Support NeoGAF

angular graphics · Oct 7, 2011

Dizzy-4U said:
I've been playing with the config file for like an hour. I'm pretty happy with the result.

I7 950 @ 4.2 // 8gb DDR3 @ 1800 and GTX 580 1.5GB (SLI disabled. I get stuttering otherwise).

Code:

seta com_videoRam "1536" //sets the Video Card memory Set this to the amount you have in MB seta ui_fov "90" //PC FOV is 90-95 console is 65-70 seta image_preload "1" //Use preload images when ever possible seta image_ignoreHighQuality "0" //Sets up for using HQ gfx seta image_ignoreLowQuality "1" //ignores the low textures seta image_useCache "1" //Enabled Cache to allow the textures to load properly without popping seta image_cacheMegs "125" //Cache size in Megabytes seta image_cacheMinK "50" //Cache minimum size in kilobytes seta r_useHighQualityPostProcess "1" //Fore High Quality post proccessing seta r_shadowsHighQuality "1" //Fore High Quality shadows seta r_renderer "best" //highest rendering options seta r_useRenderThread "0" // 0 Disable or 1 Enable threaded rendering useful for newer cards to increase performance. seta r_visDistMult "1" seta r_useMotionBlur "1" //use blur seta r_skipBump "0" seta r_skipSpecular "0" seta r_skipNewAmbient "0" seta r_cgFragmentProfile "best" seta r_cgVertexProfile "best"

Basically, it's almost the same as this one but I removed a few things. I was getting some weird blue boxes and "seta r_multiSamples "8"" was the cause. I removed it and now it runs ultra smooth at 60fps with 0 pop-in (not even in the first load) and no graphical glitches at all.

The ones I left in the

Code:

 above do not exist at all. The ones I removed do.

Salsa · Oct 7, 2011

Dizzy-4U said:

I've been playing with the config file for like an hour. I'm pretty happy with the result.

I7 950 @ 4.2 // 8gb DDR3 @ 1800 and GTX 580 1.5GB (SLI disabled. I get stuttering otherwise).

Code:

seta com_videoRam "1536" //sets the Video Card memory Set this to the amount you have in MB
seta ui_fov "90" //PC FOV is 90-95 console is 65-70
seta image_anisotropy "8" //Using the highest setting here but you can set as 2, 4 or 8
seta image_preload "1" //Use preload images when ever possible
seta image_lodbias "-1" //LoD settings
seta image_ignoreHighQuality "0" //Sets up for using HQ gfx
seta image_ignoreLowQuality "1" //ignores the low textures
seta image_useCache "1" //Enabled Cache to allow the textures to load properly without popping
seta image_cacheMegs "125" //Cache size in Megabytes
seta image_cacheMinK "50" //Cache minimum size in kilobytes
seta r_useHighQualityPostProcess "1" //Fore High Quality post proccessing
seta r_shadowsHighQuality "1" //Fore High Quality shadows
seta r_displayRefresh "0" //keep it so the engine doesn't double render a frame
seta r_renderer "best" //highest rendering options
seta r_useRenderThread "0" // 0 Disable or 1 Enable threaded rendering useful for newer cards to increase performance.
seta r_visDistMult "1"
seta r_useMotionBlur "1" //use blur
seta r_skipBump "0"
seta r_skipSpecular "0"
seta r_skipNewAmbient "0"
seta r_shadows "1"
seta r_cgFragmentProfile "best"
seta r_cgVertexProfile "best"
seta vt_lodBias "-1" //LoD settings
//below is cache settings
seta vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 "8192"
seta vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly "8192"
seta vt_pageimagesizeunique "8192"
seta vt_pageimagesizevmtr "8192"
seta vt_maxlockedpages 256
seta vt_maxPPF 16

Basically, it's almost the same as this one but I removed a few things. I was getting some weird blue boxes and "seta r_multiSamples "8"" was the cause. I removed it and now it runs ultra smooth at 60fps with 0 pop-in (not even in the first load) and no graphical glitches at all.

would i get even better visuals if i use that? im basically just using this:

com_SkipIntroVideo 1
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 8192
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 8192
vt_pageimagesizeunique 8192
vt_pageimagesizevmtr 8192
vt_restart
vt_useCudaTranscode 2
vt_maxaniso 4
image_anisotropy 4

and it looks amazing

angular graphics · Oct 7, 2011

I don't think so. As I have pointed in my previous post the only useful commands that work are those setting a negative lod and negative lod + not very high AF will result in shimmering.

