Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just started today using the beta version of publisher. Created a master page with two empty picture frames and a text frame. Copied the master page to 10 pages in the pages area, worked fine, but placing a picture to the picture frame, places this picture in all the other pages including the master page. The same with text in the text frame. What can I do to avoid it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi kubapet,
Welcome to Affinity Forums :)
This area is still being worked on. Currently objects coming from the masters placed in the spreads/pages cannot be unlinked from them. So currently the masters should be used to place objects that you want replicated equally on all spreads/pages to which that master is applied to. All objects specific to each page/spread should be created in that page/spread not on the master. There will be improvements here in future updates/versions.

Note: there's actually a way to unlink them through the symbols panel - detach button - (which is the master functionality is based on) but its convoluted and not intended to be used as it is for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On use of masters:-
I note  that  in beta 133, Serif have introduced showing which master/s is/are applied to a page when you hover the mouse over a page in the Pages tab.  It even shows in which order they were applied too.  It shows that Serif are listening to what many have felt would be a great help. Well done, Serif!!

1245774826_appliedmasters.PNG.9c46639c15bfb005248b70a7e456afb9.PNG

Pman, 24./09/2018 at 16:58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PMan said:

On use of masters:-
I note  that  in beta 133, Serif have introduced showing which master/s is/are applied to a page when you hover the mouse over a page in the Pages tab.  It even shows in which order they were applied too.  It shows that Serif are listening to what many have felt would be a great help. Well done, Serif!!

1245774826_appliedmasters.PNG.9c46639c15bfb005248b70a7e456afb9.PNG

Pman, 24./09/2018 at 16:58

That's not new in .133; it was there in the original public beta version.


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 1809, 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00Gz, GeForce GTX 970
Affinity Photo 1.6.5.123 and 1.7.0.333 Beta       / Affinity Designer 1.6..5.123 and 1.7.0.333 Beta    / Affinity Publisher 1.7.0.337 Beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Walt,
Must be something that I had never 'noticed'  before, even when experimenting trying to find ways of showing applied masters in response to others queries! 

I like the way it shows the order in which masters were applied to a page, rather than just listing them alphabetically.
Pman

Edited by PMan
added a further 'like' on the feature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 4:31 PM, MEB said:

Hi kubapet,
Welcome to Affinity Forums :)
This area is still being worked on. Currently objects coming from the masters placed in the spreads/pages cannot be unlinked from them. So currently the masters should be used to place objects that you want replicated equally on all spreads/pages to which that master is applied to. All objects specific to each page/spread should be created in that page/spread not on the master. There will be improvements here in future updates/versions.

Note: there's actually a way to unlink them through the symbols panel - detach button - (which is the master functionality is based on) but its convoluted and not intended to be used as it is for this.

I am now a bit more at ease by reading this, as it seems to at least address some of the similar concerns I voiced on a different thread. While I'm not in the least bit happy about the current situation, at least this is confirmation that addressing it is indeed on the pipeline, and that it is already technically possible.

MEB, can we please get an ETA or some stronger commitment on this feature (in its final, usable form, at least, and it shouldn't be too different from how it works in InDesign or Quark; and allow me to elaborate: there should be an intermediate state where you could “unlink” objects in order for them to accept content placement, – and as for content flow, it should indeed be automatic with no “unlinking” shenanigans –, but they should still be “linked” in the sense that they would reflect changes done in the corresponding master pages)? It's just that I won't be buying Publisher nor recommend it until it is implemented it – it's unusable and an outright joke without it –, and I'd rather know your timeframe than having to check the forums every other week.

[Edit: I have just tested what you said, and two things became self-evident: one, I can't seem to find a way to unlink said objects, and two, your master pages are “master pages in name only”. The objects contained therein are indeed… symbols, of sorts? I can't click on them directly with the selection tool, but if I select them via the Layers panel, I can indeed edit their contents, and all the changes will be automatically reflected in the master page view, even without deliberately selecting and editing it via the master page section in the Pages panel. This is crazy! I'm sure you either want to accommodate Designer users, or just haven't gotten around to fixing this yet, but… it makes no sense to a DTP (Quark/InDesign) user. Master pages are supposed to be these “sacred”-like entities, which you set up once and are actually hard to edit on a whim. You really have to commit when doing so and know what you're doing, as they can completely change the look and structure of your document with the slightest of edits… You know, much like styles. I see why you'd use your existing Designer framework (even from a file compatibility standpoint), but master pages really look like just a tech demo/visual proof of concept at this point.

