Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

3D Stereoscopic Fotografy


sparhawk

Recommended Posts

So I bought this 3D Nvidia shutter lenses a few weeks ago and yesterday I had the idea to try creating my own images. I was surprised that it is actually that easy. I took two fotos from my kids with the camera slightly shifted and put them side by side in GIMP and lo and behold, when I watched it with the stereoscopic viewer it really worked. :D

 

Well, the quality is not the best because I shot it just with the hand, no tripod or such aid, but still. The 3D effect is really good visible. :D

 

The best thing is, that you can watch those side by side imaged also without any aids, just by using the cross eyed or parallel looking technique. I never mastered the parallel technique, which probably would be better on the eyes, but the cross eye one also works perfectly. Only my eyes start to hurt when I do this to long. :P

 

Of course with a single camera you can take no moving images, or images snapshots, so you can only take pictures where the scene is static enough to take the second foto.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good. Some years ago I tried a similar thing. With a simple old film camera I placed it on a cabinet to take a still shot of a room. Took one photo then carefully moved the camera to one side and repeated. I think actually it is quite tolerant so it does not need to be precisely eye distance apart. I did several of these. When developed I had no viewer but I can do the parallel view thing reasonably comfortably with practice.

 

You can even do this with a rough sketch. Draw small. Just draw two squares side by side the same size and a stick or something behind but move the one on the right so it sticks out slightly more on the right. Add a circle on the left and let it stick out slightly more on the left. If you want to get really nerdy (and of course I've never done this) cut out identical twin pictures of various things and place them overlapping one another.

 

I've always loved illusion, 3D images and stereo sound I experimented with for a long time as well as various optical illusions. I had one of those lenticular 3D images that don't need a viewer. It was an A4 size promo of 2001 A Space Oddysey of the space station and shuttle docking. When TV is like that it will be sensational.

 

Maybe this is why I find these video games so fascinating because ultimately it's creating an illusion. I think there is some kind of hardware that displays all '3D' video games in actual 3D but I've never tried it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good. Some years ago I tried a similar thing. With a simple old film camera I placed it on a cabinet to take a still shot of a room. Took one photo then carefully moved the camera to one side and repeated. I think actually it is quite tolerant so it does not need to be precisely eye distance apart. I did several of these.

The camera distance doesn't matter at all. It just alters the depth perception a little. If the cameras are further away, the objects in the scene will be perceived nearer.

 

Maybe this is why I find these video games so fascinating because ultimately it's creating an illusion. I think there is some kind of hardware that displays all '3D' video games in actual 3D but I've never tried it.

Yep, it's Nvidia 3D Vision, which Sparhawk has also been talking about. I don't own it myself, but I tested it at work. It does look good in some games (e.g. Bioshock 2), but it can also look horribly disastrous (e.g. Starcraft 2) and as far as I know, there is only support for Direct X based games until now... :-/ By the way, since you love illusions like this so much: If you have a Nvidia graphics card capable of DX10, you can just download the 3D vision drivers and play in 3D using regular red/cyan anaglyph glasses. It does mess with your eyes on the long term of course, but it's neat occasionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think actually it is quite tolerant so it does not need to be precisely eye distance apart.

 

I'm just experimenting with it. I switch on the serial feature so that the camera shoots as long as I press the button. I took several fotos in a row by moving the camera along, so I wonder how this will look like. If it works well enough, it's faster then aligning manually. I also took shots with different apertures and different focus from the same image to see if it makes a different when putting it in 3D.

However I got the impression that a realistic eye distance causes the final 3D image to look a bit strange. When I moved only a small amount it looked better, but with those serial shots I can test it and see if this is really the case. :)

 

I did several of these. When developed I had no viewer but I can do the parallel view thing reasonably comfortably with practice.

 

Wow! I never mastered that. :) Well, with the 3D lens it's most comfortable though. :P

 

You can even do this with a rough sketch. Draw small. Just draw two squares side by side the same size and a stick or something behind but move the one on the right so it sticks out slightly more on the right.

 

Actually I thought about this as well. I wanted also to see if Blender can support this easily as well. I think using a 3D app, making the images should be much easier because you have full control over the scene.