Dizzy-4U · Oct 7, 2011

angular graphics said:
The ones I left in the

Code:

above do not exist at all. The ones I removed do.[/QUOTE] Thanks. I'll clean my config file :)

JohngPR · Oct 7, 2011

How does this game run on a Radeon 5770 with 1GB of ram? I also have 4GB of RAM as.

I have the game for PS3, but I'm just curious.

Thorndyke · Oct 7, 2011

Anyone know what would be causing flickering at some points of the game for some human characters or objects like flags? Like a flicker in the textures. Or, sometimes when I have the pistol, the actual thing that holds the bullets (completly forgotten what that part is called) will be like 6 inches above the actual gun model, or a guy smoking a cigerette, his cigerette will be an arms length away from his mouth.

Claytron · Oct 7, 2011

So it seems like Catalyst AI is to blame, at least for me, for the constant 4-5 second freezes.

http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?/topic/1237718-freezingstuttering-issues/
If I follow the above link and fully disable Catalyst AI the stuttering/freezing is completely gone, the only problem left are the texture artifacts. The black or missing squares of textures everywhere (I think there was a similar problem early in the thread). I guess I'll have to hope and wait for tomorrow.

edit: Comp Specs
AMD PhenomII x2 550 @ 3.5GHz
4GB RAM
1GB 5870

Grassy · Oct 7, 2011

Finally got around to playing RAGE today, downloaded the ATI performance driver and using the settings from the OP and a few other minor tweaks it's looking pretty good and not dropping below 60fps with no stuttering or pop-in.

Specs:
i7 2600k @ 4.4
6970
8GB RAM

angular graphics · Oct 7, 2011

Thorndyke said:
Anyone know what would be causing flickering at some points of the game for some human characters or objects like flags? Like a flicker in the textures. Or, sometimes when I have the pistol, the actual thing that holds the bullets (completly forgotten what that part is called) will be like 6 inches above the actual gun model, or a guy smoking a cigerette, his cigerette will be an arms length away from his mouth.

It happens only on AMD cards AFAIK, so you'll have to wait for better drivers (which are supposed to come out today).

Sethos · Oct 7, 2011

I'm running an i7 2600k @ 4.5 and a 580, 8x AA in options using these settings;

vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly2 8192
vt_pageimagesizeuniquediffuseonly 8192
vt_pageimagesizeunique 8192
vt_pageimagesizevmtr 8192
vt_restart
vt_maxaniso 4
image_anisotropy 4
vt_useCudaTranscode 2
vt_cudaBudget 17

60FPS and not seeing any green shadows or rough texture streaming.

Looks like this;

Anything I can do to make it look better, something I need to add / remove in that config?

StuBurns · Oct 7, 2011

Hey GAF, I'm getting Rage today, but I need to decide between PS3 and PC. My machine is old, but it meets minimum requirements.

Here's me:

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz
8800GTX
6GB Ram.

I don't care about any bells and whistles, but I need 60fps, so PC or PS3?

EDIT: Never mind, I'm going PS3 for the co-op stuff, then I'll trade in or double dip at a later date, maybe when I change GPU, which is coming some time soon.

pottuvoi · Oct 7, 2011

Pimpbaa said:
Every area is using megatextures. The stuff that isn't is models (characters, vehicles, props, etc...).

Actually only things not using megatextures are sky and transparent surfaces. (ie. particles.)
It is pretty easy to see in megatexture presentations.
Moving objects and environment do reside in different MT, so wasteland can have 128k x 128k texture and all characters and car in there may be in something like 32k x 32k texture.

Reallink said:
So why is a consoles with 256 + 256MB RAM able to handle 4096 textures with ease, but PC's with 1024 + 4096 apparently struggle with 8192 textures?

Textures are not changed, but the texture atlas which is used as local cache for a small 128x128 textures is just bigger.
Also most configs I have seen disable texture compression and this causes more badwidth usage and uses lot more VRAM.

