What's the next step for graphics?

From the pixels, bits, and shaders to the graphic cards that power them. Discuss the latest from AMD and NVIDIA here.

Moderators: morphine, SecretSquirrel

What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:30 am

Forgive my ignorance, but as a PC gamer in my 30s, i've experienced what I think have been the 3 "stages" of gaming graphics. The DOS era, 3D graphics up to DX9, and the present. However, there doesn't seem to have been much progress in this area (in my mind) since the advent of PCIe graphics cards in 2004? Where exactly are we going, aside from faster framerates?
awakeningcry
Gerbil
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:20 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:22 am

I think is power consumption and mobile gaming what is making the industry working these days.
joselillo_25
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 2:57 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:32 am

Death of consoles. As soon as that happens, we will see some innovation again.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:23 am

Madman wrote:Death of consoles. As soon as that happens, we will see some innovation again.


I'd second that.

But I think what you will really see is the next generation of consoles to get you to within 50% of what current high-end desktops can do.

This will boost graphics requirement for all new games. to the previous generation of pc hard way (ati 5/6000 mid level performance).

This will mean I'll probably have to upgrade my ATI 4870 to a 7870 in the next year.

As for something new in graphics I really don't see anything new other than faster. I doubt we will be going to 3d displays and even if we did current video cards can drive it just fine.
I wish to see things not as they are but as they should be.
Aranarth
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:56 am
Location: Big Rapids, Mich. (Est Time Zone)

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:56 am

Consoles are definetly holding everything back. I recently read an interesting article (that I can't find now) from a major game developer talking about the future of gaming and he was talking about realism. Todays cards are getting faster and faster, and this allows developers to run more complex algorithms to approximate things like reflections and shading. The increased graphics muscle of todays GPUs are enabling things like the the samaritan demo that previously required massive graphics muscle. (3 GTX 580s last year, but apparently 1 ~680? this year) According to the article we still need to quadruple resolution and have something on the order of 100x(?) more graphics power than we have today in order to approach reality. He was predicting something in the 10 year range. The article was talking about whether consoles were "good enough" (obviously they're not)
i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-m, Asus GTX660 TOP, 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 8GB G-Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
DPete27
Gerbil Jedi
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1623
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:17 am

I'm hoping for photorealistic CGI pr0nz... Then photorealistic video games with an adult theme, hopefully a new Duke Nukem game. :evil:
Dell XPS 8100 - Core i7 860 - 8GB DDR3-1333 - Gigabyte HD 7850 - 1.5TB 7200rpm HDD - Acer 20" LED monitor (1600*900) - 350W PSU
ultima_trev
Gerbil
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:14 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:03 am

I guess real-time ray tracing is still out of reach though?
awakeningcry
Gerbil
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:20 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:10 am

The problem now is partly the time and money costs of content creation; Hardware exists that can do amazing things, but creating the artwork and models manually is far too demanding.
Once high-polygon, high-resolution content-creation can be accelerated/automated, we'll see a need for more CPU/GPU power again. I'm expecting the push for photo-realism to resume once (or if) the content-creation bottleneck gets removed.

In the meantime, gimmicks like 3D vision and 64x Antialiasing at 2560x1440 will be the only real way to push our current hardware. It all seems a bit pointless rendering a low-poly model at that resolution with that much smoothing though. I'd much rather have more detail to fill up the existing pixels on screen than smoothing the jagged edges off simple models and low-res artwork.
<insert large, flashing, epileptic-fit-inducing signature (based on the latest internet-meme) here>
Chrispy_
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:57 pm

SIGGRAPH is always a good resource to look up if you're ever curious about the progress of computer graphics. This year's SIGGRAPH papers and talks haven't been decided yet, but you can check out SIGGRAPH 2011 to see some of the stuff that was presented at last year's conference. Advances in Real Time Rendering also posts up the eponymous course content that was presented at SIGGRAPH, but it's specific to what games have done and doesn't show nearly the breadth and depth of what's happening in computer graphics. Suffice it to say, I don't believe computer graphics as a whole is stagnating at all, but yes, a lot of games right now are restricted in what they can implement because they either target consoles or they target the mass market that don't have $250+ graphics cards. Give it time though; with the IGPs Intel and AMD are producing, min-spec across the market is going to become much more powerful in the next couple of years.
Zoomastigophora
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:41 pm

Yeah, Raytracing, but consoles have to die first like others are saying. I think if Valve got it's act together and strove for more they could deal a serious blow to consoles and consolization in general.

You are also correct things stagnated around 2004ish, 2005 actually when the newest generation of consoles came out. DX 10 and 11 haven't really qualified as anything all that noteworthy for improving graphics, tesslization is cool, but that's about it. Quite sadly consolization pretty much made the physics (physX) revolution in games stillborn. Consoles simply couldn't take on the extra meaningful processing (not eye candy physics) and people weren't designing games for computers which lead it to get thrown by the wayside. Physics is and isn't eye candy, that's part of what makes it so cool.

