| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
   |
Posted - 2011.05.28 14:57:00 -
[181]
 Originally by: Paukinra
Photons has mass so will show recoil in large neough energy.
The other question this begs is why can I see the laser beam?
If the photons are moving away from me and there is no particles in the way (aka in space) then I wouldnt see them as there is nothing for them to reflect of off. I might/would see the ship Im shooting at light up or occasional little bits of light from scraps of metal of particles from the ships but I wouldn't see the whole laser fully.
Again, something put in to look cool rainbow Abbadons FTW :P
You can't see anything in space, you're enclosed in your POD deep into your ship.
All you "seeing", "hearing" or in other way perseiving is just a reconstruction of your POD computer to translate millions of data sources into comprehensive scenery for your brain.
--
Thanks CCP for cu |
Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 15:26:00 -
[182]
Y'alls have it wrong.
The laser barrels are not recoiling, they are focusing their optics to hit the target, and then continually adjusting that focus to account for the heat expansion of the entire mechanism (and possibly the continuing relative motion of the target) during the firing cycle.
__________________________________________________
Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate. |
Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 16:11:00 -
[183]
I guess OP missed physics lab where they show you photons have mass  , but then that lab was in college so 
--
I take offense on people feeling offended by me |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 17:07:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Fearless M0F0
I guess OP missed physics lab where they show you photons have mass , but then that lab was in college so
Let me guess - you failed that lab?
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Natsett Amuinn
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 18:05:00 -
[185]
I just read 7 pages worth of posts of nerds arguing over reality in a video game.
And I got dumber!
Explain that!
The turrets in the video are ineed recoiling. If you don't see it, get a bigger monitor. On a 55" screen it's clearly visable, the turrets are like an inch big in the youtube video. What makes them really impressive is that each cannon on the turret fires and recoils independantly of each other.
And it's a video game for crying outload.
PS: As someone with an art background, I gotta say that often times "visually striking" is more important then adhering to perfect realism. The artists at CCP have managed to create a very impressive and visually striking asset. Whether it's realistic or not; seeing those cannons going off, and moving as they do is so much more fun then if they just sat there stationary with light beams emitting from them.
Really. Stop building railguns and go outside or something. Sun is actually good for you.
Anyone wanna spellcheck this for me?
|
Ethan Blacknova
Gallente
Perkele Mining Corporation
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 18:08:00 -
[186]
This is simple physics, people.
In order to exert force, you must project force. The act of projecting force causes an opposite reactionary force. Recoil.
Enjoy!
|
Natsett Amuinn
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 18:10:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
You can't see anything in space, you're enclosed in your POD deep into your ship.
All you "seeing", "hearing" or in other way perseiving is just a reconstruction of your POD computer to translate millions of data sources into comprehensive scenery for your brain.
No sir.
Nothing is "reconstructed". You're being fed data via dozens of camera drones orbiting your ship. It's explained in a chronicle, I believe it's called Camera Drones.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 18:26:00 -
[188]
TO SUMMARIZE
1. Rule of cool almost always trumps realism in games.
Even if laser recoil would be unrealistic (which it actually isn't), if it would look cool, it will probably make it.
Turrets recoiling DOES look cool.
2. Shooting lasers actually DOES cause recoil.
Shooting ANYTHING causes recoil. It's just that lasers produce the least recoil.
Ramp up the beam energy enough (to levels that would actually cause serious damage to the point where they'd be comparable to an artillery strike or a railgun slug impact) and the recoil can be significant enough to warrant a visible turret animation.
The only question here is just how strong the laser beams are supposed to be in EVE.
3. Even if we would be talking about ACTUAL space (EVE space is not actually "space", more like a very transparent but thick fluid), there are still particles in a vacuum.
With a strong enough laser beam, some of those extremely scarce particles in space will reflect, scatter, absorb and re-emit some of the laser beam in all direction or even befome fluerescent or incandescent, causing you to actually see the beam even in REAL space.
The only question here is still just how strong the laser beam is... and what is the actual composition of "EVE space".
Also, see rule #1 again even if this would not be true (which it actually is).
4. What you see while flying your ship from your pod might be MOSTLY stuff captured by camera drones and other ship sensors.
HOWEVER, it is not an unedited stream of data, it has very heavy processing attached to it.
For instance, you get the interface "projected" into your brain overlaid with the actual images, the images could very well be composite images that include not just the normally visible light spectrum but a lot of other frequencies, and how about sound, which is actually fully synthesized just to add to a pod pilot's immersion, making it easier to "feel" the ship and its surroundings.