Micerider · Oct 7, 2011

StuBurns said:
Hey GAF, I'm getting Rage today, but I need to decide between PS3 and PC. My machine is old, but it meets minimum requirements.

Here's me:

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz
8800GTX
6GB Ram.

I don't care about any bells and whistles, but I need 60fps, so PC or PS3?

EDIT: Never mind, I'm going PS3 for the co-op stuff, then I'll trade in or double dip at a later date, maybe when I change GPU, which is coming some time soon.

Well, a 8800GTX is still much more powerfull than what you'd find in a PS3. If you don't mind any potential tweaking you migh want to go with the PC version.

PnCIa · Oct 7, 2011

I am playing this on a Geforce 240 mobile and an i7, holy christ a game that looks like this and runs so smooth is unreal.

StuBurns · Oct 7, 2011

Micerider said:
Well, a 8800GTX is still much more powerfull than what you'd find in a PS3. If you don't mind any potential tweaking you migh want to go with the PC version.

Yeah, that's true, but people with far better systems than me have been having some crippling issues. My post was more questioning if I'd run into issues with the specific game because it's seemingly very messy.

JaseC · Oct 7, 2011

StuBurns said:
Hey GAF, I'm getting Rage today, but I need to decide between PS3 and PC. My machine is old, but it meets minimum requirements.

Here's me:

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz
8800GTX
6GB Ram.

I don't care about any bells and whistles, but I need 60fps, so PC or PS3?

EDIT: Never mind, I'm going PS3 for the co-op stuff, then I'll trade in or double dip at a later date, maybe when I change GPU, which is coming some time soon.

If you're at all interested in Arkham City, nvidia currently have a promotion whereby if you purchase a mid-to-high-end GTX card (the GTX 570 is the sweet spot; I have one myself and it's fantastic) you'll also receive a Steam activation code for said game. I had thought the offer was US-only, but it seems to also be valid in the UK.

Thorndyke · Oct 7, 2011

PnCIa said:
I am playing this on a Geforce 240 mobile and an i7, holy christ a game that looks like this and runs so smooth is unreal.

Ho ho ho, i see what you did there.

:>

Micerider · Oct 7, 2011

StuBurns said:
Yeah, that's true, but people with far better systems than me have been having some crippling issues. My post was more questioning if I'd run into issues with the specific game because it's seemingly very messy.

Well, if this is of any help, nVidia cards seems to be less of a trouble for the game so far. And as the 8800 series has been set as the "base" level for the specs, I hope they have tested the shit out the cards before releasing anything.

Now, that's PC gaming, you can never be sure

angular graphics · Oct 7, 2011

nvidia says:

Transcode is one of the core operations behind Rage. Basically surfaces are stored on disk in a format that is extremely compression friendly, but is not usable directly by the GPU. Transcode basically converts from the disk format to an in-memory format usable by the GPU.

GPU Transcode performs this costly operation on the GPU instead of the CPU, which massively increases the number of pages that can be transcoded at a time (while maintaining 60 or near 60 hz). This has the visual effect of reducing the time between an item coming on screen and that item having the full, correct texture data available.

Here's a quick faq:

* Why don't they just de-transcode once and keep a cache around?
The format stored on disk is about 1/10th the size of the GPU-required formats. Keeping all of the detranscoded data in memory (or in a cache) would basically overwhelm available system memory. Keep in mind that it's not just how much RAM you have in your system. Rage is only a 32-bit executable, so it has a maximum addressable space of ~3G. Add to that the fact that Windows gets a little bitchy when memory usage for a single process gets too high, and you have a recipe for poor performance.

* Why is this NVIDIA only?
The underlying code is written in C for CUDA. When the engineer working on this started, OpenCL wasn't an option. Later, preliminary tests into porting the code to OpenCL showed poor performance compared to the C for CUDA implementation.

* Who will get the most benefit from GPU Transcode?
People with a relatively weak CPU and a powerful nvidia GPU will receive the most benefit, though those with a strong CPU will also see some benefit. If you have a relatively weak GPU (anything older or slower than a gtx 460, I'd tenatively say) GPU transcode will wind up doing nothing (falling back to CPU transcode) or giving only minor improvements.