 

If you want to get really nerdy (and of course I've never done this) cut out identical twin pictures of various things and place them overlapping one another.

 

I tried that as well, but when I take the same image then there is no 3D effect (what is to be expected). Or am I missunderstanding something here?

 

I've always loved illusion, 3D images and stereo sound I experimented with for a long time as well as various optical illusions. I had one of those lenticular 3D images that don't need a viewer. It was an A4 size promo of 2001 A Space Oddysey of the space station and shuttle docking. When TV is like that it will be sensational.

 

I hope that this 3D hype really takes off. At the moment it looks good, but I hope it doesn't die out as a fad. :) I really love it to watch a movie in the cinema with this. :D

 

Yep, it's Nvidia 3D Vision, which Sparhawk has also been talking about. I don't own it myself, but I tested it at work. It does look good in some games (e.g. Bioshock 2), but it can also look horribly disastrous (e.g. Starcraft 2) and as far as I know, there is only support for Direct X based games until now... :-/

 

Yes. Only DirectX support, unless you have a Quadro card. :( Some games look strange, that depends on how they use the 2D overlays. This can give really strange images up to the point where your head starts to hurt. But most modern games work quite nice. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could setup a rig in Blender very easily using two cameras parented to an empty object. The cameras would act as left and right eyes and the empty would act as the head. Move the "head" and the "eyes" move with it.

 

To get fancy you could also use a second empty in conjunction with a few constraints so that the cameras are oriented towards a focal point. It seems pretty common to overlook this detail when making stereoscopic images but it makes sense since your eyes aren't fixed but rotate.

Edited by rich_is_bored
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Only DirectX support, unless you have a Quadro card. :( Some games look strange, that depends on how they use the 2D overlays. This can give really strange images up to the point where your head starts to hurt. But most modern games work quite nice. :)

Pro cards wouldn't work for games really, there's quite a large difference in what they actually do with the API... but at least your modeling would look incredibly trippy :)

 

But I'm sure in the future we'll be seeing it more and more, hopefully in its passive form rather than shutter glasses however. As one of those people who suffered greatly at the hands of 60-70Hz CRTs I cant take more than a couple of minutes without feeling like its doing my head in :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes I just remembered. I made some 3D tests in Thief and uploaded them but so long ago I've no idea what happened to them. This is what I did and of course it will work in any 3D game like Dark Mod. Find a nice view in the game and save a screenshot. Now move to one side and repeat. I cropped those images somewhat so I could focus on them manually. There must be a post over at ttlg when I first did it but no point in searching for 3D. I will see if I can find my old post though

 

[quote name=STiFU' date='11 September 2010 - 11:45 AM'

timestamp='1284201934' post='231267]

If you have a Nvidia graphics card capable of DX10, you can just download the 3D vision drivers and play in 3D using regular red/cyan anaglyph glasses. It does mess with your eyes on the long term of course, but it's neat occasionally.

I must try that then, I have various old 3D cheap cardboard glasses accumulated. I even have (?unless thrown out) an old VHS tape of experimental TV programs that were broadcast.

 

I tried that as well, [pasting cutouts overlapping one another] but when I take the same image then there is no 3D effect (what is to be expected). Or am I missunderstanding something here?
Well it works with any twin objects - cardboard cutouts or copy and past in a paint program. Even place two identical large coins over two identical small coins with the back one offset differently. For instance, here's a very rough quick one where I have pasted the figure over an identical background and moved him slightly left in the right image so my right eye can see around him more from the right. The same principle would work with multiple images. I can focus on this image manually on screen. It helps to not have it too large. Hell I can merge my two thumbs together manually and that sometimes helps to defocus the eyes then look beyond to the screen.

 

post-400-128421551159_thumb.jpg

 

I hope that this 3D hype really takes off. At the moment it looks good, but I hope it doesn't die out as a fad. :) I really love it to watch a movie in the cinema with this. :D

Well me too but it comes down to whether they can make money at it. 3D cinema has been possible for well over 50 years but rarely implemented. In fact cinema today looks very much like it did in the 60's or even earlier when they had wide screen colour multi track sound in such as Cleopatra.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get fancy you could also use a second empty in conjunction with a few constraints so that the cameras are oriented towards a focal point. It seems pretty common to overlook this detail when making stereoscopic images but it makes sense since your eyes aren't fixed but rotate.

It is indeed the more realistic representation of human vision, but it is problematic in stereo imaging, because disparities at image borders will be a lot stronger than at the center of the image-pairs, which gives discomfort to the viewing person. This is why only parallel projection is used here.

 

I tried that as well, but when I take the same image then there is no 3D effect (what is to be expected). Or am I missunderstanding something here?

If you shift the same image horizontally, it will create somewhat a 3D effect. It will look like the whole scene was on a plane in front of or behind the screen. If you want multiple layers of depth, you'll need to shift certain parts of the image stronger than others. A stronger shift (disparity) represents closer objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes I just remembered. I made some 3D tests in Thief and uploaded them but so long ago I've no idea what happened to them.

 

With the Elsa Revelator I could even play Thief in 3D. :D Was pretty cool, but the image got really dark, so it was not comfortable to play. Half Life was much brighter and it looked really cool.

 

This is what I did and of course it will work in any 3D game like Dark Mod. Find a nice view in the game and save a screenshot. Now move to one side and repeat.

 

Well, that's exactly what I do with the camera anyway. ;) However I wanted to take a few screenshots from TDM just to see how it would be looking. To bad it can't be played that way though. :(

 

Well it works with any twin objects - cardboard cutouts or copy and past in a paint program. Even place two identical large coins over two identical small coins with the back one offset differently.

 

Well, of course it works in a way, but the objects are not 3D really. It just looks as if there were offset from the background a bit, because they lack the detailed information.

 

Well me too but it comes down to whether they can make money at it. 3D cinema has been possible for well over 50 years but rarely implemented.

 

I wonder why. I mean the technique is pretty old.

 

In fact cinema today looks very much like it did in the 60's or even earlier when they had wide screen colour multi track sound in such as Cleopatra.

 

But the anaglyph method doesn't work very well IMO. The current technology looks much better and yields crystal clear images. Maybe that's the reason. Don't know if they tried it earlier only with anaglyph. When they did those TV broadcasts back in the early eighties I was not really impressed. In fact I didn't even notice an effect. With modern 3D television sets it would be much better if that Nvidia experience is similar.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I think it has to be spectacle-free to really succeed. Watching a movie in a cinema with everyone wearing wierd specs is one thing; even in the home to watch a big blockbuster movie; but I just can't see a family all wearing these odd things in the casual viewing atmosphere of a home, especially where a TV is on most of the day or evening. Wandering in and out of the kitchen, mum doing the ironing while watching her soap, people chatting with the TV on in the background, eating a TV dinner etc. Home TV is not all serious sit down and watch but is often part of a social interaction and other activities where the attention moves back and forth from TV to RL.

 

I suppose once a two-channel (left & right data I mean) broadcast service is established then the televisions themselves can show it using different methods so that gives some flexibility for the future as better TVs are developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose once a two-channel (left & right data I mean) broadcast service is established then the televisions themselves can show it using different methods so that gives some flexibility for the future as better TVs are developed.

There will rather be a broadcast of a Depthmap and the default-view image. Other views will be generated from these two images ("Depth Image Based Rendering"). Two-channel data broadcast would be limited to stereoscopic displays, but there are also multiple-View displays, with supplying viewers with more than two views of a scene. As far as I know, only 3D-BluRay utilizes this technique so far, but maybe eventually we'll get a service like this on regular TV-Broadcast or at least pay-TV as well. But as always, it will take a lot longer until technologies like this are widely available here in Germany... :-(

 

By the way, there are already a couple of approaches for spectacle-free 3D-Displays. The most simple ones are the view-blocking or microlens-devices on the basis of multiple-view displays, which work similar to the Lenticular Printings. Viewer-Movement even results in proper Movement of the Objects in the scene to a certain degree, in contrast to the faulty behaviour of Stereoscopic Displays. Many technologies are being researched at the moment. The future of 3DTV is promising... :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only seen 3d tv once at a tech show, and it was some lasers shining through a mist in a plastic cube, although the images were 3d the color was green and red.

 

the device wasn't aimed at going into the home, it was a tech show for fairgrounds and amusments, my brother had a candyfloss making machine and used to sell candyfloss at fates and markets.

Edited by stumpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, there are already a couple of approaches for spectacle-free 3D-Displays. The most simple ones are the view-blocking or microlens-devices on the basis of multiple-view displays, which work similar to the Lenticular Printings.

 

I don't see how this should translate into a 3D image. From what I understood this sounds like those double images that are often used for kids, so when you tilt the foto you see a different one.

 

Many technologies are being researched at the moment. The future of 3DTV is promising... :-)

 

Yes, and I hope that it's developed fast enough so that I can enjoy it. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how this should translate into a 3D image. From what I understood this sounds like those double images that are often used for kids, so when you tilt the foto you see a different one.

There are also 3D versions of these images. If the image changes dependent of the viewing angle, it is also possible that your eyes see two different images, since they do look at the lens from slightly different viewing angles. That's the general concept. However, as you can image, this technique introduces a lot of restrictions. It only works well in a couple of defined places: The viewing angle and the distance must be correct. If it is not, it might happen that there is no 3D effect or even worse, an inverted 3D effect if the left eye sees the right-eye image and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what will be cutting edge tomorrow:

Reminds me to these holographic comm-devices from deus ex...

 

But why I really jumped in: I am playing with that stereoscopic photography thing for some years now, without ever taking it to a new level though. When working with a single camera there's always the limitation that your scene should not be moving too much. This means: avoid leaves, water, streets, people and anything else that could make an interesting subject. :(

 

But behold -- there is SDM! :D

 

While the site looks like crap, SDM (stereo data maker) gives you the propably most inexpensive way to shoot highly synchronous stereoscopic photographs! It is based on CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) which is a non permanent firmware hack for compact class canon cameras (Powershot models). You can get older ones cheap on ebay. The idea is to get two of the same model, solder yourself a remote switch (battery, switch, cable, 2 x mini usb), assemble both cams on a frame (like this) and use the SDM-Firmware to operate them via the switch and synchronise them as close as possible beforehand.

 

You can get high quality pictures this way, CHDK enables RAW-support on those small cameras.

 

I like to do this one day, maybe next year (when I finished my exams...). Where stereoscopic photography really rocks IMO is when capturing fast movement, especially falling things or water from a fountain -- things that are usually too fast for the eye, presented in a way as if someone pressed the stop button for the world and allows you to examine them from a close perspective. A little bit like in those Star Trek holo-decks...

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is not, it might happen that there is no 3D effect or even worse, an inverted 3D effect if the left eye sees the right-eye image and vice versa.

 

Actually I thought that this should happen and tried it with my photos as well, but I don't really see a difference.

 

BTW: Nice avatar. Took me some time to figure out what it means, because at first sight I thought it's some kind of greek alphabet or such but always ha the feeling that I know it. :)

 

When working with a single camera there's always the limitation that your scene should not be moving too much. This means: avoid leaves, water, streets, people and anything else that could make an interesting subject. :(

 

Yeah, that's indeed a problem. I got around this to some extent though. Because at first I took two shots after the other, which takes quite some time. Then I got the idea to switch my camera to continous mode. So I press the button and keep it pressed and the camera continously takes shots. The I move the camera slightly sideways and take five-six while moving. I was quite surprised, because I didn't expect good results, but actually they were better than when I took time to take two shots. Another benefit is that I have several images to choose from and the time between two shots is much shorter. Of course it doesn't work for realy moved scenes, but slow movement and such are taken quite well.

 

I like to do this one day, maybe next year (when I finished my exams...). Where stereoscopic photography really rocks IMO is when capturing fast movement, especially falling things or water from a fountain -- things that are usually too fast for the eye, presented in a way as if someone pressed the stop button for the world and allows you to examine them from a close perspective. A little bit like in those Star Trek holo-decks...

 

:)

 

Yeah, I was thinking that it would be really cool to see such shots frozen in 3D dynamically. I wanted to experiment with this as well to see how good (or rather bad) it gets without a real 3D camera. :)

 

On the other hand, a 3D camera now costs about 300-400 Euro which is probably affordable. So who knows, maybe I can buy such a thing next year or so and they will get cheaper anyway in the meantime. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I thought that this should happen and tried it with my photos as well, but I don't really see a difference.

Yes, it is hardly noticeable that the 3D-effect is inverted. I was surprised by that as well in my recent experiments. It looks somewhat weird. I can't tell for sure, but I am guessing the inverted images are perceived so awkwardly because the monocular depth cues like shading, focus and textures support a scene-structure with inverted depths, compared to the structure perceived by stereovision and our brain maybe can't deal with that. So the depth perception is restrained...

 

We could do a little experiment to see, whether the 3D-structure is really inverted. We'll need a moncular depth cue independent environment and for that the random dot stereogram can be used. It is created by two identical random noise images, but with a rectangle in one image being shifted slightly to the side, to generate the 3D effect. This was used to proof the theory of human stereovision and can now be used to see whether the 3D perception is inverted, when the left-eye and right-eye views are swapped. :)

 

BTW: Nice avatar. Took me some time to figure out what it means, because at first sight I thought it's some kind of greek alphabet or such but always ha the feeling that I know it. :)

Hehe, I believe you're the fourth person on the forum to understand how geeky this avatar actually is... :) Or at least you're the fourth one to speak up!

 

 

Yeah, that's indeed a problem. I got around this to some extent though. Because at first I took two shots after the other, which takes quite some time. Then I got the idea to switch my camera to continous mode. So I press the button and keep it pressed and the camera continously takes shots. The I move the camera slightly sideways and take five-six while moving. I was quite surprised, because I didn't expect good results, but actually they were better than when I took time to take two shots.

Interesting. My first assumption would have been that this method creates too much motion blur due to the camera movement. I guess your camera was a rather expensive one with a large sensor-chip? I am asking because you'll need VERY fast shutter times here to minimize motion blur and with fast shutter times you can only retrieve acceptable image quality if the light-active zones are very big.

 

Here's what will be cutting edge tomorrow:

Reminds me to these holographic comm-devices from deus ex...

Ah, that looks cool. I also heard of a similar system, but for regular TV Displays. Headtracking is performed by the device and the projectors point directly into the eyes of the viewer. Until now, this is just a concept though, as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, I believe you're the fourth person on the forum to understand how geeky this avatar actually is... :) Or at least you're the fourth one to speak up!

 

The major reason why I actually noticed it is because I try to learn russian, so I'm reading russian text to learn the alphabet. So at first I noticed it because the first character reminded me of some russian character, but it felt somehow wrong. And that feeling of wrongness got me always to look at it again, until I realized it because I remembered the logic lessons that I had many years ago. :)

 

Interesting. My first assumption would have been that this method creates too much motion blur due to the camera movement.

 

I move it rather slow and try to keep it steady. And even with a rather slow shutter speed there is not any noticable motion blur.

 

I guess your camera was a rather expensive one with a large sensor-chip?

 

Canon EOS 350D with the standard lens 35-70.

 

I am asking because you'll need VERY fast shutter times here to minimize motion blur and with fast shutter times you can only retrieve acceptable image quality if the light-active zones are very big.

 

The series that I took was done with fstop 4.5 and 1/50 which is not really fast. I tried to take shots with higher speeds to see if there is a difference, but the light was not good enough. :P

 

If you are interested in the result I can upload a JPS file that I created with GIMP out of them. Of course the quality is not perfect as it is taken without a tripod and my first test, but I considered the resulting 3D image acceptable enough.

 

The major advantage of that continuous shooting is, that the Z axis is more stable then when I try to take my time for two independent shots. In my previous attempts I always had

the problem that there was not only the left/right movement but also a small up/down movement. I tried to take a reference point so that I knew how high the shot should be but that didn't really work well. And because of that, those images have more ghosting then the later ones with the movement. And of course if you have three or four shots you can pick the best of them.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting take on it, some sort of action photography approach -- just inverted: the camera moves, the scene not so much. :)

 

Thanks for the idea. It's sure more on the sloppy side of things, but it's always good to explore new options. I will try this the next sunny day from my skateboard.

 

Taking two pictures without a tripod needs a little practice. A usual tip is to stand upright, both feet on the ground, then put your weight on the left foot for the first shot and then shift it to the right foot for the second shot.

Also, use the view finder. You can see what is at the top and bottom border and avoid z-movement that way.

 

On the other hand, a 3D camera now costs about 300-400 Euro which is probably affordable. So who knows, maybe I can buy such a thing next year or so and they will get cheaper anyway in the meantime.

Sure. You could also get one of those good old ancient soviet made rangefinder stereo cameras (look for FED CTEPEO) and shoot slides...

...the downside is the lack of control over the stereo base, so for me they needed to get really cheap. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the idea. It's sure more on the sloppy side of things, but it's always good to explore new options. I will try this the next sunny day from my skateboard.

 

From the sakteboard? That might be a bit extremly fast. :P

 

Taking two pictures without a tripod needs a little practice. A usual tip is to stand upright, both feet on the ground, then put your weight on the left foot for the first shot and then shift it to the right foot for the second shot.

 

Thanks for the tip! That might also help to ensure that the camera is only moved a small amount, because I had the problem that I shifted the camera way to much in the beginning. Actually I had the impression that, when I shifted the camera by about the amount of my eyedistance, the result were much worse.

 

Also, use the view finder. You can see what is at the top and bottom border and avoid z-movement that way.

 

Yeah, but there is still a large amount of error.

 

You know, if you're crafty you can probably whip up a poor man's rig using a few small mirrors. This way you only need one camera and you don't have to worry about how much time has passed between shots.

 

Well, but then you probably need some software that extracts the single images, right?

 

Or two crappy cameras strapped toghether :P

 

Don't laugh! I was actually thinking of that for taking video shots. With video my approach doesn't work. I wanted to try to move the camera sideways and then copy the movie and shift one of them a few images and see if that works, but still this is extremly limited as you can not take normal video movies. So I was thinking, maybe getting another very slim video camera and tape them together. Should basically work as well. :) You have to press the buttons at the same time, but you can still remove the extra frames with a program as you probably will not be exact and the if the cameras are of different brand the speed might also differ a bit. However, once both are running, then the resulting footage in the middle should be fine.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, but then you probably need some software that extracts the single images, right?

 

Nothing extravagant. Just an image editing application that allows you to crop a selection. There are plenty of free applications that will suffice.

 

If this is something you want to perform on large batches of images you can write a script. You might try http://processing.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Ansome

      Turns out my 15th anniversary mission idea has already been done once or twice before! I've been beaten to the punch once again, but I suppose that's to be expected when there's over 170 FMs out there, eh? I'm not complaining though, I love learning new tricks and taking inspiration from past FMs. Best of luck on your own fan missions!
      · 4 replies
    • The Black Arrow

      I wanna play Doom 3, but fhDoom has much better features than dhewm3, yet fhDoom is old, outdated and probably not supported. Damn!
      Makes me think that TDM engine for Doom 3 itself would actually be perfect.
      · 6 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      Maybe a bit of advice ? In the FM series I'm preparing, the two main characters have the given names Toby and Agnes (it's the protagonist and deuteragonist, respectively), I've been toying with the idea of giving them family names as well, since many of the FM series have named protagonists who have surnames. Toby's from a family who were usually farriers, though he eventually wound up working as a cobbler (this serves as a daylight "front" for his night time thieving). Would it make sense if the man's popularly accepted family name was Farrier ? It's an existing, though less common English surname, and it directly refers to the profession practiced by his relatives. Your suggestions ?
      · 9 replies
    • nbohr1more

      Looks like the "Reverse April Fools" releases were too well hidden. Darkfate still hasn't acknowledge all the new releases. Did you play any of the new April Fools missions?
      · 5 replies
    • The Black Arrow

      Hope everyone has the blessing of undying motivation for "The Dark Mod 15th Anniversary Contest". Can't wait to see the many magnificent missions you all may have planned. Good luck, with an Ace!
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...