And yet again, even if you're not fully convinced, rule #1 trumps anything anyway.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Andr Katelo
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 19:09:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Andr Katelo on 28/05/2011 19:10:57
Hey, if we wanted to be realistic, we might as well mute all sounds expect to the music in the game. There is no fluid or sufficient amount of particles in space in order to carry sound waves, so your big 1400mm Artillery gun that is shooting Voltzwagen Beetles at the enemy will have no boom to go with it.
"In space, no one can hear you QQ."
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 19:13:00 -
[190]
Hope they fix the turret hardpoints for a lot of amarr ships...Harbi looks terribad with 7 turrets.
=========================
Karash Amerius - Operative - Sutoka
Fighting Broke - A Eve Online Blog
========================= |
Illwill Bill
Talu Shaya
Talu Shaya Empire
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 19:25:00 -
[191]
<lolrp>
The turrets don't "fire" a laser; they use an extremely high-energy laser to accellerate and focus electron plasma in a tight beam that can be projected onto a target. The recoil isn't from the laser, but from the plasma emission.
</lolrp>
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
Revenge is a dish best served with auto-cannons.
|
Mister Smithington
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 19:28:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Illwill Bill
<lolrp>
The turrets don't "fire" a laser; they use an extremely high-energy laser to accellerate and focus electron plasma in a tight beam that can be projected onto a target. The recoil isn't from the laser, but from the plasma emission.
</lolrp>
Yeah. Except it's clearly stated they're lasers. That's why the focus crystals are in different frequencies of EM radiation.
Look, they're laser turrets and they recoil. It's fine. It's more than fine; it's awesome. Can we just leave it at that?
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 19:32:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Illwill Bill
<lolrp>
The turrets don't "fire" a laser; they use an extremely high-energy laser to accellerate and focus electron plasma in a tight beam that can be projected onto a target. The recoil isn't from the laser, but from the plasma emission.
</lolrp>
Hmmm or maybe they launch flaming bowling balls.
bye bye
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 19:34:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Akita T
stuff
According to your own calculations lasers would only have a tiny fraction of the recoil that comparable projectile/rail guns would have.
I think that should be the key point.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 19:44:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Ghoest
Originally by: Akita T
stuff
According to your own calculations lasers would only have a tiny fraction of the recoil that comparable projectile/rail guns would have.
I think that should be the key point.
I said "least" recoil. That doesn't mean "negligible" recoil.
Also, if you want to go by my actual calculations, use those already posted on page #4 : Linkage
Or, to put it ever so slightly differently : if you have a railgun slug and a laser beam dealing roughly the same amount of damage (but through different mechanics), the recoil would be of comparable magnitudes for both.
Although, you are correct about one thing - right now, existing real-life laser beams deal only a tiny fraction of the damage (and spread alongside a long period of time) that a railgun slug would deal. And THAT is the reason why real-life lasers have (practically speaking) no recoil.
If you do ramp up the laser energy to the point where you can deal similar damage (and in a very short amount of time), you sure as hell will get a very noticeable recoil.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 20:27:00 -
[196]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 28/05/2011 20:33:48
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MotherMoon
of course weight matters wen it comes to some of the recoil. If you had a rail gun on planet with huge gravity, you would have to put more force on it to make it move. The gun wouldn't recoil much. If you put it in weightless environment the gun would start to move backward and never stop moving. The more weight the faster the recoil would stop.
right?
What you're talking about is drag and friction, which can happen in outer space as well if you have something nearby to rub up against.
Quote:
Also I was commenting not on the gravitys effect o the slug but the fact that if you tie something down there is less recoil.
There's not less recoil ù you're just coupling the gun to a larger mass, forcing the recoil to move that mass instead (the navy railgun in the video above, for instance, accelerates the earth at .00000000000000000022m/s¦ when fired). But sure, I guess that depends on how you define "recoil" ù the force itself or the movement it causes.
Quote:
Those giant guns can and used to be built with ZERO RECOIL. In fact the whole battleship would move backwards when the guns fired due to this.
àfor instance, I wouldn't say that a gun that causes an entire battleship to move backwards is recoilless. Quite the opposite. 
haha ok I think I'm getting it now. still I hope I bring up interesting points even if I used the wrong terms.
I guess what I meant by recoil.... Is turret recoil. As in, a pistol doesn't have "recoil" However battleship cannons do. The action where the gun it's self has recoil animation. What word should I be using instead of recoil?