Honestly I think that's one of the biggest loses to ever hit gaming. Physics in general could've been so meaningful if it caught on, especially PhysX (it was a free API that did everything), but it was aborted and Nvidia lobotomized it to fit their own diabolical scheme. Of course physics can still be put in games, but it missed it's one big chance to really hit it off. I'm sure a entrepreneuring video game designer will eventually take advantage of that fact though (look at Angry Birds). >:D
Bensam123
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 12:19 pm

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:02 pm

Retina. High-DPI graphics.

Lots of other stuff is in development - physics, OLED's, 120 Hz displays, etc., but in the immediate future - the REAL next step - is Retina.
JdL
286DX > Pentium Pro 200 > Athlon 1000 @ 1.4 GHz > Athlon 64 2.2 GHz > Athlon XP 3200+ > Core 2 Duo 3300 @ 4.0 GHz > Core 2 Quad 6600 G0 @ 3.2 > Core i7 3770 @ stock
JdL
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 11:45 am
Location: United States of America

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:26 pm

Well I will offer a more pessimistic viewpoint. I think you are going to see only a slow growth in graphics for a while and this is partly due to budget constraints. Game budgets have been growing for many years. AAA game title budgets are already around $30-$40m mark in many cases. And I do think that increasing visual quality does require more budget: More programmers, and more artists to make more detailed models.
Low hanging fruits have all been picked. Seeing a game that is substantially better looking than say BF3 will take a while.

The big trend seems to be to move towards more mobile platforms and lower-power platforms, as other people mentioned above.
edit: There are still many fruits to be picked in areas like AI, input mechanisms, physics etc and those are likely to see more growth than just graphics.
codedivine
Gerbil Elite
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:13 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:36 pm

I'll agree with the general sentiment that consoles have generally killed the progress of graphics in mainstream video games. With console development going from a 3 year cycle to coming up on 7 years now, that push for higher fidelity really isn't there.

But I think that there's an industry wide trend going on now, where the population is losing interest in high-graphics games, and focusing more on game play and story telling. Combine that with higher production costs and that being pushed back to consumers with game prices, I think we're going to hit even more of a flat-line, with slower progression to photo-realistic sequences.

But what's next? Firstly, wider scale adoption of hardware based physics acceleration. Both AMD and nVidia are heavily investing in GPGPU development at this point. Sure, this is great for things like cryptography and genome sequencing, but it's also especially important for hardware physics acceleration. Both groups will push their platform, but eventually we'll reach a harmonizing point (probably MS lead with DirectX), and we'll see more game developers pick it up. As well, I'd be amazed if we don't see the next generation of consoles either have a dedicated physics chip, or more likely, have it integrated into their GPUs.

Real-time ray-traced games will become reality one day, and that will be the cornucopia of graphical reproduction. But no clue on when it will actually happen.
Intel i7 860, Asus P7P55D Pro, 4x2GB Corsair XMS3 1600 (CMX4GX3M2A1600C9), EVGA GTX 560 Ti Superclocked
Seagate 7200.7 160GB, WD Caviar Black 640GB, WD Caviar Green 1TB, WD Caviar Green 2TB
Dell 2408WFP and Dell 2407WFP-HC for dual-24" goodness
emorgoch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:21 pm

There no longer is a unified physics API. PhysX was gutted by Nvidia and now has licensing fees (it didn't before), Havok said they were going into hard physics simulations instead of eye candy, but they never did. Both video cards manufacturers claimed to be pushing into physics, but that didn't happen as consolization just swept it all under the rug. Now they aren't doing anything remotely physics related (physics simulations over cuda by universities doesn't count) and PhysX is just Nvidias play thing.

I definitely think the demand for graphical fidelity IS there, it's just not present in games. Take Metro 2033 for instance, I would never have even heard about it if it wasn't in a graphics review here (and it turned out to have a pretty good plot). You can't want something if it's just not present. Keep in mind that graphics actually regressed for a bit, Crysis being the pinnacle of graphical fidelity for quite a long time and only recently being surpassed by Battlefield 3. Consoles getting heavily watered down versions of both those games (graphically).
Bensam123
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 12:19 pm

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:08 pm

Madman wrote:Death of consoles. As soon as that happens, we will see some innovation again.

It wont take the death of consoles, it'll take a new generation of consoles.

2013 when MS releases XBox 720, developers will finally start developing for PCs of 2009.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:00 pm

DPete27 wrote:According to the article we still need to quadruple resolution and have something on the order of 100x(?) more graphics power than we have today in order to approach reality.


More resolution is probably the last thing needed to gain realism. Any picture on my TV looks realistic, and that's (roughly) 640x480; most game-generated images on my 2560x1440 PC are obviously computer generated.