* How do I make it work?
First, upgrade your drivers to the latest (285 Beta drivers). Then, in Rage, locate the option "GPU Transcode" and set to on. The option will not be available if you do not have the latest drivers.

/shill

StuBurns · Oct 7, 2011

JaseC said:
If you're at all interested in Arkham City, nvidia currently have a promotion whereby if you purchase a mid-to-high-end GTX card (the GTX 570 is the sweet spot; I have one myself and it's fantastic) you'll also receive a Steam activation code for said game. I had thought the offer was US-only, but it seems to also be valid in the UK.

Thanks, I'm planning to hold out till January, but I'll keep it in mind in case I fall in love with BF3 and need to step up early.

Micerider said:
Well, if this is of any help, nVidia cards seems to be less of a trouble for the game so far. And as the 8800 series has been set as the "base" level for the specs, I hope they have tested the shit out the cards before releasing anything.

Now, that's PC gaming, you can never be sure

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I really wish this game had a demo or benchmark. I'm pretty torn at this point, and I need to decide in the next couple of hours. Given there's driving, and the all the UI stuff looks designed with a pad in mind, I might just go with the console version. I think there's a good chance I won't like it at all, and I can always trade it in if that's the case, if I get it on PC I can't. And it kind of irritates me that if I'd have bought last night I'd have got some extra stuff for the same price, and even though it's stuff I don't care about, I don't like the feeling of getting a worse product regardless. I might just flip a coin.

JaseC · Oct 7, 2011

StuBurns said:
Thanks, I'm planning to hold out till January, but I'll keep it in mind in case I fall in love with BF3 and need to step up early.

Ah, okay. If you decide to wait, I'd hold off a little while longer as the next generation of GPUs are due in Q1.

Jubbly · Oct 7, 2011

StuBurns said:
Thanks, I'm planning to hold out till January, but I'll keep it in mind in case I fall in love with BF3 and need to step up early.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I really wish this game had a demo or benchmark. I'm pretty torn at this point, and I need to decide in the next couple of hours. Given there's driving, and the all the UI stuff looks designed with a pad in mind, I might just go with the console version. I think there's a good chance I won't like it at all, and I can always trade it in if that's the case, if I get it on PC I can't. And it kind of irritates me that if I'd have bought last night I'd have got some extra stuff for the same price, and even though it's stuff I don't care about, I don't like the feeling of getting a worse product regardless. I might just flip a coin.

There's another possibility also: Buy a custom 560 Ti (e.g. ASUS CU Whatever), OC it to GTX 570 levels, and sell the Batman code to make the overall cost cheaper.

Alex Connolly · Oct 7, 2011

JohngPR said:
How does this game run on a Radeon 5770 with 1GB of ram? I also have 4GB of RAM as.

I have the game for PS3, but I'm just curious.

It'll run sweet as a nut. I'm running a 1GB mobility Radeon, and it's cruising. All you'll need to do is fiddle with the ATI Rage fix, maybe apply a custom config and you'll be enjoying it at a great clip.

It's incredible how little this game taxes a rig when it's rolling well.

Snkfanatic · Oct 7, 2011

This game accesses my hard drive like no other PC game I have played in years.

Disorientator · Oct 7, 2011

angular graphics said:
nvidia says:

...

How do I make it work?
First, upgrade your drivers to the latest (285 Beta drivers). Then, in Rage, locate the option "GPU Transcode" and set to on. The option will not be available if you do not have the latest drivers.

I'm using 280.26 and the GPU Transcode option is still there. (and enabled)

i5 760 @3.0Ghz, GTX 460, 4GB RAM, Win7 32bit running RAGE @ 1216 x 684 (maxed, no tweaks, VSYNC ON)

Performs flawlessly really.

Alex Connolly · Oct 7, 2011

Snkfanatic said:
This game accesses my hard drive like no other PC game I have played in years.

Man, there is something rather bizarre about this one, then. For a lot of folks who have more than capable rigs, it seems to chew and glitch and mess about, but for fellows packing mid-range to low-end machines, I've read more positive impressions than the contrary.

I dunno, just speaking from personal experience and anecdotal perusal.

Ducarmel · Oct 7, 2011

any setting for this build I can use

Vista 64
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU Q6600 @ 2.13Ghz
9800m GG 512MB
4GB Ram

I rarely ever tweak games so I have been copy and pasting stuff not really knowing what they actually do, and it just make the game unplayable for me.

angular graphics · Oct 7, 2011

Disorientator said:
I'm using 280.26 and the GPU Transcode option is still there. (and enabled)

i5 760 @3.0Ghz, GTX 460, Win7 32bit running RAGE @ 1216 x 684 (everything maxed, no tweaks, VSYNC ON)

Performs flawlessly really.

Maybe it's all 28x.xx drivers that work then

bloodydrake · Oct 7, 2011

Reallink said:
So why is a consoles with 256 + 256MB RAM able to handle 4096 textures with ease, but PC's with 1024 + 4096 apparently struggle with 8192 textures?

without factoring in all the extra stuff from AA ect but isn't it as simple as each increase in size is 4x the pixel requirements? Basically 4k to 8k is a 4x increase in data size needed?

and it seem most with optimized drivers and config tweaks are getting pretty great performance from 8192 texture chunks

Gvaz · Oct 7, 2011

The green shadows bug the fuck out of me too, shadows are black, not green. It's the stupid color correction it has going on.

Nymerio · Oct 7, 2011

The game plays fine on my pc but the tearing is killing me. I tried launching the game with "+r_swapInterval 1" and forcing v-sync in the nvidia panel but nothing seems to work :/

dark10x · Oct 7, 2011

Micerider said:
Well, a 8800GTX is still much more powerfull than what you'd find in a PS3. If you don't mind any potential tweaking you migh want to go with the PC version.

That is poor logic in this case.

I suspect the PS3 version will run much better overall than a system with an 8800GTX.

angular graphics · Oct 7, 2011

dark10x said:
That is poor logic in this case.

I suspect the PS3 version will run much better overall than a system with an 8800GTX.

I don't think so.. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1587635&postcount=19

Get this - I just tried it on my old 8800GT 512MB that I have at work in a Phenom II X2 box. It pulls 60 fps at 1680x1050. I even tried the 8K texture tweak and it is still at 60fps most of the time with the exception of some stuttering when I do a sudden 180. This is barely fitting in 512MB (GPUZ says around 500MB VRAM usage).

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/rage2011100616125709.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/rage2011100616124835.png/

AndyMoogle · Oct 7, 2011

Reallink said:
So why is a consoles with 256 + 256MB RAM able to handle 4096 textures with ease, but PC's with 1024 + 4096 apparently struggle with 8192 textures?

It doesn't handle it with ease. Carmack himself said that the console versions will have texture pop-in when you turn 180 degrees.

Jubbly · Oct 7, 2011

Gvaz said:
The green shadows bug the fuck out of me too, shadows are black, not green. It's the stupid color correction it has going on.

It is how the artists intending it to look, ergo not a bug. Also, there are blue shadows later in the game.

Peterthumpa · Oct 7, 2011

Nymerio said:
The game plays fine on my pc but the tearing is killing me. I tried launching the game with "+r_swapInterval 1" and forcing v-sync in the nvidia panel but nothing seems to work :/

Have you forced Triple Buffering?

Peterthumpa · Oct 7, 2011

Jubbly said:
It is how the artists intending it to look, ergo not a bug. Also, there are blue shadows later in the game.

And frankly, the way they use colr grading on those scenes is pretty impressive. I really like it so far.

Alex Connolly · Oct 7, 2011

Gentlemen, a quick bit of guidance, if you may be so kind.

Increasing the FoV...how is it done? I'm getting a bit overwhelmed by the config lists in the thread and am wondering if it's something I can simply slot into a config OR something I need to use in the console.

...and how to access said console, if need be.

Jubbly · Oct 7, 2011

Pylon_Trooper said:
Gentlemen, a quick bit of guidance, if you may be so kind.

Increasing the FoV...how is it done? I'm getting a bit overwhelmed by the config lists in the thread and am wondering if it's something I can simply slot into a config OR something I need to use in the console.

...and how to access said console, if need be.

Just use the Steam launch options to add +cvaradd g_fov 15 (that's for a 1080p 16:9 screen). You can fiddle with the figure to find a value you like.