Because if you slapped a pistol type weapon to the ship in the intro, it would not have visible recoil. It instead would move the ship under it balh blah blah meters per second. The laser turrets and other weapons only have that kind of visable recoil IF it's built into the weapon.
So if that rail gun is on the ground a bunch of nerd say "see rail guns don't have recoil!" but you put it on a battleship and it's going to move the whole ship. So they would build in "recoil?" to lessen the blow.
So yes what is that word I'm looking for, it's the same thing real life battleships do, and those lasers do that were all arguing about. Because if they built those lasers without recoil they wouldn't magically recoil, Weapons need to be designed and built with the mechanisms to recoil. Look at old artillery where the whole cannon just jumped back 10 feet when fired. They added in recoil to lessen the effect and increase stability.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 20:29:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Ghoest
Originally by: MotherMoon
[
So the real question is, if yo took a rail gun, and put it in space. Like 100% in space, not tied down to ANYTHING. Would the rail gun and the slug both move in separate directions at full speed since there is no gravity to give any of the objects weight?
PLEASE PLEASE tell me you are actually a small child with an unusually good vocabulary.
You must be new to the forums. Plus to be fair I haven't been around for a while. I regularly post drunk,*not every day just enough people notice* sorry about that.
Can't help it, I'll be at a party, come home, and the very 1st thing I'll want to check is eve-o. 
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 20:38:00 -
[198]
Edited by: Akita T on 28/05/2011 20:45:34
Originally by: MotherMoon
I guess what I meant by recoil.... Is turret recoil. As in, a pistol doesn't have "recoil" However battleship cannons do. The action where the gun it's self has recoil animation. What word should I be using instead of recoil?
It's still recoil, but it's applied to a different part of the turret+ship system with different timings, depending on how rigid/elastic all the connections of the firing assembly to the ship itself are.
The IMPULSE granted by the "shooting" of anything that does a specific amount of a specific type of damage is basically always the same.
The "visibleness" of recoil depends on how much MASS that impulse is being applied to (and on the timescale involved, but that's yet another story - and ALL of that impulse eventually gets applied to the entire ship anyway).
The more mass is moved, the less visible the recoil.
The more elastic the connection, the more visible the recoil on the earlier parts is and less on the later ones in the chain.
The faster the shot happens, the more visible the recoil.
_
Going from most visible to least visible (lowest mass initially moved to highest mass initially moved):
You can have barrel section recoil (if separate sections of the barrel can "telescope").
You can have full barrel recoil (if it's rigid and can only move backwards as a whole).
You can have partial turret recoil (the barrel PLUS something else attached to the barrel moving backwards).
You can have full turret recoil (if the entire turret is "solid" but placed on a springy platform).
You can have ship recoil (if the turret is "solid" and the mounting to the ship is rigid).
_
P.S. The only weapon you can even begin to call "recoilless" is something that "shoots" something backwards that has the same impulse as the stuff shot forwards, canceling out the forces exerted on the weapon itself.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Lumy
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 20:41:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Akita T
I said "least" recoil. That doesn't mean "negligible" recoil.
Also, if you want to go by my actual calculations, use those already posted on page #4 : Linkage
Or, to put it ever so slightly differently : if you have a railgun slug and a laser beam dealing roughly the same amount of damage (but through different mechanics), the recoil would be of comparable magnitudes for both.
Note: you could simply use "Activation Cost" attribute of laser turret.
E.g. Tachyons II use 95 GJ .
Assume just 1% effectivity, you still have about 1 GJ energy released per shot.
Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 20:53:00 -
[200]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 28/05/2011 20:55:15
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 28/05/2011 20:45:34
Originally by: MotherMoon
I guess what I meant by recoil.... Is turret recoil. As in, a pistol doesn't have "recoil" However battleship cannons do. The action where the gun it's self has recoil animation. What word should I be using instead of recoil?
It's still recoil, but it's applied to a different part of the turret+ship system with different timings, depending on how rigid/elastic all the connections of the firing assembly to the ship itself are.
The IMPULSE granted by the "shooting" of anything that does a specific amount of a specific type of damage is basically always the same.
The "visibleness" of recoil depends on how much MASS that impulse is being applied to (and on the timescale involved, but that's yet another story - and ALL of that impulse eventually gets applied to the entire ship anyway).
The more mass is moved, the less visible the recoil.
The more elastic the connection, the more visible the recoil on the earlier parts is and less on the later ones in the chain.
The faster the shot happens, the more visible the recoil.
_
Going from most visible to least visible (lowest mass initially moved to highest mass initially moved):
You can have barrel section recoil (if separate sections of the barrel can "telescope").
You can have full barrel recoil (if it's rigid and can only move backwards as a whole).
You can have partial turret recoil (the barrel PLUS something else attached to the barrel moving backwards).
You can have full turret recoil (if the entire turret is "solid" but placed on a springy platform).
You can have ship recoil (if the turret is "solid" and the mounting to the ship is rigid).
_
P.S. The only weapon you can even begin to call "recoilless" is something that "shoots" something backwards that has the same impulse as the stuff shot forwards, canceling out the forces exerted on the weapon itself.
Right but I'm noting about recoil then. There must be another word for it.
Recoil is the force of a weapon when it kicks back. And your list is perfect. But there must be a military word for all of those thing you posted.
Or maybe there isn't lol. All I know is I was trying to point out the connection between visible recoil *like a gun bolted to the ground* and people trying to argue that railguns don't have any recoil.
SO yeah this following statement must have a better word than recoil.
"Railguns without "recoil" built into the turret will be more prone to fractures and stress damages"
edit: also so we should use turrets with a barrel pointing in both directions? Somehow who I think that weapon system would tear itself apart xD
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 20:59:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Lumy
Note: you could simply use "Activation Cost" attribute of laser turret. E.g. Tachyons II use 95 GJ .
Assume just 1% effectivity, you still have about 1 GJ energy released per shot.
1 GJ beam energy translates into roughly an impulse of 3.33 m*kg/s.
If you use the unrealistic 1 kg mass for the turret and even add 1 kg of mass for the lens according to the same data source, you still get (for a near-instantaneous beam discharge so no dampening has time to happen) a roughly 6 km/h peak speed, which is basically the speed of a brisk walk.
However, we already have lasers that have nearly 10% efficiency in real life at room temperature (and even up to 20% efficiency if sufficiently cooled), so a peak backwards recoil speed of 60 km/h or even 120 km/h is not unthinkable at all.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 21:34:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Lumy
Note: you could simply use "Activation Cost" attribute of laser turret. E.g. Tachyons II use 95 GJ .
Assume just 1% effectivity, you still have about 1 GJ energy released per shot.
1 GJ beam energy translates into roughly an impulse of 3.33 m*kg/s.
If you use the unrealistic 1 kg mass for the turret and even add 1 kg of mass for the lens according to the same data source, you still get (for a near-instantaneous beam discharge so no dampening has time to happen) a roughly 6 km/h peak speed, which is basically the speed of a brisk walk.
However, we already have lasers that have nearly 10% efficiency in real life at room temperature (and even up to 20% efficiency if sufficiently cooled), so a peak backwards recoil speed of 60 km/h or even 120 km/h is not unthinkable at all.
Minus that in all your calculations you seem to be forgetting that it isnt an instantanious discharge, or anywhere near it. Projectile weapons and also hybrid weapons have their 'kick' from firing in a fraction of a second, for beam lasers it is several seconds. I cant be bothered to actually do the calculations, but i want to bet there would at least be a difference of a billion times or so in the actual force applied on the gun due to firing.
Which means the force is not a reason why recoil would happen (part of cooling process is still an option though).
|
Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 22:00:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Akita T
P.S. The only weapon you can even begin to call "recoilless" is something that "shoots" something backwards that has the same impulse as the stuff shot forwards, canceling out the forces exerted on the weapon itself.
Missile launchers, whether ship- or shoulder-mounted, are generally recoilless as long as the back end is open .
Note to CCP: When you get around to putting nice missile/rocket/torpedo launchers on my favorite Caldari ships: NO RECOIL!!!!
__________________________________________________
Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate. |
Astroka
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 22:04:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Jno Aubrey
Originally by: Akita T
P.S. The only weapon you can even begin to call "recoilless" is something that "shoots" something backwards that has the same impulse as the stuff shot forwards, canceling out the forces exerted on the weapon itself.
Missile launchers, whether ship- or shoulder-mounted, are generally recoilless as long as the back end is open .
Note to CCP: When you get around to putting nice missile/rocket/torpedo launchers on my favorite Caldari ships: NO RECOIL!!!!
Missiles and such are also self-propelled. The missile launcher is pretty literally just a tube that it sits in.
Originally by: Ioci
Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.