While on that subject, a third thing becomes self-evident, which is that you've philosophically painted yourselves up into a corner with your approach of defining artboards as layers, and layers as dependent upon artboards, hence the very need of your internal talk about “Global layers” (guess what, in Adobe apps, and apps by most other developers, all layers are, indeed, “global”) because your users are clamouring for a different – and more standard – approach. Your so-called “layers” are anything but, they behave more like artboard/page and object folders (whose visibility you can toggle, sure), and you have to recreate them for each and every page, much like your so-called “master pages”. While that would still fly with Designer users (and it's very debatable, still), it won't fly with DTP users in a multi-page document-centric application environment like that of Publisher et al..

Global layers, while supposedly being too “left brain” for your audience (or so you think), are an absolute necessity for long, complex projects that require some level of abstraction, and you should also port them into Designer while you're at it, even if you have to introduce further complexity and two different object management models (“layer-dependent + page/artboard-independent”, and vice-versa) into what's an otherwise quaint little vector illustration program (UX designers, on the other hand, would love that, and it was precisely on such a project that I missed global layers the most – in Designer, yes, and it was paid work, not just spec work for my portfolio or beta testing for your benefit).]

By the way, I don't know if you read my reasoning on the other thread, but I strongly believe that it really should be a v. 1.7.x (if not v. 1.7.0 RC/GM) feature and that Publisher will not be taken seriously by professionals – as I've just said, as far as we're concerned, it isn't by me or my colleagues, at least – unless it's there, and soon; Serif would be doing itself more harm than good by rushing Publisher out of the door without basic master page functionality, I'm afraid. In fact, I feel so strongly about this that I'll take it up a notch and do a little comparison: that would be akin to releasing Photo without support for layers or filters. :|

You see, this isn't some nitpicky, obscure typography thing like Drop caps or some of those bloated InDesign features which you can compensate for with workarounds; you're basically expecting your users to not use master pages for *any* editable field (and DTP is all about… filling up hundreds of fields), which is nuts and makes working with Publisher harder and less efficient than working with even Microsoft Word (and that's really saying something, as Word is a cumbersome old dog of an application). It defeats the whole “create once, reuse often” purpose of master pages altogether.

I'm very, very sorry for my tough stance on your collective work, which is hard and has been great so far… I'm mostly sad and frustrated, almost as if the wait for the first Publisher beta was still going on as we speak and this was just some cruel tease. I really, really wanted to get rid of InDesign and I just can't, and from the general tone of your post I don't feel I will with v. 1.7.0 either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JGD said:

You see, this isn't some nitpicky, obscure typography thing like Drop caps or some of those bloated InDesign features which you can compensate for with workarounds; you're basically expecting your users to not use master pages for *any* editable field (and DTP is all about… filling up hundreds of fields), which is nuts and makes working with Publisher harder and less efficient than working with even Microsoft Word (and that's really saying something, as Word is a cumbersome old dog of an application). It defeats the whole “create once, reuse often” purpose of master pages altogether.

I'm very, very sorry for my tough stance on your collective work, which is hard and has been great so far… I'm mostly sad and frustrated, almost as if the wait for the first Publisher beta was still going on as we speak and this was just some cruel tease. I really, really wanted to get rid of InDesign and I just can't, and from the general tone of your post I don't feel I will with v. 1.7.0 either.

 

100% this.

 

Not just me, or @JGD but many professional and casual DTP users too.

 

Dear Affinity - my original points still stand. An open and transparent development process would have prevented this serious issue from ever emerging. Humility is called for, not "we've got 25+ years experience, what do you know". 

 

Bottom line - Publisher must not be Designer with pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JGD said:

MEB, can we please get an ETA or some stronger commitment on this feature (in its final, usable form, at least, and it shouldn't be too different from how it works in InDesign or Quark; and allow me to elaborate: there should be an intermediate state where you could “unlink” objects in order for them to accept content placement, – and as for content flow, it should indeed be automatic with no “unlinking” shenanigans –, but they should still be “linked” in the sense that they would reflect changes done in the corresponding master pages)? It's just that I won't be buying Publisher nor recommend it until it is implemented it – it's unusable and an outright joke without it –, and I'd rather know your timeframe than having to check the forums every other week.

Hi JGD,
Thank you for your feedback and support.  As said there's still quite some work to do here. We are aware the current feature set is limited for long documents and the way master pages work is still far from ideal and limited in its scope. Your considerations about global layers should also be addressed at some point. As with other things I can't give you an ETA for these or any other features, nor I know exactly how they will work at this point since I'm not aware of all these details (I'm also not the most suited person to do so). I don't think it's wise to expect Publisher to replace InDesign (or any other high-end publishing software) right after its first release. We are still building its foundations and some of that work will extend through the 1.x cycle of the app. We do understand master pages functionality is essential for any serious workflow. The only thing I can assure you is the development team is well aware of these limitations and hope to address them as development moves forward. It will take some time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 11:58 AM, MEB said:

Hi JGD,
Thank you for your feedback and support.  As said there's still quite some work to do here. We are aware the current feature set is limited for long documents and the way master pages work is still far from ideal and limited in its scope. Your considerations about global layers should also be addressed at some point. As with other things I can't give you an ETA for these or any other features, nor I know exactly how they will work at this point since I'm not aware of all these details (I'm also not the most suited person to do so). I don't think it's wise to expect Publisher to replace InDesign (or any other high-end publishing software) right after its first release. We are still building its foundations and some of that work will extend through the 1.x cycle of the app. We do understand master pages functionality is essential for any serious workflow. The only thing I can assure you is the development team is well aware of these limitations and hope to address them as development moves forward. It will take some time though.

Hi @MEB, obrigado pelo update [thanks for the update], and you're welcome; I do my best with the little time I currently have. Not having ETA isn't the best of scenarios, but knowing you're taking our concerns and expectations seriously is way more important than that, and it's very good to know you are.

As for those concerns and expectations… I was never suggesting that Publisher could ever replace InDesign for all, or even most of the use cases in its first commercial iteration. I only hoped that much like Designer, which I can use for almost everything except auto-tracing, 3D effects and projects which require gradients and transparencies with proper spot colour separation (yes, my exclusive use cases for good ol' Illy are now that much limited, and the only reason I don't use Designer for 90% of my work right now and use it instead mostly just for RGB stuff that requires gradients is the fact that, well, Publisher isn't officially out yet – or feature-“complete”, for that matter – and I want to switch to the entire suite at once, because of the obvious economies of scale).

The thing is, as things stand, I can't use Publisher even for the most basic of projects without feeling I'm fighting against it and, in a sense, “losing” money because of wasted time. None of my usual projects are especially complex, by the way… It just so happens that some have dozens of pages, others are smaller but require multiple pages per spread, and pretty much all of them require object linking. And I'm not some über-elite designer doing exotic stuff, just leaflets and booklets for events, not unlike the ones I did at the company I worked for previously. Let me tell you, it's all very mundane stuff, really.

Pardon my cheekiness (especially any old-time Serif customers reading this), but it seems that… PagePlus could be used for way more serious stuff but was bought mostly by people who just wanted to typeset their local church newsletter (maybe because of marketing, maybe because of the way the program was laid out, maybe a bit of both; I can't really tell because I never used it, but I did give it a look on your old website before I wrote you that prescient long-ass letter after Adobe threw their CC-only strategy at us, and it seemed to be a bit of both), whereas Publisher is being marketed as being suitable for more serious stuff (come on, man, read your own marketing materials when it comes to Affinity as a whole and Photo and Designer in particular; it is being aimed at pros) but is only good… for typesetting the local church newsletter. And it will still be hard to use and not exactly educate users in DTP's best practices, because of the reasons I've stated.

Maybe part of your audience (and even a number big enough to recoup development costs) doesn't know any better and will lap it up, but you won't get as many [happy, satisfied] switchers from InDesign as you've got earlier from Photoshop and InDesign, that much I'm certain of. And that might in fact tarnish your reputation to a certain extent, especially among pros (which, for a change, have been taking you seriously; just compare the kind of coverage you've been getting to that of Pixelmator, Sketch, etc.). You know, as they say, never overpromise and underdeliver, and even if you don't do so on an official and ostensive manner, the very existence of Photo and Designer with the “Serif” label on them is, in a way, a form of “overpromising”. Publisher isn't exactly being marketed as “Publisher Elements” either, now, is it?

In fact… Now that you've shown your hand, and haven't yet revealed any novel feature which Adobe might copy (good on you, really; the last thing we want is for them to rip you off, like they did with the corner tool), you would do better to keep this as a public beta for as long as you need until those three basics (global layers, proper masters and linked objects) are implemented (sure, multiple and/or differently sized pages per spread could certainly wait a bit longer, I guess; after all, InDesign didn't have those for years, either). We're not asking for anything very advanced, just the absolute basics. Please listen to your professional users, as we do have your best interests at heart (if anything, because it will also benefit us in the long run). And yes, that takes into account the fact that we had to wait much longer that we initially thought for the public beta to come out, but at least now we know why, and we know at what point in development it stands (as a matter of fact, I believe it should still be in internal alpha/beta, instead of being rushed to the PB stage)… If you try to charge (even if it's an extremely affordable price, yes) for a manifestly incomplete/unusable product, I'm afraid pros and reviewers alike will pile on you, no matter what you state in your forums or press releases, because Publisher will always be compared to your previous successes. In a weird twist of fate, Serif is now its worst enemy, more than Adobe itself. :(

But yes, @tariq is absolutely right, transparency is key, and we can't fault you for not being transparent enough right now. Delaying the release but having an ongoing public beta will keep all your users entertained and content, and buy you more time (and heck, this wouldn't be the Duke Nukem Forever of creative software, now, would it? We know you have sound internal goals and management, and a fine team…). In fact, I'm sure most wouldn't mind to see some delays in Photo and Designer development (hey, where are our customer betas!? Just kidding… ;) ) if that meant that Publisher came out “right”. My/our €0,02…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that the Master page currently being used on a document page should always be visible in the 'Pages Studio' either on the page icon (like ID) or underneath the page icon perhaps in brackets after the page number? Rather than having me hover over each page just to see which master is being applied.

You could also make this a 'Pages Studio' preference instead if you wanted to give people a choice.

Also I agree with an earlier poster (sorry I didn't make a note of who it was) when they suggested adding a plus sign '+' to the Add Pages/Masters and Duplicate Pages/Masters Icons, it would just make it much clearer what they are for without again having to hover over them. I guess you would get used to the way these work in time but I believe that if you are going to use an icon it should immediately convey what clicking it would do.

All in all, I think you are moving in the right direction and for a v.1 product it's very good, some people here seem to forget how limited ID v.1 was back in the day!

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 11:05 AM, tariq said:

An open and transparent development process would have prevented this serious issue from ever emerging.

I have a different view on this. I don't work for  Affinity so I can't say it for certain, but my feeling is that the initial release as envisioned by the team was not meant for long publications. 

The Long Document features would be added at a later stage. Problem is, people expected this feature from the word go.

This has nothing to do with the team being more transparent. I think the devs and the Affinity Team are transparent in as far as they can be.

Anyway these are my 2¢. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 7:25 PM, Seneca said:

I have a different view on this. I don't work for  Affinity so I can't say it for certain, but my feeling is that the initial release as envisioned by the team was not meant for long publications. 

The Long Document features would be added at a later stage. Problem is, people expected this feature from the word go.

This has nothing to do with the team being more transparent. I think the devs and the Affinity Team are transparent in as far as they can be.

Anyway these are my 2¢. :)

 

But open transparent bi-directional discussion would have let Affinity know that a Deisgner-with-pages was a serious mistake.

imho of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MEB please consider this message as a +1 for good master pages support starting with version 1.0.

By “good support” I mean something very similar to how it is done in Apple's Keynote.

I also agree with what @Seneca said, it seems like your devs envisioned Publisher as a “Leaflet-designer”.

I will rarely (if ever) use Publisher for a leaflet but I would like to do things like (family) photo books. For this, I'd like to see great master pages with multi-master support and tree-like masters in future versions (v2.x):

  • Background Master (Some fancy boxes in the background, pages numbers, etc.)
    • Green Background Master (based on Background Master but changes color of boxes to greenish)
    • Red Background Master (based on Background Master but changes color of boxes to redish)
  • Images Master (Contains 4 image placeholders but these are marked inactive/hidden)
    • 1 Image no Text (Unhides one image placeholder, makes it fill the page, other placeholders still hidden)
    • 1 Image, Textbox (Like 1InT, but different size/position and adds a text box)
    • 2 Images (you get the idea)

I'd like to be able to assign any number of masters to a page. Publisher should be smart enough to understand that Green and Red contain the same objects thus only one of them can be assigned at any time. But “Green” and “2 Images” do not share any objects thus they can both be active simultaneously. Of course, switching between “1 Image” and “2 Images” would reuse the first image but re-position it (as it works in Keynote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Daniel Höpfl said:

I'd like to be able to assign any number of masters to a page.

I'm not sure whether you are aware of that but you can do that already in the current beta.

If you can assign a number of master pages to a single page then a tree-like structure for Paster Pages is not really necessary anymore.

Favour composition over inheritance (it's Object-oriented mantra among programmers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like hierarchical symbols in Designer too - if I create a symbol, turn off sync, and make a change, I would like to be able to create a new symbol from that symbol containing the changes, but without detaching it first.  If something I didn't change from the original symbol later gets updated with sync turned on, it would have an effect on instances of both symbols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2018 at 4:08 PM, JGD said:

I can't seem to find a way to unlink said objects

In the Symbols studio panel there is a "sync" button in the upper right.  Turn that off, expand the master in the layers panel and select a text box (for example).  Use the text tool to edit the text in the box and the text becomes independent of the master.  Do that with sync turned on and all of the pages associated with the master get updated.

Turn sync back on and move the text box and that move is reflected on the page you edited the text of, even though the text remains separate.

 

EDIT: given this, seems that this could be made to work by adding what in effect would be an "Ignore sync for content" option to text boxes and picture frames on master pages that would cause that property to not sync, and turn that on by default for such items.  Then update the UI to allow objects with that property enabled to have their content accessed by clicking even though they are otherwise inside the locked master.  This would cover a lot of cases, other than needing to be able to have text boxes on masters auto-linked between pages as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 9:25 PM, Seneca said:

my feeling is that the initial release as envisioned by the team was not meant for long publications.

Hmmm.... I would say initial release will do simple long publications just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Seneca said:

I'm not sure whether you are aware of that but you can do that already in the current beta.

If you can assign a number of master pages to a single page then a tree-like structure for Paster Pages is not really necessary anymore.

Favour composition over inheritance (it's Object-oriented mantra among programmers).

I'm aware multi-master is already implemented.

Software developer here, too: I do not avoid inheritance when it is useful. Master pages are very similar to paragraph styles. Publisher has inheritance there too: Changing the font in the standard style also changes it in all derived styles (unless overridden there). I would like to have the same for page masters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2018 at 7:13 PM, Fixx said:

Hmmm.... I would say initial release will do simple long publications just fine.

Not at all, I'm afraid. If you have to typeset a 300-page book, with a single column on each facing page, but still have to manually create and link 300 text frames instead of just creating two of them and link them on your master page, how is that a good user experience?

In InDesign, QuarkXPress or even, I'm guessing, older stuff like Aldus PageMaker, all you had to do was create your boxes on your master pages, drop/place your text file on a single document page with said master applied, and boom!, you'd instantly get hundreds of new pages with the correct boxes and links, filled with all of your content, and ready for style testing, adjustment, etc. The fact that the Serif devs didn't nail this very simple concept right from the very first public beta (bizarrely, you can only place images, not text files, even on the latest beta…???), thus exposing themselves to criticism (if not to outright ridicule), just boggles the mind. For a DTP app, this is almost as bad as not having baseline grids, or styles, or even basic typography settings. It's just that baffling.

I mean, that whole lack of inline/anchored objects is a bit of a bummer and would preclude you to typeset complex, graphics-heavy layouts and manuals with Publisher v.1.x but, as you so eloquently (but, alas, mistakenly) put it, at least you could still use it for plain text books from the get-go if it behaved as a normal DTP app (which it doesn't; it may be a glorified, multi-page vector editor with baseline grid support, but a DTP app… it is not). I, for one, will not be purchasing v.1.7 in this state, even if the rest of it is polished to a sheen, as I have no good use for it (and neither will any self-respecting professional with a deadline to meet).

And yes, I know I am repeating myself, but this is way too serious for me to just let it go. The closer we get to the final v.1.7 MAS release, the more vocal I'll be each time we get yet another beta without this functionality sorted out. I know perfectly well that I'm a nitpicker about such esoteric issues like “poor keyboard support”, but that's just noise and a bit besides the point; this issue here should be priority #-n, not even #1. It's way overdue, because in this state I can't even bring myself to beta-test this thing properly in a semi-realistic scenario. I will say it again: if you can't realistically launch v.1.7 with proper master page support, wait until v.1.8 or later of the rest of the suite. And if you can't get this functionality ready for v.1.x at all, you'd do well in skipping v.1 altogether and wait for it to be ready to put it up for sale. Selling manifestly incomplete software (even if it suits, say, 50% of your user base, which is just pent-up demand anyway and can wait a bit more regardless), means risking alienating a sizeable chunk of would-be customers, and/or tarnishing your reputation. If you can afford it, keep it as a free beta for as long as you need; it's not like your users can complain about Publisher taking ages to surface anymore. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JGD said:

Not at all, I'm afraid. If you have to typeset a 300-page book, with a single column on each facing page, but still have to manually create and link 300 text frames instead of just creating two of them and link them on your master page, how is that a good user experience?

I just finished a 132 page (very) simple text book … I'm not a pro, using LaTeX would probably have been faster in my case.

You don't have to create textboxes for every page: You can Shift-Double-Click the next column triangle to autopopulate pages.

BUT: This auto-fills empty pages (Well, I wanted to have that empty left side before the next chapter), even if non-consecutive (WHUT?), and if there are no empty pages left, creates new pages at the end of the document. (Maybe I did not understand this but that's what it looked like to me).

When I had set up all chapters, I decided to use a different page size. That's when I had to touch each and every text frame.

Then I did not like the borders on the new page size. Had to touch each frame (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JGD said:

Not at all, I'm afraid. If you have to typeset a 300-page book, with a single column on each facing page, but still have to manually create and link 300 text frames instead of just creating two of them and link them on your master page, how is that a good user experience?

+10 on this and your other comments as well as other's comments echoing yours. I fully agree with these. Most of the publications I do are not extremely complex but but they can be long documents and it becomes a tedious chore if you have to adjust almost everyting on a page by page basis instead of through master pages.

I fully understand that Publisher may never be an InDesign replacement and even PagePlus would have been suitable for most of my long(er) documents but Publisher is definitely not there yet but this is one of the most essential things for any DTP program in this category to have it right if you want to use it for serious work containing more than just a few (up to 10 max) pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Daniel Höpfl said:

When I had set up all chapters, I decided to use a different page size. That's when I had to touch each and every text frame. 

Then I did not like the borders on the new page size. Had to touch each frame (again).

This is what you could call a "killer feature" :P (albeit in the opposite way of how it is normally used as it could kill use of Publisher instead of promote its use).

I'd probably just reimport the whole thing into a new document with the proper page size, frames etc. if possible, but if not possible this kind of stuff is plain utterly frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×