TheOctagon · Oct 7, 2011

Same settings as everyone else here, just with the in-game screenshot tool @ 2160p.

Alex Connolly · Oct 7, 2011

Jubbly said:
Just use the Steam launch options to add +cvaradd g_fov 15 (that's for a 1080p 16:9 screen). You can fiddle with the figure to find a value you like.

Good man! Cheers for that.

And by GOD, Octagon. The black magic machine you run never fails to amaze.

garath · Oct 7, 2011

Pylon_Trooper said:
Gentlemen, a quick bit of guidance, if you may be so kind.

Increasing the FoV...how is it done? I'm getting a bit overwhelmed by the config lists in the thread and am wondering if it's something I can simply slot into a config OR something I need to use in the console.

...and how to access said console, if need be.

Just set this in your launch options for the game:

+set com_allowconsole 1 +cvaradd g_FOV x

where x is the FOV GREATER THAN 80 you want. So if you want 90, x will be 10.

To access the launch options, find RAGE in the steam library, right click on it and click Properties. On the first screen there is a button for launch options. Type the additions in there.

edit: beat. There's a link on the first page too anyways

TheOctagon · Oct 7, 2011

One more, then. These textures will be the death of me.

garath · Oct 7, 2011

TheOctagon said:
One more, then. These textures will be the death of me.

*pretty picture!*

How can ANYONE say this isn't a gorgeous game at times?

And the static screenshot doesn't even do it justice. In motion it's even better. The draw distance and environment are absolutely phenomenal.

Gvaz · Oct 7, 2011

Jubbly said:
It is how the artists intending it to look, ergo not a bug. Also, there are blue shadows later in the game.

Okay I guess they intended the game to look ugly half the time, based on that and the megatexture implementation.

Granted, I think the game looks better in motion but that green shadowing that looks all low res and blocky looks awful.

dark10x · Oct 7, 2011

angular graphics said:
I don't think so.. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1587635&postcount=19

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/rage2011100616125709.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/rage2011100616124835.png/

I'd be curious to see if it really holds a steady 60, though. The PS3 version holds 60 fps 99.9% of the time. No hitching, stuttering, or pausing here. It's surprisingly perfect.

I finally got the game to run at 60 on my PC, but there are still minor hitches here and there (infrequent, but present). The PS3 version just feels more consistent, believe it or not.

Still, those are impressive numbers for an older card. Makes me realize how fucked up this ATI situation has been.

How can ANYONE say this isn't a gorgeous game at times?

It truly is glorious to behold in motion. One of the finest looking games I've played. It lacks the complex lighting and shaders of many other games, but it provides a full scene level of detail the likes of which I have never seen. It really does give the impression of playing through concept art (or at least concept art mapped onto polygons).

TheOctagon · Oct 7, 2011

That's pretty much the worst I've got for texture quality, which is basically horrible throughout. Only rather than getting worse with distance, they get sporadically worse everywhere. So you've got okay textures and utter cabbage sat next to each other in both the foreground and background. It's a mess, tbh.

As you say, though, great in motion so long as you don't stop to tie your shoelaces.

Snkfanatic · Oct 7, 2011

Wow Octagon those two shots are great

angular graphics · Oct 7, 2011

Gvaz said:
Okay I guess they intended the game to look ugly half the time, based on that and the megatexture implementation.

Man.. if I was an artist that had worked on Rage's environments.. when I would see for the first time an internal version of the game that would use the compressed assets I would literally CRY and shout "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

"

--

Wonderful shots as always TheOctagon

TheOctagon · Oct 7, 2011

Have we established yet whether they shipped the PC version with the exact same textures as Xbox 360? I've grabbed up-rendered shots from 360 games that looked better than half the stuff I'm getting from Rage on PC.

And yes, I appreciate that virtual texturing is a whole different ballgame.

Support NeoGAF

Rage PC perfomance thread

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Neo Member

Neo Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

gave away the keys to the kingdom.

Neo Member

Member

Banned

Banned

gave away the keys to the kingdom.

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Cool Smoke Luke

Banned

Member

Digital Foundry pixel pusher

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Digital Foundry pixel pusher

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Similar threads