2advanced.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by avwebmedia
Also, for the record...2Advanced is the first site I know of to take this approach when designing the size (height and width) of their site. Now they hold the crown as the first to do this. In three years, when it is standard to have sites 1000 pixels wide, 2Advanced will have already done this. Was it a bad decision to do this early? Well, for those with small monitors and low resolution settings, sure. But for their client base, I think it's just fine. This is what 2A does...they innovate. And they sure have done some more of that with this version.

---

my site is 900x480

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Olli_Budworth
Also, on the old V3 site - even when you were waiting for the flash to load, you'd see an animation of some sort, now I get this (see attached) for over a minute, whilst I wait for the site to load up! Doesn't look too good!

---

Well i think you could tell that Ver. 3 was done by EJ, but Ver. 4 alot of parts(including the begin animation) looked like others helped out, including andru pheonix...well thats what i think. n thats why ver.3 was really well put together and neat.

In case anyone was wondering like me, it is an "armored media vehicle."

Evidently for heavy combat in your media created world. Or as support for your media infantry. Or maybe light armor for battling media crime in the streets (skies and seas too) of your media city.;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tinonetic
Flashlevel,

did u really do those sites in 2wks, 6 days...etc?

---

yes he does =)

Man, if that red site is 2As web site, then they down graded instead of upgraded. . . . weak..

Quote:

---

villain2

Oh now we're bashing the techno-future look? That's the main drive of 2A, that's their thing. It's been done to death because it is the future of things. Look at your new cell phones and tv's and DVD players, they ALL have that look. Hell, even cars are going in that direction.

Sometimes I think people pick things apart just to pick at them.

Oh yeah, and the whole thing someone wrote about site resolution and speed etc. I think with less people trying to access it (or maybe they did some backend tweaks) the site is running fine now as far as load times and site animation. I looked at it over a dial up today and it's fine. As far as site resolution and "it's not a DVD" stuff ... 2A has repeatedly said they're designing for high end people (cable, dsl modems) with good eyesite (the 8point text) in their 20's - early 40's (future orientation). They're NOT designing a site for Joe Schmoe public, it's for 2 audiences: 1) Multi-million dollar companies that can afford their design fees (therefore, they have DSL, cable and T1 lines to view websites on) and 2) US, the other designers out there who will sit through a minute long loading screen to see the eyecandy.

2A did not do V4 for Joe Schmoe public. Their portfolio is mostly for large businesses who spend lots of cash and have high end systems with CLIENTS who spend lots of cash and have high end systems. As much as a website should cater to the lowest common system, certain niche's require a bit more.

---

Are you kidding me dude? The purpose of these sites are to appeal to the public. Companies like Ford pay 2Advanced design sites to promote their products.

I'm not a business major, but I would imagine companies like Ford aren't targeting people with a lot of money to buy their products, they are targeting joe schmoe public, and their site is an advertisemnt.

Joe schmoe public's not going to want to veiw Fords site on his 56k dial up waiting for the site to load, etc.

In web design you should have a target audiance, no doubt.... but it is also your responsibility to bring the site to as many people as you can.

</2cents>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tinonetic
Flashlevel,

did u really do those sites in 2wks, 6 days...etc?

---

well, lets say a day of work is like 8 hours right.. if it says 6 days, then the project took a total of 48 hours.. not necessarily 6 days straight, but still could be done in 6 days straight, but everybody would go crazy if they did that.

he may only work 4 hours a day for 12 days.. but its still only 6 days of work.

get the idea..

this is essentially what everybody does when counting hours and placing a timeline on a project.

neverless.. 12 days is still a very good turn around.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by avwebmedia
Also, for the record...2Advanced is the first site I know of to take this approach when designing the size (height and width) of their site. Now they hold the crown as the first to do this.

---

There's sites all different sizes, man. Fixed size under 800 upto fluid sites that can fill a 2000+ plasma.

For the record I think Gmunk's early stuff I'm sure was 1600x1200, though this is a different subject.

I know. The "Phiberglass Armored Media Vehicle" is like the "Urban Assault Vehicle" from Stripes for all of the ninja dudes to fight for the future.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ClydeTheGlyde
Wow, some truly sick people posting here.

Now we are calling 2Adv. innovators for simply setting their .swf size to 1000 pixels. Can we be more ridiculous.

For your info, there are many sites which target 1024 x 768 res. and use 1000 pixels for their width ( actually it's more like 970-990 which is what 2a uses) Even there they are behind at least a year.
Personally I think it's stupid because most of the clients and visitors still use 800 x 600

Gmunk had his sites set at 1200 wide 4 years ago.

Anyway, like most their sites it doesn't look bad, but it's more of the same Gmunk, Virl, Designers Republic rip-off which has been around since mid-late nineties. This v.4 looks like Gmunk of 2 versions ago, they probably though we forgot about it. Fonts look amateurish.
They should just hire Gmunk , pay him a lot of money and then they could officialy call it their style.

I have to comment on their copy, which is something I noticed a long time ago. This guy ( or guys ) have the stupidest and most pretenteous copy ever seen on the web. Sounds like they are mentally impaired. What was the video reel all about? Dumb and dull.
You'd think that with 20 designers one could come up with something creative.

---

Obviously, I was referring to their successful use of the entire workable area guy...relax. 2A IS the first to do that. Post links to others that have done so. The remainder of your post clearly illustrates your initial bias against 2A, so bleh. In fact, post a link to any site with as much content as 2A has that is all in Flash and designed for people using the 1024 setting. You can't because there are none.

Guys I have to say.

All that hype that night made us all crazy.

I viewed the V.4 on a pentium I 233 mhz blah blah...

Tonight I viewed V.4 on a P4 2.66 512 mb 7200rpm and a syncmaster 17 inch flat.
res 1280x1024

V.4 is not for the processing impaired.

If you have the engine. The details show.

V.4 is nice!

I appreciate their attention to details. True their was a few mistakes but just considering he flow of it, I liked it.

The bar may not have jumped but 2a still has the sh*t as someone put it.

thats my II new pennys

Amen, I have the same view. I didn't like it at first, but now I think it's great. Not completely my taste, but very cool nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 88tons
I appreciate their attention to details.

---

I haven't had time to read form page 13 and on, so I'll just comment to this.

May I ask what details did they pay attention to?

It's clear that the 2 ships on the front page were chopped in, the flames look very amatuerish, the ships stop but the flames still move, the water in the beginning looks like someone went hpapy with the add noise filter in photoshop, all ship models (except on the front, those ships looked not bad except for the fact that the 2 were obviously put in later due to the jaggies) they looked un-detailed with no textures and colors.

It does NOT seems like they paid attention to the details AT ALL within the website.

I personally love version 3 way more than this version. This 1 looks amatuerish like someone from the flashkit learned how to use a 3d rendering program and threw it all into flash. (no offence :p )

Ok... It's time for to chime in... I love all the thoughtful critiques that everyone has offered, but I think this is a good one for me to throw a few alternative thoughts on. My apologizes in advance Olli, your response just prompted a few of my hot buttons...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Olli_Budworth
It's odd really, i've sat here, reading this thread over the last few days and have been thinking..........

Most people in this thread have been really critical of the new site, and i've thought "God, most people on here couldn't have done something anywhere near as good"

BUT

Then I think down to the fact that 2A PROCLAIM to be:

"The Future", "The Best", "The most advanced" etc etc.......

Well, as far as i'm concerned, if you proclaim things like that, then you are be open to critisicm and acclaim from all levels.

---

I am astounded time and again when professionals in the design community completely forget their role as marketeers and lose connection with time-tested princples such as using "hype" as an ice breaker to sell a message. Gratuitous qualifiers such as those above have LONG SINCE played an important role in selling a product. Should we have instead indicated, "Prophecy will be just another run-of-the-mill website". That sure doesn't sound very impactful or motivating, now does it? What makes statements on verbiage (like your statement above) so very distressing is that we as professionals in or studying this business should FUNDAMENTALLY understand the merits of marketing and selling - Afterall, this is what we do for a living! My god, please don't tell me you recommend to your clients NOT to describe their products or services as "The Best" or "The Most Advanced"

Quote:

---

In my eyes, the coolest site is one that is FAST, works perfectly on MY pc, provides ME with the best experience, engages ME in it, makes ME want to explore, doesn't confuse or baffle ME........ are you seeing where i'm going?

The new site kills my pc at home, the animations run so slowly that it makes it look crap - That's on a 900mhz P3 with 128mb ram - not the fastest pc, but perfectly adequate for WEB browsing - I think that element has been forgotten about with this new site - that it is 'JUST A WEBSITE' - not a game interface or a dvd.

---

Apart from the fact that I can't understand how you give rise to the superiority of a game interface or a DVD OVER a website... My first suggestion to anyone seeking success, who loves to design and who takes pride in their personal work: It should NEVER BE 'JUST A WEBSITE'. Once you submit to mindless, lackluster statements such as this, you might as well then also come to the conclusion that your work is 'JUST A JOB'.

However, for those who fall to the other side of the coin, and believe that their work is NOT 'JUST A WEBSITE'... You will be the ones to achieve the greatest personal satisfaction at the end of the day. I believe K10K recently echoed this very quote as well, on a newsfeed item about the Neverrain Press Release... Well, I may take somewhat of a thrashing here myself, but how truely sad is that? To be engaged in this business, but not understand the use of Hype in a Press Release, and then to suggest that your job is mediocre at best...

Quote:

---

It's a shame, it also is too large to fit into 1024 x 768 resolution - WHAT? Web stats show that still, about 40% of all web users are STILL running at 800 x 600, then a large percentage of the rest are running only at 1024 x 768, so this site only caters properly for about 5% of the web market. Massive oversite in my opinion.

---

Absolutely not an Oversight. Prophecy fits perfectly in a 1024 width (maximized) browser, so that you won't get the horizontal scroll bars. So someone enlighten me on the correct number of pixels to allocate for height to ensure 100% of the browsers out there do not ever see a vertical scroll bar. Think about it... Which IE Toolbars do you have turned on? Standard Buttons? Address Bar? Links? Does the visitor have any CUSTOM toolbars? Should sites NOT scroll up and down on the Home Page? (And if so, who is going to tell Flashkit, Yahoo, MSN, EBay, Amazon and the MILLIONS of other sites that scroll up and down?).

If we made one MAJOR oversight, it was to suggest the countdown timer (which was great for Hype, but falls down by indirectly sending EVERYONE to the server at the exact same time). We already have a ton of traffic daily at 2Advanced and an extremely fat pipe (gig fiber). The problem was that our poor little server wasn't ready for the processor crunch it has been experiencing these past 38 hours. During this period, we have seen 4 million hits come through and have sustained 50Mb/sec upstream and 50Mb/sec down stream since launch. My mistake was to pass on the installation of an LB and a couple more servers into production for the first week of the launch.

As for this business regarding 10x7... First off, you may want to start by considering my (2Advanced's) business demographics a little more carefully - pretend I'm a client. Do you believe that 2Advanced is designing and targeting EVERYONE on the Internet? Is it always best policy to only build sites that target the largest number of people? I agree that for those who don't understand precisely who their customer is, the best policy is to target everyone. As a going business concern, I can assure you that I know exactly who we are targeting, why we are targeting them and what our goals for achievement are. I appreciate anyone who is concerned about 10x7, but based upon the demographic that we have been collecting since V.3's launch, our choice of resolution is VERY calculated.

Speed of a site is absolutely an issue, and currently performance is very sad. But, this will soon pass. Unfortunately, with us currently a mere 1.5 days past our official release (and in light of the traffic paterns I detailed above), Server response is just going to be on the slow side while as the smoke clears a bit. I do apologize and hope that we don't put anyone off too much, but the concept of getting an LB and/or extra servers in place at this juncture would be a bad investment.

Finaly, for those who don't like the site due to personal taste, or for aesthetic reasons, or for usability reasons of your own... I completely respect this and your opinion. For those who feel the need to bash, thrash, slander, libel, etc... Just remember, this is 'JUST A JOB' and it is 'JUST A WEBSITE' :)

tpnovak, Did you even read any of my replies?

The most important thing is validation, which none of your websites do. This is 1 of the major things I hate about almost all webdesign companies. They think they know how to use flash or html, ect... and then they DON'T code it correctly. This really just pisses me off.

I seriously wish your coders at 2advanced would go to www.w3c.org and RE-LEARN how to code in HTML (or better yet, XHTML).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tpnovak
Prophecy fits perfectly in a 1024 width (maximized) browser, so that you won't get the horizontal scroll bars. So someone enlighten me on the correct number of pixels to allocate for height to ensure 100% of the browsers out there do not ever see a vertical scroll bar.

---

Hey Tony, thanks for the comments and great job with Prophecy!

I was viewing the new site today at work on a standard 1024 screen and there was some bleed off the right edge. Maybe 10-15 pixels, I don't have an exact number. Perhaps others can vouch for this, or maybe, my settings are incorrect or altered in some way.

Again, excellent site!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kasracer
tpnovak, Did you even read any of my replies?

The most important thing is validation, which none of your websites do. This is 1 of the major things I hate about almost all webdesign companies. They think they know how to use flash or html, ect... and then they DON'T code it correctly. This really just pisses me off.

I seriously wish your coders at 2advanced would go to www.w3c.org and RE-LEARN how to code in HTML (or better yet, XHTML).

---

I think you may be out of your league here. I don't see where you are going with this. What about 2Advanced's coding upsets you exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by avwebmedia
Hey Tony, thanks for the comments and great job with Prophecy!

I was viewing the new site today at work on a standard 1024 screen and there was some bleed off the right edge. Maybe 10-15 pixels, I don't have an exact number. Perhaps others can vouch for this, or maybe, my settings are incorrect or altered in some way.

Again, excellent site!

---

Interesting... IE? or Netscape? PC or Mac? Please let me know any pertinent details. Width wise, we do not intend to pop the scrollbars.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kasracer
tpnovak, Did you even read any of my replies?

The most important thing is validation, which none of your websites do. This is 1 of the major things I hate about almost all webdesign companies. They think they know how to use flash or html, ect... and then they DON'T code it correctly. This really just pisses me off.

I seriously wish your coders at 2advanced would go to www.w3c.org and RE-LEARN how to code in HTML (or better yet, XHTML).

---

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Fwww.yahoo.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...%2Fwww.aol.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...%2Fwww.msn.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...2Fwww.ebay.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...w.slashdot.org

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...w.flashkit.com

It's not webdesign companies, it's the fact that tweeking a website to make it validate usually brings the designers and developers nothing of true value. Yes, w3.org will say it validates. Big deal. How does that pay for the extra few hours of labor? Where's the cost-benefit analysis? It's invisible, and the web is a very visible medium.

I can respect the amount of work that has been put into this design, BUT what I can't respect is the complete arrogance of EJ and the company.
For them to say they are raising the bar, they really must have their heads in the clouds or something.
And all this talk about the "Prophecy" and "Fight for the Future" is nothing more then a rip from Matrix movies.

I know it's hard to satisfy everyone when you are trying to come up with a new version to a website when your previous versions all surpassed each other, and everyone has high expectations of you. But with so much hype about the "Prophecy", everyone expected a whole lot more.
If you ask me they should have just released the design like they did with V3 and let everyone make their own decision whether it has "raised the bar".

Like I said I can respect the time & effort that goes into their Flash work, but I can't respect outright arrogance from EJ & his company.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tpnovak
we have seen 4 million hits come through and have sustained 50Mb/sec upstream and 50Mb/sec down stream since launch.

---

wow... thats pretty amazing!


i just have one big question really... why have the most processor intensive animation on the main page?

i wouldnt even mind much if it was in a sub section, because then i could choose to avoid it... but it just makes my computer slooow and makes me go :(

aside from that i think the site is very nice, obviously it wont live up to the hype but thats our faults for building it up so much.

(btw i have a celeron 1.2 processor)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tpnovak
Interesting... IE? or Netscape? PC or Mac? Please let me know any pertinent details. Width wise, we do not intend to pop the scrollbars.

---

I was looking at it using good old IE 6 at work. At home, I typically run in 1200x1024, but when I resized it appeared to be fine. I won't be able to give you specifics of my work computer until Monday. I'm sure someone will have given you the exact issue by then, if not, I will post again. Besides, as you know, it's darn near impossible to account for all browser settings and OS's. I only know that in order to fit 800x600 websites on all OS's and all browsers, the site needs to be 787 pixels wide. I don't know the 1024 equivalent off hand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by avwebmedia
I think you may be out of your league here. I don't see where you are going with this. What about 2Advanced's coding upsets you exactly?

---

What upsets me is that they claim to be the best at web development, yet they don't know how to code in HTML correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by random_fool
It's not webdesign companies, it's the fact that tweeking a website to make it validate usually brings the designers and developers nothing of true value. Yes, w3.org will say it validates. Big deal. How does that pay for the extra few hours of labor? Where's the cost-benefit analysis? It's invisible, and the web is a very visible medium.

---

It is the webdesign companies. They are the ones who hire people who pass a webdesign class and think they can do anything in a markup language they know jack **** about.

Make a website validate brings the world to the designers. If they code properly, then there website will work as the code intended it to work in browsers that render the standards code, which is all of them (IE has pitfalls, they don't know what a standard is at Microsoft). Validating code can make the world of difference. If it is not doen, it only shows the arrogance and the ignorance of the companies who use improper markup.

It doesn't take longer to code validated markup. In fact, you can do it like any website, just actaully LEARN the HTML/XHTML language before using it. It's extremely simple to do. If you need to spend time making a site validate after it's done, then you have problems of your own and I suggest re-learning HTML or XHTML.

If you honestly think the internet is an entirely visable medium, then you are wrong. What about SQL, php, coldfusion, ASP, ect.. ect... the list goes on. All of those work in the background. While what you see is visable (obviously) doesn't mean all the internet is visable.

What about your operating system? You see it all the time, you see all sorts of stuff. But do you see all of the invisable aprts? The millions of lines of code to make it all come together and work? No you don't. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and everything is visable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by avwebmedia
I was looking at it using good old IE 6 at work. At home, I typically run in 1200x1024, but when I resized it appeared to be fine. I won't be able to give you specifics of my work computer until Monday. I'm sure someone will have given you the exact issue by then, if not, I will post again. Besides, as you know, it's darn near impossible to account for all browser settings and OS's. I only know that in order to fit 800x600 websites on all OS's and all browsers, the site needs to be 787 pixels wide. I don't know the 1024 equivalent off hand.

---

It is INSANELY easy to make a website fit to any resolution. It's called using percentages and scalling.

Not everything must be an exact pixel, not everything must be duplicated for other resolutions. Hell using EMs is alot better than actaul pixels

Good lord is the server for this forum dying

All the hype and no resonse. This website lacks a lot to be consider a high quality website.

What because its backend with and admin tool and such. Please there are plenty of sites out there that have been doing the same thing and with a way better design. To be honest alot of there portfolio projects is better then this version. Which is pretty bad.

I'm not saying at all that its not a nice experiment of what flash can do but to be considered the "best design company" it's hard to maintain.

The site must have crased at least three times on me. The music feature doesn't seem to be working for me. And the screen resolution is terrible. Not to mention im on dsl and the site takes forever to load, i feel sorry for you 56k modem people. For your viewers not to be able to have a pleasant experience with the standard 800 x 600 res is crazy.

I have seen alot of other sites out there that is off the chain. For this site site to be such hot ****. Keep it real people. Flashy animation and cool transitions has nothing to do with performance.

Damn... what a dissapoinment, this site is utter crap! I am on a 1.3GHz Pentium with 1-mbit connection, and everything is very choppy, this looks like it has been designed by some 12 year old flashkit kiddie. There are tons of bugs, music wont start up again if paused, some pages take hours to load, and the HTML code looks very dirty (i guess they now use MS Frontpage huh..)

The front water-ship animation is very basic and plain, yet somehow it alone freezes up my PC :confused:

I think Tony Novak and company have taken this intellectual property thing a bit to the extreme.

Didn't everyone notice the proliferation of "TM" all over that site??

AUXILIARY PANEL TM
MAINFRAME TM
FEATURE SYSTEM TM
PRESS UPDATES TM
SUBSYSTEM TM

Incredible. So serious they are about not having their work copied, they went and trademarked all these words! I can't build a site with press updates! When I insert a frameset into a page in Dreamweaver, the default id for the main section is "mainFrame". If I publish a site without changing that, am I going to be busted? As if these guys didn't have an easy enough time keeping all the high paying work from us anyway!

Or maybe they wont send the high priced lawyers after us. Maybe they'll just eliminate completely. Better be on the look out for that skinny ninja paintball ski-instructor guy who can't seem to fill out his uniform.

I think it's fairly obvious that these little TM's are just design elements - get over it.

Hehe. I think it's fairly obvious that my post was just a joke - now get over yourself.

of course it was ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EF7
The front water-ship animation is very basic and plain, yet somehow it alone freezes up my PC :confused:

---

I dont think the watership animation is basic, or plain...and i want to see you do better. First, you need a new pc...yours is too slow to hang with us.

Quote:

---

Damn... what a dissapoinment, this site is utter crap! I am on a 1.3GHz Pentium with 1-mbit connection, and everything is very choppy, this looks like it has been designed by some 12 year old flashkit kiddie. There are tons of bugs, music wont start up again if paused, some pages take hours to load, and the HTML code looks very dirty (i guess they now use MS Frontpage huh..)

The front water-ship animation is very basic and plain, yet somehow it alone freezes up my PC

---

That's a shame. Get a faster computer. :p just kidding. ;) (Yea, it's pretty processor intensive)


But what I don't get... is how does the HTML look dirty?

Dirty HTML? How so?

And they only have 17 errors before they become 100% valid HTML 4.01 transitional, which is much better than some other websites I've seen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by optical
I think it's fairly obvious that these little TM's are just design elements - get over it.

---

thast probly how 2A sees it too, but this is a serious matter, could involve lawsuits and legal matters, copywright and trademark laws...



nah i really dunno bout all that, maybe. ;) lol

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kony2003
thast probly how 2A sees it too, but this is a serious matter, could involve lawsuits and legal matters, copywright and trademark laws...



nah i really dunno bout all that, maybe. ;) lol

---

It would be scary if they did.
I use every single one of those words
on my sites... :D

Hey kasracer

So wait.. a standard HTML page, created in dreamweaver, with a simple table, 4 graphics, some javascript and an embedded Flash movie created 17 errors according to w3c.com standards?

I think you should e-mail Macromedia then big fella. Because both Flash and Dreamweaver seem to be out of compliance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
Hey kasracer

So wait.. a standard HTML page, created in dreamweaver, with a simple table, 4 graphics, some javascript and an embedded Flash movie created 17 errors according to w3c.com standards?

I think you should e-mail Macromedia then big fella. Because both Flash and Dreamweaver seem to be out of compliance.

---

hehe :)

btw, is it just me... or are some of the links in the PARTNERs section broken? :(

which is quite topical since the code used to embed flash onto a web page won't even pass XHTML transitional (the recommended standard right now).

Here's a dirty workaround to get it to validate, but it's stupid to go thru all that to validate the page. Someone needs to rejig the damn thing.

This site to me is like the Matrix Reloaded. (I liked that movie by the way). If you think of the movie or the site in context, you might be a little disappointed but it's still quality work. There are a bunch of pretty and new features in both, but both failed to shock and amaze me in the way the previous version once did. In short, both are sequels to amazing and revolutionary works. The sequels, however, did not pave new roads in the way that their predecessors did.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 52oz
This site to me is like the Matrix Reloaded. (I liked that movie by the way). If you think of the movie or the site in context, you might be a little disappointed but it's still quality work. There are a bunch of pretty and new features in both, but both failed to shock and amaze me in the way the previous version once did. In short, both are sequels to amazing and revolutionary works. The sequels, however, did not pave new roads in the way that their predecessors did.

---

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

lol another linkage between matrix reloaded and 2advanced I think hype spoils it you build up too many expectations i think thats one reason why i didnt bother to read this thread before the launch.