1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.
|
Illwill Bill
Talu Shaya
Talu Shaya Empire
|
Posted - 2011.05.28 23:55:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Mister Smithington
Look, they're laser turrets and they recoil. It's fine. It's more than fine; it's awesome. Can we just leave it at that?
But... but... science!
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
Revenge is a dish best served with auto-cannons.
|
Kalzin Maya
Amarr
Lonely Maple Construction Group
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 01:00:00 -
[206]
It's not recoil as much at is part of the heat dispersal mechanism for the internal components of the laser closer to the barrel.
null |
Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 01:45:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Fearless M0F0
I guess OP missed physics lab where they show you photons have mass , but then that lab was in college so
Photons do not have mass... period.
They DO have momentum. They Do impart an impulse on absorption/emission/reflection.
They can in large enough numbers produce a kick requiring turret recoil (The frame of the turret might be able to take large forces but the optics the beam is imparting the force on may require cushioning. This would explain why the turrets still recoil despite significantly less force than comparable kinetic weapons, and part of what causes t2/faction crystals to degrade (in addition to thermal stress).)
But photons do not have mass.
If they did the couldn't travel at light speed.
PS. free electron lasers can theoretically get up to 65% efficiency, and that's just with currently known science.
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 03:21:00 -
[208]
Edited by: Ghoest on 29/05/2011 03:25:24
Originally by: Akita T
I said "least" recoil. That doesn't mean "negligible" recoil.
Also, if you want to go by my actual calculations, use those already posted on page #4 : Linkage
Or, to put it ever so slightly differently : if you have a railgun slug and a laser beam dealing roughly the same amount of damage (but through different mechanics), the recoil would be of comparable magnitudes for both.
This would only be the case if the majority of the laser damage being COMPARED was the impulse damage from the laser.
Im working under the impression that the majority of the damage should be from the photons being absorbed by the target resulting in excited electrons creating plasma and burning/melting holes in the target.
In which case you would need much less impluse damage to match a projectile.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 03:52:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Ghoest
This would only be the case is the majority of the damage done by the laser was impulse damage itself had to be high enough to compare to the projectile weapons.
In the case of a laser, the entire energy is electromagnetic energy, which causes mostly thermal damage (and maybe some radiation damage, but mostly just thermal). Just point and heat.
In the case of a rail slug, the entire energy is kinetic energy, which causes a mix of kinetic, thermal and explosive damage which depends on the slug properties.
For a rail slug impact, some of the "stored" kinetic energy transforms into heat on impact, which superheats the slug, potentially causing it to at least partially vaporize and literally explode, with some of the pieces becoming shrapnel, other becoming an expanding cloud of superheated material.
If the target is "too soft", the slug can just pass through it without losing too much energy, leaving a small hole from end to end, not managing to heat up enough to fragment, let alone explode.
If the target is "too hard", the slug could simply fully vaporize (or at least shatter into very small pieces), and if the target also has a layered armor, each successive layer will further fragment and/or vaporize more of the slug pieces, causing it to not deal much damage.
There's a "sweet spot" where the target is neither too hard nor too soft, and the slug manages to pass though the outer layers of armor before disintegrating too much, fragmenting/vaporizing inside the target or at most slightly damaging the layered armor on the other end. This "sweet spot" depends on the slug form, slug material and slug speed, all of which you can vary depending on the internal structure of the target.
The ideal damage dealt is roughly proportional to the total energy E of whatever is hitting (be it laser or railgun slug).
So if you want a railgun slug to deal the same order of magnitude of damage as the laser beam, the kinetic energy of the slug needs to be roughly the same order of magnitude as the electromagnetic energy of the laser beam (and also hit the sweet spot for the rail slug).
The impulse of a laser beam of total energy E is E/c (where c is the speed of light in a vacuum), and it's the same impulse acting on the turret "backwards" to shoot the beam or forwards on the target when hitting it. Obviously, that impulse is negligible compared to the size of the ship and it's NOT what causes the damage. The energy itself, dissipating into heat, that's what causing the damage on the target.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 03:54:00 -
[210]
If anyone stubbornly believes that lasers should not have recoil, breaking your immersion, consider the turret animation to be the result of hydraulics and stuff to make the laser go pew pew.
Something like:
1. It's a safety mechanism that the barrel, which contains the frequency crystal, must be kept separate from the light-shiny-zappy-pew part.
2. As the laser's power diminishes the barrel, which contains the crystal, moves closer to the light-shiny-zappy-pew part to maintain the same range, by altering the focal point.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |