PDA

View Full Version : Using PCs as a central haunt control system.



Phoenix
05-08-2008, 07:30 AM
Id like to get people opinions on using a PC as a Haunted house control system, I know there are a lot of haunted house operators who would rather be buried alive than use a PC, and Id like to understand if this opinion is based upon hard experience or anecdotal evidence.

My interest in this matter is as a professional controls engineer I have been developing PC based control systems for on and off 20 years, and I'm actually very familiar with many of the arguments, and have often successfully proven many of them to be unfounded, out of context or easily solved.

The case for the PC is very strong, today even baseline machines are inordinately powerful, and in recent years the prices have crashed to a level where you can buy a perfectly serviceable laptop computer for $400, compare this to a number of stand alone haunt and animatronics controllers and it represents an incredible value..... however, given an option of using PC or not then most people will still prefer the 'not' option.

When you factor in the fact that a single PC with the right combination of hardware and software could do the job of many stand alone controllers, and give you a singe central point of control then I feel its well worth examining the case against the PC.

The haunted industry is not alone in this preference either, there is a whole world out there who would much prefer non PC solutions, I work in the industrial automation industry and have known clients want to spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars on redeveloping a non PC solution.

However, much of the anti PC rhetoric is often based on a number of misconceptions, and evidence that is anecdotal, out of date, out of context and in several cases based upon scare stories whipped up by manufacturers protecting non PC products.

Reliability is probably the PCs most damning criticism. EVERYONE complains about a failed PC at some point and we all have personal experiences and stories about the frustration of being unable to get one to do the simplest tasks, however how often have you sat back and asked why, after all, under the skin the hardware of a PC is solid state, the only moving part in a PC is the hard disk drive, and indeed its the only part thats liable to mechanical failure.

On top of this hardware we have the software.... and this is where the arguing normally starts Microsoft/Micro$oft/Microshaft Windows/Windoze, call it what you will everyone hates the "evil money grabbing giant" that is Microsoft and the "unreliable junk" they peddle.... and often these accusations have been well justified, they completely underestimated the development of computers from day 1 and the windows 95/98/ME product line was absolute garbage.

But, probably the biggest fault of the PC, its biggest weakness is its accessibility, just about any would be geek thinks he can buy a disparate collection of parts and build a PC, just about any Taiwanese electronics shop can build a motherboard/card/widget that plugs into a PC, and just about any kid in a darkened bedroom can write some junk software, and just about any user over a period of time will load up his computer with the most bizarre range of junk and 'cool gadgets' that its no wonder the thing operates at the speed of pouring cold tar.

gadget-evilusions
05-08-2008, 09:13 AM
I would love to go to central control in our haunts, but all the wiring is my biggest draw back. We are temporary, so 5 weeks to set up everything. Thats why I normally stick to stand along controllers.

The other thing I have yet to find is a good software program that would allow me the number of i/o's i need and is user friendly.

The Doctor
05-08-2008, 09:48 AM
If I could find a nice linux or even windows based software and ethernet controled selanoids I would so be all over this. If it had a great GUI I would be in heaven. I am not a control engineer but do a ton of Networks and ethernet cable can be ran in no time and could be rolled up and stored for temp house or heck wireless. Well I am just dreaming but that would be awsome to me. Just keep a spare PC on hand with a backup of the configuration and you take most of the problems out of the mix. Don't ever let it touch the internet and you are in even better shape.

Phoenix
05-08-2008, 01:21 PM
Very good points about keeping a backup and keeping your control computers away from the internet, in fact, if you are using a central control computer, you should only ever use it as a control computer, don't let the kids play games, don't use it for email, once you get a control computer doing the job you need it to do then don't screw with it.

What about DMX? a DMX network can control 512 bytes of output, and its quite easy to build a DMX solenoid manifold using DMX relays, and you can use wireless DMX.

After DMX then there are industrial protocols like Profibus, Profinet, fieldbus, these protocols are supported by hundreds of thousands of network devices such as pneumatic manifolds.... and more significantly your input devices can sit on the same network.

Software is the easy bit, over the past three years I've been developing the Exorcist haunt controller, and I'm currently trying to understand what kind of system would be of interest to professional attractions.

The Doctor
05-08-2008, 03:46 PM
I must look into this for future upgrades to the manor. I would love to run everything from a central location with a nice gui have a second monitor with the floorplan up and it could then alert maintenance when there was a problem. I see lots of very useful things with a central control center.

SinisterControls
05-08-2008, 10:10 PM
You can have the best of both worlds. Individual PLC's (Programmable Logic Controller) can be located at each scene or room. Depends on how complex your props are. Might have only two or three PLCS in entire haunt or one per prop. Each PLC has a network card so you just run a single network cable from each PLC back to a hub that's attached to the PC. The nice thing is that your PLC ladder logic resides on each individual PLC. In your code is a "safe mode" that if network goes down resort to local control only. PC kicks out, network crashes, the PLC will keep on humming in "dumb" mode, allowing you time to re-boot or grab the fire extinguisher depending on severity. Great for safety too. Have e-stop to tie all controls together and a dump valve for air.

Creating controls for a mini haunt right now. And when I say mini I'm talking 12' x 16'. Suppose to be a for rent for parties or something like that. But it utilizes several PLC's tied to a touch panel HMI display. Limited control, but for $300 you get a touch pad display with custom graphics that ties it all together. Perfect for a rental where the operator won't have any controls background or haunt experience.

Karl Fields
05-08-2008, 11:46 PM
Sounds like an interesting idea, kind of like the Holy Grail of Haunt controllers, and I am very interested.

Back in 1999 Simulated Reality tried to market a product with a similar concept. Never really got off the ground, for various reasons, but we were Beta tester for the Brain and it's related daughter boards.

Couple of basic issues right away; first is the expense. It just SOUNDS expensive!

Secondly, we have what seems like a ton of money, time and resources tied up in various controllers like Prop1, Prop2, Gilderfluke, KeyBanger, Cowlicious, Midi show control, old computers with KIT-74s, homebuilt crap, product from vendors that are no longer around and others Iím failing to remember. Of these maybe 50 controllers, each one has a fairly unique purpose and the thought of recreating each of these components in a PLC seems to be daunting, at least to me. Iíve got enough trouble getting each of the systems working each year as it is without the complexity of a PLC. So the question is how do you program the PLC? A nice Windows GUI that you supply would really set my heart at ease. I donít have the time or desire to learn another language.

How many outputs does the PLC use? What voltages? To cobble together all of the components we currently use we would need a variety of DC voltages and AC. Then sound and triggering control is something else.

So I guess my biggest reason not to centrally control is the seemingly overwhelming task of trying to get our current stuff ported to work on a central system.

But I really like the idea and please keep me informed as you progress.

RJ Productions
05-09-2008, 03:53 AM
So it's sounding like a good idea to start out with, bad idea if you already have controllers in place! At first I wanted everything in one control center, all the sound, all the control, then I was concerned about "all the eggs in one basket". At least with seperate audio and/or controllers if one goes down at leastthe rest of your show is up and running. And like Karl, what to do with all the existing controllers? Haunted EBay??

JamBam
05-09-2008, 04:54 AM
PLC's are in industry running nearly all controls for automation for all industries out there. I work for GM and we use Allen bradley exclusively. The most common, and very infrequent, service issue is to power down and reboot. By infrequent I mean days and weeks, if not months of 7/24 up time. Many never go down. We have PLCs that were installed in 1986 and still plugging along running conveyors and other equipment that are the heart of the Chevy truck assembly plant here.

As a side note, there is still in place several systems I programmed in 1986 that are graphic display overviews that Mr Gates never made a dime on. They use cpm language, this is pre-DOS.

The biggest drawback is learning logic programming. The software and interface cables can be salty, but you only need one.

eBay has a ton of plc equipment available.

Phoenix
05-09-2008, 06:34 AM
legacy devices........, sooner or later these stop being the attractive quick fixes they were when you started out and evolve into a liability, this is because they lack scaleability, and what was a good fix for a single prop is not necessarily a good fix for an integrated control system.

The real problem with legacy devices started when they were first used, and the user wasn't looking at a bigger picture, Ive done it many times myself and it usually always ends up in an incomprehensible tangle of wiring and having to juggle which device can be connected to which prop/sound output etc...

The real danger with legacy devices is when you find yourself at a point where they have become so numerous that you are incapable of expanding the schema, yet at the same time you still feel they are too valuable to dispose of, this thinking can easily paralyze development, and the sooner you opt out and go for a scalable system the less painful it will be.

However, distributed sound processors, PLC's and the like are not a problem, and indeed with a more complex control system can indeed be an asset, the trick with them is to use devices that can communicate with the entire system, however as an overall control system I don't see PLC's as the way forward, there are a lot of things that PLC's on their own are not good at... and we come back to the point, at current PC prices PLC's cant compete for value.

Networked E-Stops is an absolute NO unless you are using a network protocol thats categorized for networked E-Stops such as azibus, if you are using an E-Stop then it must be hardwired, fail safe and have a degree of redundancy.

Speculo
05-09-2008, 07:16 AM
Sound would be the real cool thing here. A great program that could run MANY audio tracks at once, feeding into some sort of attached Pre-amp with RCA outs you could take to multiple amps, now that would be great! It would wipe out the stacks of CD players most of us have, that really don't like fog! Could you have a single PC playing 30+ Tracks, with an attached Preamp? What would it cost?

Its too late for me on this, We have been converting to Gulderfluke paybacks. This lets me zone the sound and not put "all my eggs in one basket" so to speak.

But still what is available on this front?

Thanks!

Ben
NETHERWORLD

Phoenix
05-09-2008, 07:39 AM
Sound would be the real cool thing here. A great program that could run MANY audio tracks at once, feeding into some sort of attached Pre-amp with RCA outs you could take to multiple amps, now that would be great! It would wipe out the stacks of CD players most of us have, that really don't like fog! Could you have a single PC playing 30+ Tracks, with an attached Preamp? What would it cost?

Its too late for me on this, We have been converting to Gulderfluke paybacks. This lets me zone the sound and not put "all my eggs in one basket" so to speak.

But still what is available on this front?

Thanks!

Ben
NETHERWORLD

Provided you don't want more than 8 sound channels then I cracked that issue several years ago.

A useful add on to a PC that costs about $20 is a 7.1 sound card, you can then mix your sounds to play out of any combination of the 8 output channels.

PCs have the capacity to play many sounds at the same time, I used this combination of features in Exorcist it works to great effect.

SinisterControls
05-09-2008, 11:04 AM
Networked E-Stops is an absolute NO unless you are using a network protocol thats categorized for networked E-Stops such as azibus, if you are using an E-Stop then it must be hardwired, fail safe and have a degree of redundancy.

Agree 100%. Sorry if it sounded like I intended to e-stop thru the PLC. We use push to activate / twist to release e-stop buttons from A/B. They have two sets of contacts. One set is a continuos loop from one e-stop to the next run thru the whole haunt. All hardwired and designed to fail safe (open w/ power off). The 2nd set of contacts are all wired individual and back to your central station. Be it a PLC or PC or even your own home made bank of lights. When one estop is hit and evrything screeches to a halt, now you know which button was hit and can immediately address the issue.
So the PLC or PC is monitoring the e-stop not actually breaking the connection. One thing the PLC does do though is prevent the e-stop from being re-energized after tripping until the PLC says its ok. So if you reset the twist lock button at the prop you also need to hit the master reset back at the station.

But all your points are valid. They are not cheap. They can be difficult to program if you have no experience with them. They are easy to design in up front but tougher after the fact. Believe it or not the PLC itself is pretty cheap. Depends on what you need to do. But now you need to put it in a enclosure, terminals, wires, switches, etc. Assuming your doing it all correct up to code as if you were building a piece of automation machinery now your 3-4 x's the cost of the PLC for the finished system. Ever price a good industrial quality switch? Easily $30 each. Not that you couldn't put a PLC on a piece of din rail right on the wall and it wouldn't work, just not the way you do it. Unfortunately a quality robust system costs a bit of money. We can put a touch panel color display on it so you have anice interface and don't have to program it direct but that adds big cash to the project. I can get micro displays in the $200 range but very limited functions. A 15" could go way over $1200. And if you nee da major program change you gotta call someone out to do it for ya.

For an established haunt I couldn't justify the expense. Maybe think about a cheap PC for controlling ambient lighting and sound only.

Attached are photos of my lab - well mine as in I run it, but it belongs to my employer : ) Central computer monitors individual PLCs right thru Excel. Now don't jump all over me since the PLC's aren't in enclosures. There's 48 of them so we turned the room into an enclosure by using an interlocked door.

SinisterControls
05-09-2008, 11:06 AM
Here's the e-stop button itself. There are six total wired back to the circuit breaker panel. Have panel next to CB panel with master relay that cuts power to PLC, signals master controller, and dumps air.

Phoenix
05-09-2008, 05:09 PM
Excel..... that's got to be backed by VBA code :)

I actually wrote a complete control package in Excel, the theory was that Excel would make a pretty familiar interface for people to do their own logic programming.

http://www.mordor.plus.com/Control.html

the latter versions of Excel control also had DMX and VSA interfacing abilities, but I never got around developing it into a distributable version.

SinisterControls
05-11-2008, 07:36 AM
[QUOTE=Phoenix;35139]Excel..... that's got to be backed by VBA code :) QUOTE]

Yup. But we cheat a little and use commercially available OPC (based on Microsoft OLE) software. Basically acts a s a bridge between your OPC client software, in this case Excel, and the PLC. But the engine is Visual Basic \ .NET framework.
Since in the lab we're mostly about data collection, a spreadsheet made the most sense. Suppose we could use Access to dress it up to make it more user friendly.

SinisterControls
05-11-2008, 07:43 AM
I actually wrote a complete control package in Excel, the theory was that Excel would make a pretty familiar interface for people to do their own logic programming.

http://www.mordor.plus.com/Control.html

the latter versions of Excel control also had DMX and VSA interfacing abilities, but I never got around developing it into a distributable version.

I've got to check this out. Looks interesting. What made you put it on the back burner, just time constraints or did you not see it as viable solution?

Phoenix
05-11-2008, 10:37 AM
Excel control used a custom class I wrote that interfaced the Velleman DLL's with Excel

I stopped developing it because the Development of Exorcist took over, I wanted a package which was based on my own hardware and I could get some return to justify my time.

.... and my theory that just about anyone could understand Excel ie =IF(AND(A1,A2),1,0) was EXTREAMLY misguided.

It all added up to Excel control being unviable, I wanted something that was easy to use, and I think I've got a lot closer to the mark with Exorcist.

departed_studios
05-11-2008, 11:55 AM
Sound would be the real cool thing here. A great program that could run MANY audio tracks at once, feeding into some sort of attached Pre-amp with RCA outs you could take to multiple amps, now that would be great! It would wipe out the stacks of CD players most of us have, that really don't like fog! Could you have a single PC playing 30+ Tracks, with an attached Preamp? What would it cost?

Its too late for me on this, We have been converting to Gulderfluke paybacks. This lets me zone the sound and not put "all my eggs in one basket" so to speak.

But still what is available on this front?

Thanks!

Ben
NETHERWORLD

--

No problem. This can be done easily, and with as many outputs as you like depending on your $. You could use a program like pro-tools or even something cheaper... dump audio on individual tracks, and feed to outboard outputs run to whatever zones you like. it's nothing. I'd recommend getting an external mixer so you could be more hands on with it... But the cd players could be tossed to the side and forgotten for a few grand.. Even less really. Hell, I bet I could put together a setup like this for less than 2 grand.. And it would be super flexible and have the ability to throw in off the cuff audio scares in separate areas of the haunt if the person at the board had closed circuit cameras and zones mapped out... I'm day dreaming now... Whats funny is, I don't have a haunt, I run a recording studio and do sound design & production, but when I daydream about owning a haunt, I'm usually mapping out audio... lol.. If you're serious about this, I can sit down an map it out.. Throw me a budget on how much you want to spend and I'll post the pieces you'd need.... It's really as simple as setting up half a studio session. The monitoring section. I've set us this configuration 1000+ times when a band records and everyone wants to hear a different mix in their headphones... Only difference is, you're not recording anyone... :)

Dark Attraction
05-11-2008, 07:23 PM
If you have multiple soundtracks in your haunt, the best way I have found is to use MP3 players. You avoid all the problems that are associated with CD players, and I think the price is lower than any other system you might find.

You can get a brand new, name brand player for around 30 bucks... but since you only need one track per player, you can pick up a nice older model with less memory for a very cheap price. Power supplies are another $10-15, but you can get a power supply with 2 USB outlets to power multiple players, since most players these days can be powered through USB.

departed_studios
05-12-2008, 02:23 AM
Nevermind what I said, it can be done much cheaper than 2k.

For under $600, on an existing computer (something decent but nothing fancy) with a free pci slot, you can have 8 individual, and completely independant audio tracks running to 8 different areas of a haunt. Can easily be upgraded to 16 for another $250... This doesn't include your cabling and speakers etc.. It includes the cpu interface, 8ch outboard output rack, and bundled software more than powerful enough to run a haunt.. You'd really only scratch the surface of it's features with a haunt, but might have fun with some of the automation aspects...

Yes indeed it's more expensive than running cd players or mp3 players on constant loops... But you're adding the ability to create a customized experience for every person/group that walks through. Right now, when someone walks into a room/scene, you're controlling the timing of everything from the lighting to the fog to the actors etc.. everything BUT the audio. With audio on constant loops they're walking in at any given point in the recording. It's not as effective as it could be. Imagine if the dramatic violin riffs in a horror movie were just playing on a constant loop in the room the bodies were found in... Instead of the very moment they were found and the camera zooms in on the gore.

With a simply automated system, from the time they enter (because they're let in on an audio cue your host knows to listen for but they don't) the entire audio experience is following them. They have their own soundtrack, the music can get suspenseful when it should be, or include creepy whispers in the left channel to misguide while an actor gears up to scare them from the right...

Also easy to add $3 sensors for triggerring sounds via midi.. both for scares and cueing actors as to exactly where their prey is located.
Anyway, I don't own a haunt, and may not for another 10 years who knows.. So I understand everything is easier said than done, and I may be missing some real world working knowledge of the inner workings... But the technology is there, and it isnt rocket science.

Being a recording engineer & studio owner, I get excited about bringing my 2 loves (Halloween and sound) together... =)

Karl Fields
05-12-2008, 09:47 AM
[QUOTE=Also easy to add $3 sensors for triggerring sounds via midi.. =)[/QUOTE]

What exactly are you planning on using for this? I have never had much success at triggering midi (CuBase/Delta 1010t/410/ and Delusional Prop Interface).

Phoenix
05-12-2008, 11:04 AM
hm, when I started this discussion I was looking for a way forward, in developing an integrated control system, however, it looks like if you want 8 channel sound players then I've already achieved what you want with Exorcist. as that already facilitates triggered sounds through a multi channel system.... my original Excel control system also facilitated this functionality.

8 channel sound cards are nothing new, they are in fact 7.1 sound cards, these contain 8 pre amps that you can address individually, and yes you can install multiple sound cards on a PC.

departed_studios
05-12-2008, 11:32 AM
What exactly are you planning on using for this? I have never had much success at triggering midi (CuBase/Delta 1010t/410/ and Delusional Prop Interface).

From Radio Shack you can get piezo transducers very cheap (prob. under $3).
Open the casing and strip down to the actual pickup which is a thin copper disc with 2 wires. Connect them to the tip & sleeve of a quarter inch jack and you've created a velocity sensitive trigger. Next you need a trigger to midi convertor. I failed to include this in my 1st post because the triggers were a side thought to the system... But the convertor can be built (www.edrum.info), or bought for about $149. So even if you buy it, you can have 10 audio triggers in the haunt for like $180. Not bad imho. I bet it can be done cheaper too if you watch ebay for a cheap alesis d4 drum module since that'll convert the audio pulse to midi too... AND it'll give you a slew of sounds many of which may be useful "startle" sounds in a haunt like crashes etc...

SSP
05-13-2008, 12:16 AM
departed_studios, For all of these separate audio cues you are talking about, you would have to have each in it's own session on the software, right? To me it sounds like the computer is going to have to have a bit of power to be working with 16 channels like this. Interesting concept though, I never thought of using Pro Tools in this fashion.

The triggers are an incredibly unique idea, for someone who would previously own most of this equipment this would be a great method to save money and convert things, but from scratch it's a little much.

departed, if you don't start a haunt you should work with one, you have something to bring to the table. Seems like you also are passionate about what audio brings to a haunt when you really can control it.

departed_studios
05-13-2008, 01:12 AM
"For all of these separate audio cues you are talking about, you would have to have each in it's own session on the software, right? "

No, each would just need it's own track. Each year a new session or project file would be setup based on any changes in storyboard etc...

And it wouldn't take much cpu power. The main drag, and cause of latency in audio software is plug ins, which are really not needed at all in this scenario. You're just running multi-track audio, with each track being assigned to a different 'zone' within the haunt... You'd use an optical output (adat light pipe protocol) to run 8 or 16 (or 24, 32 whatever...) tracks at a time to an outboard multiple output interface... On the high end you could start with the motu828 & go up & up... But in my opinion, it's throwing money away considering this is a haunt, not a voiceover studio in need of impeccable s/n ratios... So I'd throw a behringer on the back end and run feeds to the different zones.

Regarding the timing,,, You could either have each track/zone on a constant loop and leave it to the host to let people in based on an audio cue, (the multitrack/zone method)...

or you could use it a bit more efficiently by using the piezo triggers the start the audio based on a person's location within the haunt. This scenario offers more bang with the ability to personalize the experience with more focus... I'd prefer to use a soft-sampler for this method and set it up for 'one-shot' so multiple people within the group wouldn't be re-triggering the sound... or put each trigger well ahead (6-8 ft) of it's actual 'sound-zone' and use a slow attack on the audio so any multiple triggers would be inaudible and the audio would be ramped up when the enter the zone the trigger is assigned to..

Maybe I'm over thinking it though. It's certainly not the type of upgrade any customer would walk out and say "wow great timing with the audio!"... But I think it could lend itself to the effectiveness of many scares, and implemented right, could add a few.

"The triggers are an incredibly unique idea, for someone who would previously own most of this equipment this would be a great method to save money and convert things, but from scratch it's a little much. " That surprises me/ Are you sure?? even the big haunts? Regarding money, yes, the entire setup could add up and up if you were to completely automate the attraction... But you could definitely add a few triggers reasonably if you have an old computer and some speakers... and a couple afternoons to make them... Anyway, thanks- yeah, I do hope to own a haunt someday. I'm an entrepreneur and I'm confident I could make it work financially if I educate myself enough, and learn as much as I can from all you year round halloweenies in here.... =)

But it'll be awhile, until then I'm a die hard yard haunter and I day dream big. Check out my new cd: www.departedstudios.com

Phoenix
05-13-2008, 01:50 AM
I'm still not clear about whats new here, as there already is an out of the box product that does exactly this, ie play sounds over an 8 channel sound system, and your choice of input switches encompasses mat switches, PIR's, through beams etc.

departed_studios
05-13-2008, 08:23 AM
I'm still not clear about whats new here, as there already is an out of the box product that does exactly this, ie play sounds over an 8 channel sound system, and your choice of input switches encompasses mat switches, PIR's, through beams etc.

phoenix, after looking into it a little further, you're right! I didn't realize exorcist did so much for just $299! I also just watched your tutorial of the software you created for it and it looks pretty powerful.

With all due respect though, I think sulltronix is doing themselves a disservice in the way excorcist is introduced on the site. Rather than talking about all it does, the 1st eight lines of information on their exorcist page are dedicated to talking about everything vsa lacks. It's a wierd way to introduce such a powerful product that stands on it's own even without a skulltronix skull. My 1st question would be, does the excorcist require the vsa software to do all of this, and my 2nd would be, is the vsa software only available with a skulltronix skull? The website kinda reads like that, but maybe I'm wrong.

Of course the skull is their flagship product, but wow, for $299 exorcist appears to do alot for $299.... And kudos on that software!

Phoenix
05-13-2008, 08:50 AM
Thanks, maybe you make some good points there, and I am getting the impression that we really are not marketing our software products correctly.

VSA... We ship VSA as part of the skull package, however VSA can be bought separately, we don't make money as a VSA reseller, so buying it separately from Brookshires often works out better.

There is a new version of Exorcist in development that will not 'NEED' a copy of VSA, however, it will only play to VSA supported DMX devices.... this version is aimed more at the central control system theme as it can play multiple routines down the same DMX network at the same time, ie you can have multiple sets/props all sitting on a single DMX network, all having their own separate triggers all controlled by a single computer.


The problem we have and indeed the reason I started this discussion is that there are a lot of negative comments made about using computers, and people appear to prefer the distributed controls system paradigm ..... and the comments about wanting centralized sound processing sound like an interesting direction to take Exorcist, and suggests a more sound/video orientated program based on the Exorcist Platform may indeed be something that gets more interest.

SSP
05-13-2008, 04:07 PM
departed_studios, I sent you a couple PM's