What's needs is not 3D or higher res, it's stuff like realistic textures, lighting and animation. That will still take more CPU and GPU grunt than we have now.
Anomymous Gerbil
Gerbil
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:51 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:46 pm

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:38 pm

I think the progress has been more steady than it would seem by just thinking back a bit. DOS brought the first and second generation of true 3d acceleration at 16-bit color. Then came DirectX, and then 32-bit color, followed by steady resolution increases, antialiasing, anistropic filtering, steadily increasing environment sizes, higher and higher framerates and more resolution increases, hardware triangle setup, attempts to create games that actually mimic reality (many of the early 3d efforts were set in other environments because it's easier to make a "fictional" environment look alright since you don't have a "reality" to compare it to), hdr, fp16 color, increasingly complex post processing, physics processing (not necessarily 3d-accelerated, but has been in the past), 3d glasses, gp-gpu projects, high resolution textures, soft shadows, realistic looking water, tessellation, unprecedented performance with 120 hz monitors and massive levels of antialiasing that absorbs great amounts of power, better power per watt, better thermal profiles, more offloading from the cpu so that it can handle the much better ai routines, destructible environments (try just cause 2 for some destruction fun!), games of absolutely gigantic scale, and the list goes on.

I would agree that there are diminishing returns; each x% performance increase might only bring a steadily decreasing increase in performance. That said, I'd say things like resolution, fluid framerates, and antialiasing are quite important to realism. Even though you might not consciously see rendering artifacts, screen tearing, texture flickering, and aliasing, those do have a profound effect on the immersion level, and will have an ever increasing importance as we tackle things like "enough" video memory for textures that can be as detailed as our eyes can see, "enough" triangle throughput to give the designers pretty much total creative freedom, the power to render at very and sustainable high framerates with low latency, non-3d related items like realistic ai and accurate physics, etc.

I think ever since the first 3d cards came out, we've been working with diminishing returns; I doubt advances since the transition from 256-color 320x240 to 65,536-color 640x480 at astoundingly higher framerates will ever be topped. I think what's stagnating is our perception of the progress. If you told me 15 years ago that I'd have 2 video cards with 2 GB RAM each rated at 176 GB/s per card capable of rendering 28 Gpixels and 1.7 billion triangles with shader power measured in multiple teraflops per card, I would have wondered what on earth you could use that much power for.

It gets used. :)
Jason181
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 7:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:16 am

I don't think its so much the graphics itself, I feel like the future of the look in games is going to be all about the motion. For me a game can have amazingly perfect graphics (for today's standards) but choppy or unrealistic motion will completely ruin it for me.

La Noire was a pretty nice step in this direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... L9wsEFohTw

Then I saw this :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBR4cT-0sKY

Pretty cool stuff, and to me the difference is huge and in such a short period of time the second video from Janimations completely out classes the LA Noire stuff... but just imagine with a few studio's all working on their own way to pull off the most realistic looking facial features possible, how long do you think its going to take before its a refined version of the second video I linked? Not long.

Its almost for me the same thing as some people have with not getting some extremely high FPS. A game has to have good motion to be fully believable. Then I think the next step for refinement as far as graphics go is going to be lighting again. Most of the developers went through a lighting phase and now its facial motion. But chances are that will come full circle, I don't feel like we have done much more in the way of lighting since HL2 HDR. Sure its gotten refined, but that was sort of the start of it and its bloomed a bit past that, but no other major ideas that come to mind have gone past it. The first thing that comes to mind for lighting that needs improvements horribly is how light reacts to skin.

More on lighting advances, starting to make a come back.... this has to be some of the best lighting I've seen to date
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvI1l0nA ... re=related

The resolution thing is probably another good call, but I don't think you need to have 10 times the resolution we have now, maybe double full HD..... 3840x2160. I'd like to see any normal person notice a single pixel on that resolution on say a 24" monitor :P. And of course getting 75+ hz screens out there with damn good refresh rates. Kills me how limited the monitor selection is if you want 75 or 120hz monitors. You've pretty much gotta double or triple the cost because they package the **** 3D in with it now.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

i5-2500K|Asus P67 Sabertooth|16GB Corsair 1600|MSI 7850 2GB|250gb Evo 840|Corsair 400R|ET750w PSU|Logitech G5|Dell 2420L|Corsair Vengeance 1300
Welch
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:21 am

Good comments on this!

I agree with what many have said:
1. Consoles do act as a "lowest common denominator" and have game developers targeting those platforms which means the PC ports of games are held back
2. High end art/modeling does cost a lot of development money; once tools are developed to allow more automation, it may become cheaper to make more detailed models, though the tools themselves are probably hard to develop and would cost a lot.
3. The focus for game shops is to make money, and given people want better gameplay/stories/content it makes sense to focus on those at the expense of gfx effects, as you get more sales for your development dollar (think why Wii sales are high)
4. By standardizing on one hardware spec and less abstraction (as consoles do instead of the traditional PC) developers can use the hardware more effectively and have more streamlined tools to create better gfx effects that are easier/faster/cheaper.

My hope is that next gen consoles raise the bar with gfx which benefits PC users as well. Those in the know, know that it's likely high end PC's will have better technical gfx capabilities (more pixels/textels per second, more ram, faster gpus) at any given point in time. But at the end of the day if there's no pretty software to use that powerful card, who cares? (scientific and bitcoin stuff aside)
The finest tools are forged from the hottest fires
ShadowEyez
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:31 pm

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Tue May 08, 2012 10:57 pm

Just look up unlimited detail graphics...i believe that will be the next big step.
cchsballa0655
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 10:52 pm

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 12:00 am

Generally speaking, consoles usually launch with just a bit more graphical prowess than PCs can manage. By the end of the cycle they are, of course, woefully behind the PC world. Though their specs are not impressive even at launch, programming to bare metal makes the consoles look more powerful than PCs at launch even though they often lag behind in the actual hardware department.
Jason181
Gerbil First Class
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 7:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 4:38 am

I don't think its so much the graphics itself, I feel like the future of the look in games is going to be all about the motion.

Best comment of the thread.
SPOOFE
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 6:37 am

JdL wrote:Retina. High-DPI graphics.

Lots of other stuff is in development - physics, OLED's, 120 Hz displays, etc., but in the immediate future - the REAL next step - is Retina.

As much as I hate you for using the 'Retina' brand, I hope you're right. If very high resolutions become common place in a desperate effort of the industry to emulate Apple, we all stand to benefit. Multisample anti-aliasing for example wouldn't be needed nearly as often for example.
Firestarter
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:12 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 9:15 am

Anomymous Gerbil wrote:
DPete27 wrote:According to the article we still need to quadruple resolution and have something on the order of 100x(?) more graphics power than we have today in order to approach reality.


More resolution is probably the last thing needed to gain realism. Any picture on my TV looks realistic, and that's (roughly) 640x480; most game-generated images on my 2560x1440 PC are obviously computer generated.

What's needs is not 3D or higher res, it's stuff like realistic textures, lighting and animation. That will still take more CPU and GPU grunt than we have now.



I got into this argument on the front page a few months back, people just have no concept of how much data can be stored in 640x480 or even 320x200.
http://www.tv-handbook.com/images/UI%20 ... 40x480.jpg


Says it all really, no game looks at that at 1024,1280,1920,2560 or even 5000xwhatever the 3 screen things are.
We're seriously lacking pixel quality and resolution isn't going to solve our issues (for gaming at least, definitely for text reading though)
AbRASiON
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:06 pm

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 9:49 am

AbRASiON wrote:I got into this argument on the front page a few months back, people just have no concept of how much data can be stored in 640x480 or even 320x200.
http://www.tv-handbook.com/images/UI%20 ... 40x480.jpg

Says it all really, no game looks at that at 1024,1280,1920,2560 or even 5000xwhatever the 3 screen things are.
We're seriously lacking pixel quality and resolution isn't going to solve our issues (for gaming at least, definitely for text reading though)

That picture works precisely because it's a picture, instead of a movie or interactive view. That level of sharpness creates crazy amounts of aliasing which is very visible in animation.

I do agree that we're not there yet in the amount of structural detail, for example the leaves on the tree (and on the ground for that matter) and close up structure of the bark, asphalt, soil, grass, etc. We do needwant more of that, and it is probably more important than higher resolutions. But actually displaying that amount of detail without bad aliasing or a blurry view requires higher resolutions than what we're used to now. 1920x1080 on a 23" display just doesn't cut it. 3840*2160 is a lot closer.
Firestarter
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:12 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 11:16 am

TV sets don't need anti-aliasing to display images that are massively more realistic than almost any PC game, even at VGA-type resolutions. It's not resolution that's required, it's everything else.
Anomymous Gerbil
Gerbil
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:51 am

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 3:38 pm

Anomymous Gerbil wrote:TV sets don't need anti-aliasing to display images that are massively more realistic than almost any PC game, even at VGA-type resolutions. It's not resolution that's required, it's everything else.

*blink*. You're kidding right? The first thing I notice when I play a console game (nothing against them) on a TV are all the jaggies.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9934
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 3:57 pm

He means TV shows, not console games. I think.
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
grantmeaname
Gerbil Jedi
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:49 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: What's the next step for graphics?

Postposted on Wed May 09, 2012 3:58 pm

grantmeaname wrote:He means TV shows, not console games. I think.

Oh that's right. Sorry, long day, tired, knee-jerked.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9934
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Next

Return to Graphics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests