AstroShed:
So, I agree with many here who conclude SAS is not quite a replacement for PI (yet), or like me whatever other successful process you are using. I do look forward to having this statement become obsolete!
It will NEVER replace PI, let’s be real here, there is too much knowledge within the team of developers at PI, and as much as SAS advances, so will PI, and the gap will never close, don’t get me wrong SAS is an excellent tool, and kudos to Frank, but the tools within it lack the advancement of PI tools in every way, yes there are a couple of useful features that are not in PI, and for that alone it’s worth having it installed, but will never replace PI, IMHO anyway. That was never the question...
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
AstroShed:
So, I agree with many here who conclude SAS is not quite a replacement for PI (yet), or like me whatever other successful process you are using. I do look forward to having this statement become obsolete!
It will NEVER replace PI, let’s be real here, there is too much knowledge within the team of developers at PI, and as much as SAS advances, so will PI, and the gap will never close, don’t get me wrong SAS is an excellent tool, and kudos to Frank, but the tools within it lack the advancement of PI tools in every way, yes there are a couple of useful features that are not in PI, and for that alone it’s worth having it installed, but will never replace PI, IMHO anyway.
That was never the question... It was for the post I answered, which was not yours, it was posted by Richard Carande, as it stated that it’s not going to replace it “yet”, and I was just saying it never will.. I’m my opinion
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
When Seti adds something like WBPP, that will be interesting. Freeware can help folks get started without the high price of admission with gear, software, computers. etc. until they get more involved. ++
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
So far I haven't found a need to use many scripts within PI and certainly none outside of PI. Bill's tools being the paid exception.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I jumped into PI when I came back to astrophotography after about a 15 year hiatus. Everyone talks about the steep learning curve of PI but I don't really think that's the case. I don't think its a learning curve issue as much as its a "easy button" issue. People want a click this and then click that solution and well, its not that easy sometimes. While clicking the "Easy button" can at times give you a good image for social media, the power comes in taking the time to learn and tune for the best results.
I have been using SAS over the past moth alongside my work in PI and while I appreciate and very much enjoy some of the scripts that are released by Frank, I do not see it as being anywhere near ready to challenge PI. It has comes a long way in a very short period of time. Some of the concepts and reasons for why things are done a certain way make sense and I believe that he is learning quickly how to process data. However, the UI is lacking in some basic quality of life features. I do not doubt that it all makes sense to him and is tailored around how he sees things should work. However, some of it is just added complexity for the sake of complexity.
For example, the concept of slots. I get it, I really do, but I don't want to work in various slots and have to move data from slots to active windows. Its easy to lose track of where you are in working with an image. To me, I think it will appeal to the ones who want a quicker path to a presentable image when compressed for the social masses. For me, as a data junkie and past engineer, I was to tweak and refine to get the best that I can.
While some say PI has a steep learning curve, I thing SAS has a steeper one since there are a lot of click this and then click that approaches to getting a good enough image. This aligns with what I have seen on other forums where even gradient correction is viewed as a one click tool and when it doesn't work with he defaults people decry it as not ready. However, if you read the documentation, take the time to learn what the sliders do it is an amazing tool with a lot of power to remove the gradient and leave your precious data behind I cant say that for the other AI based tools.
In the end, there is room for both to exist. For the ones that want a faster, click path it will be great, for others that want to spend the time to eek out all the data the other will be there. its not a one tool for all world and that is just fine with me. Disclaimer, I use several of his scripts, I just cant get into his suite solely for the UI and how it works.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
When Seti adds something like WBPP, that will be interesting. Freeware can help folks get started without the high price of admission with gear, software, computers. etc. until they get more involved. ++ There's really no need. Siril does a great job with calibration and stacking and is much faster than WBPP. I would rather see frank keep his focus on the post stacking side of things.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
When Seti adds something like WBPP, that will be interesting. Freeware can help folks get started without the high price of admission with gear, software, computers. etc. until they get more involved. ++
There's really no need. Siril does a great job with calibration and stacking and is much faster than WBPP. I would rather see frank keep his focus on the post stacking side of things. I've heard Frank would like a complete suite with stacking so it's a one stop app. He's done a great job with his scripts so far and I keep them handy in the PI Scripts menu. We'll see what he eventually comes up with  .
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I love all Frank's scripts in PI, but I've been using PI for 12 years now or something like that and I'm not likely to switch. It just makes sense to me at this point.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Kyle Goodwin:
I love all Frank's scripts in PI, but I've been using PI for 12 years now or something like that and I'm not likely to switch. It just makes sense to me at this point. With that background with PI, I can't imagine why you would. In fact, I can't imagine anyone switching to SAS from PI because you'd be giving up a lot. It's interesting that SAS has grown in leaps and bounds since I first posed this question. Frank has been adding new features at a furious pace and because of that, SAS is quickly becoming a fully capable processing solution. It certainly has it's quirks and bugs but it has certainly become a viable option or at least, a useful set of tools for astrophotographers sitting on the non-PI side of the fence.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
It certainly has it's quirks and bugs but it has certainly become a viable option or at least, a useful set of tools for astrophotographers sitting on the non-PI side of the fence. Who sits on the wrong side of the fence? Is there a Fence? Why would anyone be against people buying and using the premier Astro software especially since it is Inexpensive? It is not a subscription, it is like $300 bucks one time purchase and 90% of the top astrophotographers use it? There must be a reason not to buy or use it that I missed. Some kind of conspiracy or something? It is Cheap powerful software.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan Kearl:
Tony Gondola:
It certainly has it's quirks and bugs but it has certainly become a viable option or at least, a useful set of tools for astrophotographers sitting on the non-PI side of the fence.
Who sits on the wrong side of the fence? Is there a Fence?
Why would anyone be against people buying and using the premier Astro software especially since it is Inexpensive?
It is not a subscription, it is like $300 bucks one time purchase and 90% of the top astrophotographers use it?
There must be a reason not to buy or use it that I missed. Some kind of conspiracy or something? It is Cheap powerful software. Didn't mean to set you off Dan, it's all about options. Don't take a turn of phrase to mean more than intended.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
All the software in the world can't replace good data. If you have good data, and especially enough of it, then you don't really need alot of software to get a fantastic result.
Siril for stacking, background removal, deconvolution, stretching and star extraction + Affinity Photo for a little cosmetics is all I use. The only thing I really lack for better images is more integration time and probably better equipment.
That's how I see it. People rely way too much on the software it seems to make up for the lack of good data. Given how much of a different good processing makes to the final result, I'm highly confident that every one of us here could achieve better results with increases in our processing skills. It is the nature of our craft, acquiring data which is linear, but having to present it non-linearly to be able to see anything in it, that presentation and processing choices will make a huge difference in the end. What software you choose to get there with is far from the most important thing, but the ability to use it expertly certainly changes the quality of your images. In astrophotography there are only a few absolutes and the rest are preferences. Higher resolution (better FWHM, higher sampling) is always better than lower, although the scale of a target can influence how much of a factor this is. Good star shapes (low eccentricity) is always better than poor stars, because even though software can fix them, those poor star shapes indicate whatever caused them convolved the rest of the data as well and deconvolution is only going to recover some portion of what was lost. High SNR (lots of exposure time) is always better than lower. Dark skies (less background noise and gradients) is always better than less dark skies. Once you get beyond these absolutes, you get fully into the realm of preference. How do you like to frame the target? What color scheme do you choose for your narrowband? How saturated are your colors? Where do you set your blackpoint? How much do you stretch and which parts of the histogram? All of these small decisions is where the "magic" of processing lies, producing a superior result from the data you have. We spend a LOT of time and money collecting our data. We owe it the effort to make it the best it can be, even if we never have enough of it, the seeing is never what we'd like, and we never have enough time. Whatever tools you use, make sure you become an expert in their use and a student of what makes these images beautiful to your eye and you will rarely go wrong.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
The truth is that on my M1 Mac, as of this date, the application in its most recent stable version has serious performance issues even with a 10MB JPG image. It takes many minutes to launch and many seconds to apply changes, zoom doesn't work well, the application even crashes… it's difficult to try to enjoy its benefits…
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Sure, you can say it's preference and that everyone likes it in a different way, but I like to do as little postprocessing as possible, not to introduce "my oppinion" into the photograph. It's a more scientific approach of photographing and I see it as a more honest way of representing the data you captured. Whatever floats your boat! That's why it's the "preference" part. You have one preference and others have a different one. I think there's plenty of room in the hobby for people to do things as they wish. If you choose one way versus another your work may have a different response from others, but it doesn't change how you view it yourself. I think most of us are really creating this content for our own consumption in the end. I love to share my work, and for others to enjoy it, but I don't base my processing decisions on what I think others will like, I go with what I like because it's my image. When that happens to align with what others like and it gets a good reception it's a bonus.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
Didn't mean to set you off Dan, it's all about options. Don't take a turn of phrase to mean more than intended. I am not set off. I hope I don't come across that way but It's just my opinion that using the best software for this hobby is the right way to go and it seems like bad advice to encourage people new to the hobby to NOT use the best. I looked at Siril, Gimp and other free software when I began this hobby but it seemed like trying to save $300 bucks on this hobby when I have $15,000 in equipment was not a smart or efficient way to go if I wanted my work to be the best I can make it. It also appears you need several "free" type software to accomplish the same thing as Pixinsight and learning how to use one was plenty for me. I already knew Photoshop and other typical photo software so learning Pixinsight was not that hard. To each his own and there is nothing wrong with using all these other software if you get the results you are happy with but there is a reason it is the TOP software in this discipline and it is not Expensive so I just do not see a reason not to buy it and use it since processing is about 95% of this hobby.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Kyle Goodwin:
All the software in the world can't replace good data. If you have good data, and especially enough of it, then you don't really need alot of software to get a fantastic result.
Siril for stacking, background removal, deconvolution, stretching and star extraction + Affinity Photo for a little cosmetics is all I use. The only thing I really lack for better images is more integration time and probably better equipment.
That's how I see it. People rely way too much on the software it seems to make up for the lack of good data.
Given how much of a different good processing makes to the final result, I'm highly confident that every one of us here could achieve better results with increases in our processing skills. It is the nature of our craft, acquiring data which is linear, but having to present it non-linearly to be able to see anything in it, that presentation and processing choices will make a huge difference in the end. What software you choose to get there with is far from the most important thing, but the ability to use it expertly certainly changes the quality of your images.
In astrophotography there are only a few absolutes and the rest are preferences. Higher resolution (better FWHM, higher sampling) is always better than lower, although the scale of a target can influence how much of a factor this is. Good star shapes (low eccentricity) is always better than poor stars, because even though software can fix them, those poor star shapes indicate whatever caused them convolved the rest of the data as well and deconvolution is only going to recover some portion of what was lost. High SNR (lots of exposure time) is always better than lower. Dark skies (less background noise and gradients) is always better than less dark skies.
Once you get beyond these absolutes, you get fully into the realm of preference. How do you like to frame the target? What color scheme do you choose for your narrowband? How saturated are your colors? Where do you set your blackpoint? How much do you stretch and which parts of the histogram? All of these small decisions is where the "magic" of processing lies, producing a superior result from the data you have. We spend a LOT of time and money collecting our data. We owe it the effort to make it the best it can be, even if we never have enough of it, the seeing is never what we'd like, and we never have enough time. Whatever tools you use, make sure you become an expert in their use and a student of what makes these images beautiful to your eye and you will rarely go wrong. +1 and well said.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan Kearl:
Tony Gondola:
Didn't mean to set you off Dan, it's all about options. Don't take a turn of phrase to mean more than intended.
I am not set off. I hope I don't come across that way but It's just my opinion that using the best software for this hobby is the right way to go and it seems
like bad advice to encourage people new to the hobby to NOT use the best.
I looked at Siril, Gimp and other free software when I began this hobby but it seemed like trying to save $300 bucks on this hobby when I have $15,000 in equipment was not a smart or efficient way to go if I wanted my work to be the best I can make it.
It also appears you need several "free" type software to accomplish the same thing as Pixinsight and learning how to use one was plenty for me.
I already knew Photoshop and other typical photo software so learning Pixinsight was not that hard.
To each his own and there is nothing wrong with using all these other software if you get the results you are happy with but there is a reason
it is the TOP software in this discipline and it is not Expensive so I just do not see a reason not to buy it and use it since processing is about 95% of this hobby. I agree with all that in that it's certainly a valid approach. I my own trials with PI, I didn't find it particularly hard to use, I think that aspect is overblown. I did find it just a bit funky in places but that said be said of any complex software package. I don't think it's being said here not to use PI, it's just about exploring choices. Things ebb and flow in the software world. I remember when everyone was using MaximDL and Iris so things do change. Given that environment, I think it's good to keep an eye on what's out there and to encourage good work, especially when it's being done as a contribution to the community.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi,
In my opinion, processing software is just one element in the larger chain that allows us to represent the sky, to transform photons into a visual impression that's pleasing to the eye.
From there, saying that one software is better or worse than another is like saying that one telescope formula is better than another, that one camera is better than another, etc.
It all depends on what you want to do, the time you want to spend on it, and the pleasure you want to get from it.
If all of this resonates with you, then you're a good astrophotographer because you love what you do.
The best tools are those you understand and use to create what you want. There is no doubt for me.
Personally, I own Pixinsight. I'm familiar with it. But my creativity is best expressed with Siril and Photoshop. I can produce exactly what my mind wants to see thanks to them.
The tool doesn't make the sculptor. The way he chooses his material and the expert handling of these tools are what matters. The paintings in the Lascaux caves were made with clay and charcoal…
PS: AI translated from french
JF
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
Hi,
In my opinion, processing software is just one element in the larger chain that allows us to represent the sky, to transform photons into a visual impression that's pleasing to the eye.
From there, saying that one software is better or worse than another is like saying that one telescope formula is better than another, that one camera is better than another, etc.
It all depends on what you want to do, the time you want to spend on it, and the pleasure you want to get from it.
If all of this resonates with you, then you're a good astrophotographer because you love what you do.
The best tools are those you understand and use to create what you want. There is not doubt for me.
Personally, I own Pixinsight. I'm familiar with it. But my creativity is best expressed with Siril and Photoshop. I can produce exactly what my mind wants to see thanks to them.
The tool doesn't make the sculptor. The way he chooses his material and the expert handling of these tools are what matters. The paintings in the Lascaux caves were made with clay and charcoal...
PS: AI translated from french
JF +1
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
As a Pixinsight owner but not a lover, I tried the SETI stuff, its good. If I were starting out in the hobby I would suggest using this as a starting place.
I feel that for someone just starting out, this gets you 8 out of 10 with no out of pocket.
If you already have PixInsight there is no upside to using the SETI stuff,
Just my opinion.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
AstroShed:
So, I agree with many here who conclude SAS is not quite a replacement for PI (yet), or like me whatever other successful process you are using. I do look forward to having this statement become obsolete!
It will NEVER replace PI, let’s be real here, there is too much knowledge within the team of developers at PI, and as much as SAS advances, so will PI, and the gap will never close, don’t get me wrong SAS is an excellent tool, and kudos to Frank, but the tools within it lack the advancement of PI tools in every way, yes there are a couple of useful features that are not in PI, and for that alone it’s worth having it installed, but will never replace PI, IMHO anyway. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm relatively new to pixinsight maybe 2 years. The real reason I purchased it was so that I could use blur exterminator. But I feel like most of the cool things I do in pixinsight are third party scripts that they didn't write. I'm grateful that they put together a platform that people can plug these scripts into but I don't feel like I'm getting a lot of real innovation out of that product. Seems like about 2 months ago it released a new version I was really excited about gradient removal, and the new version is not really any better than the old one. I get updates about a new Mars catalog and frankly I don't even know what that means. Hahaha I'm not slamming pixinsight they got my 300 bucks already, but I feel like the things that I love most about it are either free elsewhere or paid elsewhere. Maybe I'm such a newbie that I don't understand how to use the power of the tools, because most of the scripts I'm using didn't come from them. I actually think the SAS product kind of exposes this. I'm not saying that I can't do more in pixinsight, But is that because they've built some amazing software or because someone else is written some amazing scripts? I was looking at my one shot camera processing flow, with the exception of color calibration, everything else is external scripts or plugins that I've bought. You will laugh but I've actually stopped using WPP for stacking because it's giant hot mess. I get that it could potentially be more powerful but I can't figure it out, and I can just throw them into the ZWO suite or DSS and be done in a few minutes or I can meddle with it and pixinsight because no one is bothered to make the UI understandable or usable. For my 300 bucks it seems like someone would sit down and create a wizard, crazy thought huh? I don't need to hear how magically powerful it is compared to the other tools, real software should be usable, I shouldn't have to read a book or watch a tutorial I should be able to use it and then watch a tutorial and figure out how to use it better. Yes I'm in software. Someone tell me why my plate solver can't just download the catalog on its own without having me download it manually and point it to that directory? How about we do some actual design in the software? I could go on and on with this kind of stuff, I understand that they're trying to create power for users who know what they're doing, but a bunch of this is just straight up lazy I think personally I give pi a lot of undo credit for amazing things that I do within it. Let's not pretend that they did anything for blurxterminator, I actually think that whole thing propelled their company through the roof I hope they're getting a kickback on those sales.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Nobody forced you to buy PI, I'd reckon. Pity you can't get your money back…
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
