A Shuttle to Remember


SQUAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

How so? RCS thrusters have very poor vacuum Isp compared to most LFO engines.

Might be useful on super-light probes where mass savings from not having an engine can be substantial.

Currently you can put a lander can into Mun orbit with thrusters but the craft will be heavier than one using a spark engine. Try it yourself and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Joessep Kerman said:

How? Wow. It's so bad.it's unplayable.

Let me rephrase:

If you enjoy finding bugs, this is probably a great game.

I don't. That's why I paid for a game. I want to play it, not be a developer. 

And this was "the next port update". Where have you been?

 

13 minutes ago, awsumindyman said:

Why are the console players attacking squad? They had almost nothing to do with the console port, that was a separate company. As a result, porting to console had no affect on development of the PC version. If you want stuff to be fixed, complain to the company that ported the game. Squad will just keep ignoring you.

 

Oh help me did you not read me say I'm with you if the bug fixes fail.

 

people are mad because squad has taken money two times now for a game with bugs. I think the second time, of corrected, is forgivable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, awsumindyman said:

Why are the console players attacking squad? They had almost nothing to do with the console port, that was a separate company. As a result, porting to console had no affect on development of the PC version. If you want stuff to be fixed, complain to the company that ported the game. Squad will just keep ignoring you.

They hired the companies that did the ports.  Blitworks will probably work out fine in the end.  FTE was a disaster that many saw coming.

Edited by klgraham1013
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, awsumindyman said:

porting to console had no affect on development of the PC version.

I don't think that is the case. 

Blitworks would not have been able to port KSP unaided, it would require considerable input from the designers, developers and testers of the original game and the weekly news suggests this is the case.

Then the bigger issue is ongoing development and maintenance. Squad cannot now develop something for the other platforms that can't be also made to work on a console and every new feature will require porting. This means that only the lowest common features will be implemented and if something won't work on the console it is not going to happen on the PC etc.

Plus everything will need to be duplicated and tested (and certified) on all platforms. This will put a big crimp in the development of new features. 

Take it from some someone who has managed computer systems across multiple platforms: It is a pain in the rear and to be avoided wherever possible, which Squad should have done. 

Edited by Foxster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Foxster said:

I don't think that is the case. 

Blitworks would not have been able to port KSP unaided, it would require considerable input from the designers, developers and testers of the original game and the weekly news suggests this is the case.

Then the bigger issue is ongoing development and maintenance. Squad cannot now develop something for the other platforms that can't be also made to work on a console and every new feature will require porting. This means that only the lowest common features will be implemented and if something won't work on the console it is not going to happen on the PC etc.

Plus everything will need to be duplicated and tested (and certified) on all platforms. This will put a big crimp in the development of new features. 

Take it from some someone who has managed computer systems across multiple platforms: It is a pain in the rear and to be avoided wherever possible, which Squad should have done. 

We don't even have 1.3 yet!

It took a year and half for 1.2.2.

we don't be affecting you until 2100 A.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it curious that anyone assumes there will be continued development for either the consoles or PC. There has never been official word about it.

It would be nice if consoles move beyond 1.2.2 (besides the bug fix patch(es) that are absolutely necessary), but I would imagine that would only happen if the console versions sell/sold well enough to warrant the cost of further development. Maybe Take-Two has some grand design, but ultimately they're a business and will likely act like one. I would not be surprised in the slightest if the consoles never get 1.3 or 1.4 or any major work past bug fixes. That said, I have no idea how KSP has sold on consoles; maybe it did well enough to continue supporting. I do expect that they will at least make a few attempts at fixing the current issues, and I hope they are successful in that regard.

Likewise, I can easily see 1.4 being the last major update, and the Making History Expansion being the only DLC. If Making History doesn't sell well, why would Take-Two continue to put money into a game that has underperforming DLC and is only making money from an almost 3-year-old (since the rushed-to-allow-console-ports-on-systems-without-early-access-programs 1.0 release) niche game's long-tail sales.

I suspect 1.4 will release in the next 6-8 months based on what's been said in the Weeklys, and at the same time or shortly after Making History will release. At that point, Squad will probably have a few months of support work to do for that update and the expansion, and in that time Take-Two can evaluate the expansion's sales performance and decide where to go from there. I'm sure there's plans for what to do next if there is a next, but it seems far from guaranteed that next will happen.

This is all speculation of course, but I think it's quite reasonable speculation. Especially given the lack of any official word. That said, I certainly don't expect to hear about anything until it's decided upon, and I bet we're still 6 months or more away from when decisions will be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Hmm... matching the monoprop w/d ratio to that of liquid fuels is an interesting change. It will actually make monoprop superior to liquid fuel for low DV burns.

Best,
-Slashy

Knocked together a spreadsheet to verify this. All comparisons assume 0.5G minimum acceleration.

The Puff outperforms the Ant up to 350 m/sec DV
The Spark outperforms the Puff
The Puff outperforms the Terrier and Poodle up to 150 m/sec
The Puff outperforms the NERV up to 900 m/sec

All typical vacuum LF&O engines beat the RCS port
The RCS port outperforms the NERV up to 600 m/sec

Could come in handy, especially since capsules have monoprop storage that might not otherwise be used.

Best,
-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Foxster said:

I've said it before and I don't see anything to change my mind: The console port and Making History are mistakes. 

The console port was a bad idea because KSP is not a game that lends itself to console systems, the interface is wrong. Plus building and maintaining another completely different code-base is a huge drain on expansion of the core game that has seen it's development grind to a halt.

Making History is slapping on an uninteresting feature that few or no customers have looked for. Having a kind of challenge-setting or contract creation tool will have limited appeal and is not what most current players want. What has been asked for for a long time is a big expansion to the core game so that there is more to do; like reasons to explore the planets' surfaces, more planets, more challenges, more tech, more complex science, a reason for space stations and surface bases, another star system, some flavour of multi-player, realistic aero physics, things to discover like another civilization, i.e. reasons to boldly go where no Kerbal has gone before.     

The console port and Making History feel like tweaks around the edge of a game going nowhere.

I have heard lots of people asking for a story behind campaign mode.

Well, Squad is not only providing one or more short campaigns with stories(the making history mission(s)), but also providing the tools for the player community, which has already demonstrated a great deal of creativity, to make their own story-campaigns(called missions). 

I for one, am quite looking forward to some of the epic missions/campaigns that will be created by this community once the mission editor has been released.

6 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

@SQUAD listen up! Why do you ignore what actual players want..? It boggles my mind to think of all the time wasted on the console ports that could have gone into making this game what it should be. What a massive wasted opportunity. ;.;

 Oh and I share the sentiments of those console players here. For shame @SQUAD ...

I would suspect that as Blitworks is handling the actual code, and Squad(with additional QA resources from Take Two) is apparently handling second(or third) round QA, that the time investment from Squad is probably not much more than the time needed to add an additional language or two to the PC game, and probably brings in a similar amount of funds for future development(you don't want them to just stop and leave KSP as is do you?).

While it is easy to blame Squad for the decision to start with FTE due to their lack of experience(both at squad and FTE) , Blitworks has a long history of successful ports, and at most squad is responsible for not finding some of the bugs that users are encountering.

So long as they are continuing to invest resources in trying to fix the bugs in the console versions without asking for any additional money, I consider Squad and Blitworks to be working in good faith.  It is reasonable to keep in mind both that Squad is inexperienced in the gaming market and that KSP is nothing like most of the games that are available on consoles.  Either one of these can expose a lot of surface area for bugs to creep in, or even to find problems with the consoles themselves that have never come to light because those consoles have never been asked to do the sorts of things they need to do for KSP to work correctly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Terwin said:

you don't want them to just stop and leave KSP as is do you?

Actually not the worst idea.  It's not the game i would have made, but it feels pretty finished.  Thanks to the great mod support, I'm able to play the game i want.  I actually thought 1.3 would be the last major update we would see, and wasn't to upset about it.

Edited by klgraham1013
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Actually not the worst idea.  It's not the game i would have made, but it feels pretty finished.  Thanks to the great mod support, I'm able to play the game i want.  I actually thought 1.3 would be the last major update we would see, and wasn't to upset about it.

Given the talk of a balance pass and some of the new features, it does kind of seem that with the 1.4 update KSP will finally be what would have been considered 1.0 in the days before everything was online, patchable, and in ever-continuing development.

I'm not saying they shouldn't keep going, but I'd be far from shocked if 1.4 was the last major update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Actually not the worst idea.  It's not the game i would have made, but it feels pretty finished.  Thanks to the great mod support, I'm able to play the game i want.  I actually thought 1.3 would be the last major update we would see, and wasn't to upset about it.

That's kind of how I feel, too - but I'm not a console player, so it's different for me. Also, I've owned KSP for almost 6 years, and started with 0.17 before there was even docking - so from my perspective, pretty much every feature I was looking for is in the stock game, except for Life Support and a Delta-V indicator. And there are plenty of mods to give me those features now.

I can understand the console owners' frustration, though - as mentioned up-thread, KSP doesn't lend itself well to those platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 5:06 PM, SQUAD said:
 

By the way, we have an awesome treat for you. Back when we announced the expansion, we mentioned that we were including a new vintage-spacesuit for Making History, well here it is.

ASwH5ab.png

 

Hmmm, it reminds me of something... can't quite put my finger on it.  :sticktongue:

Halloween-Lederhosen-Costume-Adult-Germa

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very glad to see that Squad is finally doing something resembling a balance pass. I would have preferred to have seen this before 1.0, but better late than never. Hopefully they'll eventually do the entire game and not just a few fuel tanks.

Now if we can also get life support and a dV readout in stock, I'll be quite happy with vanilla KSP combined with the Making History expansion. If I'm understanding how Making History works, we should be able to effectively create our own campaign/story mode that the game currently lacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2018 at 9:29 AM, Foxster said:

I've said it before and I don't see anything to change my mind: The console port and Making History are mistakes. 

The console port was a bad idea because KSP is not a game that lends itself to console systems, the interface is wrong. Plus building and maintaining another completely different code-base is a huge drain on expansion of the core game that has seen it's development grind to a halt.

Making History is slapping on an uninteresting feature that few or no customers have looked for. Having a kind of challenge-setting or contract creation tool will have limited appeal and is not what most current players want. What has been asked for for a long time is a big expansion to the core game so that there is more to do; like reasons to explore the planets' surfaces, more planets, more challenges, more tech, more complex science, a reason for space stations and surface bases, another star system, some flavour of multi-player, realistic aero physics, things to discover like another civilization, i.e. reasons to boldly go where no Kerbal has gone before.     

The console port and Making History feel like tweaks around the edge of a game going nowhere.

3
3

I feel they are missing an opportunity to work with the dedicated fans who build the modding scene and incorporate well-designed, highly embraced mods into the game with reference to the modder in the credits as a tribute.

The modding scene, I believe is one of the main reasons KSP has survived as long as it did as each mod provides more replayability and overall enjoyability. The game menu screen hyperlinks to the forums when it should just be working with CKAN to integrate modding seamlessly; everything you suggested has been conceptualized and worked on by a dedicated fan of the game who decided to spend hours learning KSP's API (which looks designed as an afterthought than an actual API, the docs will prove this).

I hope they upgrade the Unity3d engine to a version with .netframework 4.0 support so developers can create mods with a surplus of functions and robust features and optimization possibilities that we have been missing out on, currently, KSP is running on .netframework 3.5 which is limiting working being done by the guys at 

The mod is great, the guys working on it are actively pumping out fixes and things like Weapons mods kinda work-ish..... But the point is that the game could be so much better if the mods were handled better, we have a mod called ModManager that helps mods, mod... I hope people see the redundancy and inefficiency this current experience provides rather than what the game could be if the modding scene was more widely embraced with. 

MGw5q04.png

People have stated in this thread that memory utilization and optimization issues persist in the game; which is a contributing factor to why the next update should have .netframework4 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pfxteam/2008/10/10/parallel-programming-and-the-net-framework-4-0/

Task Parallel Library alone would improve multicore performances on machines, considering KSP is running on a CPU based game engine I would imagine the additional support for parallelism, the Managed Extensibility Framework for further mod compatibility and stability (less crashes and faster startup times). This is without even mentioning Managed Profile Guided Optimization.

Not only that but the asynchronous modules and handlers that 4.0+ provides would provide a smoother multiplayer experience, which I'd personally enjoy so I have a little stake in having everything updated. And Dual-mode socket support.

 

Back to the quote:

 " like reasons to explore the planets' surfaces, more planets"

"realistic aero physics"

"another star system"

"Reasons to boldly go"

"discover like another civilization"

 

It's silly to think we have all these great tools, yet heavily un-utilized in the grand process.

On 2/4/2018 at 3:34 AM, panarchist said:

That's kind of how I feel, too - but I'm not a console player, so it's different for me. Also, I've owned KSP for almost 6 years, and started with 0.17 before there was even docking - so from my perspective, pretty much every feature I was looking for is in the stock game, except for Life Support and a Delta-V indicator. And there are plenty of mods to give me those features now.

I can understand the console owners' frustration, though - as mentioned up-thread, KSP doesn't lend itself well to those platforms.

1

"And there are plenty of mods to give me those features now. " Console release had an array of missing features and stability issues that while modding, in general, would not solve. But simply providing console version with the tools needed to run using everything provided by Microsoft hardware, which certainly would have been compatible with net framework 4 for that multicore support, the experience would have been an improvement to the one we received.

This also highlights the replayability factor modding provides a game. 

On 2/3/2018 at 10:21 PM, klgraham1013 said:

Actually not the worst idea.  It's not the game i would have made, but it feels pretty finished.  Thanks to the great mod support, I'm able to play the game i want.  I actually thought 1.3 would be the last major update we would see, and wasn't to upset about it.

Maybe they will allow us to script our own missions? That would be a nice compromise to having the same mission constantly and providing a replayable game.

On 2/3/2018 at 4:53 PM, Foxster said:

I don't think that is the case. 

Blitworks would not have been able to port KSP unaided, it would require considerable input from the designers, developers and testers of the original game and the weekly news suggests this is the case.

Then the bigger issue is ongoing development and maintenance. Squad cannot now develop something for the other platforms that can't be also made to work on a console and every new feature will require porting. This means that only the lowest common features will be implemented and if something won't work on the console it is not going to happen on the PC etc.

Plus everything will need to be duplicated and tested (and certified) on all platforms. This will put a big crimp in the development of new features. 

Take it from some someone who has managed computer systems across multiple platforms: It is a pain in the rear and to be avoided wherever possible, which Squad should have done. 

I think this quote highlights the limitations of a small dev team, attempting to work on a project that is quickly becoming cumbersome and falling into a trap where the game development is being interjected by Bug Fixing and catchup patchwork, which is highly speculative with only bases on the weekly posts provided by the staff team and the updates provided by SteamDB which can monitor the changes in depots (scratchpad_3 started getting updates before Christmas and has not really stopped since the holiday): https://steamdb.info/app/220200/history/

lZJfsyT.png

They are updating the QA builds as they said, they certainly are not lying, but there is no way to find out for sure how active development is at the studio as the depot is obviously passworded and therefore hashed to the public:

3wQVKD8.png

They could just be actively updating textures, we don't know unless someone at the team blogs about it... More transparency would be grand.

If the posts provided by the staff contained insight into the actual sprint timetable they are working on or provide an active bugtracker which allows the ability for those who have dedicated time providing mods and support for this game to maybe contribute and provide help with the core mechanics that the team are having issues implementing or design on, which the team feels the need to keep hidden and provide illusive timetables at the expected time. I understand why the team do not want to state on the record a fixed date, but I feel its unfair for the community to be expected to feel excited about this: https://imgur.com/a/gWp4b

when the team could have easily messaged @linuxgurugamer and @DMagic for an agreement to add these to the update:

 

 

Those EVA suit textures need time to test... 

At least the team confirmed that the kerbals will have new heads 

 

Also spending time modeling new sizes of models instead of working with @starwaster or even just take notes from his code to scale up the number of objects in the game without the need to spend time on each size of the model.

I believe these criticizations of our beloved game is fair as I don't want to see the game fail at becoming something spectacular.

 

Edited by TheSystem
added more examples and reasons for .netframework4 and justifications to further transparency
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheSystem said:

I feel they are missing an opportunity to work with the dedicated fans who build the modding scene and incorporate well-designed, highly embraced mods into the game with reference to the modder in the credits as a tribute.

The modding scene, I believe is one of the main reasons KSP has survived as long as it did as each mod provides more replayability and overall enjoyability. The game menu screen hyperlinks to the forums when it should just be working with CKAN to integrate modding seamlessly; everything you suggested has been conceptualized and worked on by a dedicated fan of the game who decided to spend hours learning KSP's API (which looks designed as an afterthought than an actual API, the docs will prove this).

I hope they upgrade the Unity3d engine to a version with .netframework 4.0 support so developers can create mods with a surplus of functions and robust features and optimization possibilities that we have been missing out on, currently, KSP is running on .netframework 3.5 which is limiting working being done by the guys at 

The mod is great, the guys working on it are actively pumping out fixes and things like Weapons mods kinda work-ish..... But the point is that the game could be so much better if the mods were handled better, we have a mod called ModManager that helps mods, mod... I hope people see the redundancy and inefficiency this current experience provides rather than what the game could be if the modding scene was more widely embraced with. 

MGw5q04.png

Just checking in (as i do every now and then)

This is exactly why i left the community. This is THE BEST post I have seen in a long long time.

Squad (or whoever you are now) Hire this guy!

@TheSystem When I saw multiplayer (that was promised like in 2013-2014) wasnt going to happen but they instead choose to go the console route i was worried. When Harvester left (the original author) I knew then Its over for this game. When questions about multiplayer were met with silence from the devs (and still to this day they wont answer it) and the community (because it was the "Smart" thing and most popular thing to say to win favor with the devs) any questions related to multiplayer were shot down by people that "thought they knew". Then after that when the forum community blew up about bugs and stuff after a release/update squad opted to offer "plushies" instead of answering questions. I stopped working on my mod and left the community for good after that as did alot of others.

So yeah PUT THIS GUY ON THE PAYROLL! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2018 at 8:43 PM, Space Station 4 Crash said:

You play it off as everything is fine and we should jump in and help you out. When are you going to act accountable? Shame on you and blitworks. Just post any ps4 or Xbox one user completing the science tree on console. It doesn't exist without some crazy dedication to overcome the horrible, unplayable bugs you have dished out to us. Ef anymore who comes up with excuses for this company. Time to pay the piper. If I don't see you again fare well.

Edited Friday at 08:57 PM by Vanamonde

Seriously! First we were like AHHHHH! RELEASE A PATCH! Now we're like AHHHH! RELEASE A PATCH! What will it take to make you happy? Space Station 4 crash

On 2/2/2018 at 9:00 PM, Space Station 4 Crash said:

What a crock [snip]. One paragraph for the port? No apology for a brutally unplayable mess? Shame on you squad.

Again. Shame on you!!! And to remind you, didn't vanamode say not to "snip words" out of it!?

Edited by DunaManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

Seriously! First we were like AHHHHH! RELEASE A PATCH! Now we're like AHHHH! RELEASE A PATCH! What will it take to make you happy? Space Station 4 crash

What will make him happy is a game without issues.  Despite how he says it, his point is pretty clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never posted about KSP in my life have had the game for years now. Why is it they are talking so long to release updates for a engine i.e unity that 1000s of games are released on. Why does it take year to do something a mod maker does in under a few days sometimes? you changed the suits its been done someone can make those suits in under a hour. You are adding in more parts even I can make part that work how they should if they are basic parts. Your company so far has made over 50 million from the game but yet to really do anything that modders have not done for you :/ just mind boggling.  This is the devs teams only game that I know of.... Even games that have 1 person working on them put out more updates. There is a difference from being slow and being lazy. 6 months to fix things that other people fixed for you in under a week........ I think that speaks for its self. 

Edited by mafiaphreak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't attack each other over differing opinions, and leave the moderating to the moderators. 

Also, you'll find that calling people "lazy" is less persuasive than you seem to believe. We ask our members to be polite to each other, and to be polite to Squad staff. They are, after all, people with feelings as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mafiaphreak

Just to answer your question of why updates take so long, Squad has pretty much always released fewer, larger updates as opposed to more frequent, smaller updates. On top of that, they're now focused on two console versions which both continue to have some pretty significant bugs and two separate products on PC: the upcoming expansion, and the base game which needs to be updated to support the expansion. And for PC they have to make sure it works on Windows, Linux, and Mac systems, so it's really 6 different things on the PC platform. Add to that the current and upcoming localizations and you have 6 different PC software releases each in 9 different languages and now you have a lot of work to complete before anything gets released.

Now, I have to ask: how many small development teams are out there providing Windows, Linux, and Mac versions in 9 different languages and still managing to put out frequent large updates. I'm asking this question seriously, not rhetorically, because I'm sure there are some out there that I'm just not familiar with.

I'm not defending Squad or Take-Two or any decisions they make, by the way. I think KSP is great, but I also believe it doesn't quite reach its full potential. I don't think it ever will which is a bit disappointing, but the game still accomplishes something that I haven't seen other games attempt in an adequate way.

All in all, games are hard to make and take a lot of time. Sometimes those really fast updates that make a company look good come from large teams with tons of experience, and sometimes they come at the cost of employees rushing the job and working too hard for too many hours. I don't like working like that, and I'd bet pretty much no one else, including yourself, enjoys having to work like that.

Things will be released when they're ready (unless it's a console version, apparently). Complain about it or don't complain about it, it'll still release at the same time. Unless you're complaining to me about when I get something to you, if you do that I add time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mako i told a mod i was leaving but this is it. games are not hard to make when you buy the rights to use a engine like unity just takes time and understand that is all. Most indie companies release games on linux mac and windows because it is not that hard to do with a pre made engine sure there is bugs they need to fix when changing over but that is normal.  Its all good I deleted KSP off steam never to be seen again so i dont have to wait for the DLC or updates. and FYI there are 100s of indie developers  that support more or if not the same languages are updated monthly and are on windows linux and mac alot of the games are done by teams smaller then here and have a few games under their belt 

This is not bad talking anyone just stating a fact.  Last post yup i lied last time this time for sure going in to my hostfile on windows and make it so i cant go to this website anymore.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mafiaphreak said:

games are not hard to make when you buy the rights to use a engine like unity

I feel I'm out of my league here because I'm not a game developer. I was under the impression that game development takes a great deal of time, even if using a game engine that already exists. How come software developers get paid so much, and why doesn't everyone make games if it's that easy?

As I say, I'm not a game developer like you, so I can't speak with authority, but it seems to me that there must be more to it than just buying a game engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deddly said:

I feel I'm out of my league here because I'm not a game developer. I was under the impression that game development takes a great deal of time, even if using a game engine that already exists. How come software developers get paid so much, and why doesn't everyone make games if it's that easy?

As I say, I'm not a game developer like you, so I can't speak with authority, but it seems to me that there must be more to it than just buying a game engine.

From my understanding, games only take a few weeks to make.  The rest of that three year "development cycle" is spent with cocktails on the beach.  Truly the greatest ponsi scheme of our age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...