Hi Spookies & Culties, Here is your "must have these Cult Items" Weekend Shopping List!!

★ Item ★ The Josilyn heels are decorated up with cute flowers! The Magnolia heels are cuted up with bows, hearts, and pearls!

★ Rigged For ★ Reborn ★ Maitreya-X ★ Kupra ★ Legacy ★ Lara ★

★ Featuring Color Hud w/ 10 light colors & 10 dark colors & 3 metal colors!

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★ Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility ★

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/337

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult MarketPlace

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

In May 2016, Lockheed Martin’s first GPS III satellite for the U.S. Air Force, Space Vehicle 01 (SV 01),completed Electromagnetic Interference/Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMI/EMC) and Passive Intermodulation (PIM) testing within our Anechoic Test facility.Here, the full space vehicle went through trials to ensure that the powerful signals of the satellite’scomponents and payloads would not interfere with each other during operations. This was the third of three rigorous environmental tests which ensure GPS III can meet all mission requirements in the stress of space.

Introducing the Nova Eyebrows Collection by Vladdy and Body Alchemy!

Upgrade your look with the Nova Eyebrows Collection, a premium set of six unique, fully tintable HD eyebrows for men. This collection is a collaborative effort with Body Alchemy, bringing you top-quality designs that stand out.

The Nova Eyebrows Collection includes both SL UV (classic Bakes on Mesh applier) and Evo X applier versions, ensuring compatibility with a wide range of avatars. Each set offers the flexibility and customization you need to achieve the perfect look.

Taxi: maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Vladdy/77/207/2000

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

Some background:

The Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

★ Item ★ The Bela backpack is a cute teddy backpack for any collector!

★ Rigged For ★ Reborn ★ Legacy Female ★ Maitreya ★ Kupra ★

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Champ/189/200/17

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult Instagram

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

Hi Culties & Spookies, Time to kick off your weekend shopping just right!

★ Item ★ Demi are a sexy pair of boots with awesome details specifically made for Maze "Soft Thighs" Only.

★ Rigged For ★ Reborn ★ Legacy Female ★ Maitreya ★ Kupra ★

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Champ/189/200/17

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult Instagram

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

Hi Culties & Spookies, time for even more sales for your Sunday Leisure!!

★ Item ★ The Rebeca boots are are sleek and sexy with o ring and lacing details and would be great for any boot collector!

★ Rigged For ★ Legacy F ★ Reborn ★ Kupra ★ Gen-X ★ Lara ★ MaitreyaX ★

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Champ/189/200/17

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

The IBM System/360 mainframe development which started in 1961 was the biggest product development in corporate history. Costing $5B at the time ($44B today), it was a huge gamble, but it paid off handsomely for IBM. They dominated the market for the remainder of the mainframe computer era.

There were several big innovations which created its success, including, upwards/downwards software compatibility across the range, standard interface for many different peripherals, emulation of other platform developed software, adoption of the 8-bit byte and Solid Logic Technology.

Seen in close up, SLT was a ceramic substrate technology with printed resistors and mounted transistors, creating Resistor Transistor Logic (RTL) blocks. The resistors were trimmed before the lid was put on the modules.

IBM gambled in large part because they were facing increasing stiff competition.

One of their competitors launched a product with early logic integrated circuits. IBM had considered this but felt the technology was too immature. They were right as the competitor's computer had many yield and cost issues and it failed.

By the time the System/370 was launched, IBM had adopted logic ICs (now called Monolothic Systems Technology), but they still packaged them in the same ceramic substrate package format.

IBM during the 60s was the world's largest producer of semiconductors and also used external companies like TI and Raytheon to produce discrete packaged transistors for their products.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

Some background:

The Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

Some background:

The Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

Celebrating Ferruccio Lamborghini's birth, the exclusive Centenario supercar has just made its debut in Geneva.

Despite that, the 770 HP supercar that'll be available in just 40 examples, 20 Coupes and 20 Roadsters at a €1.75 million (1.9$ equivalent) price tag has already been sold out.

Accelerating from naught to 100 km/h (62 mph) takes only 2.8 seconds, 0 to 300 km/h (186 mph) 23.5 seconds and the top speed exceeds 350 km/h (217 mph). Braking from 100 km/h to a standstill is achieved in just 30 meters!

The Centenario uses mococoque and body made from carbon fiber, tipping the scale at 1,520 kg, 55 kg less than the Aventador on which it is based. It measures 4,924 mm long and 1,143 m high, meaning 144 mm longer and 7 mm taller than the Sant'Agata Bolognese flagship.

The aerodynamics are carefully managed with inlets, large air scoops in the front bonnet, air scoops on the roof, extending rear wing, aggressive diffuser with three mid-mounted exhaust pipes and Y-shaped taillights. The machine rides on 20-/21-inch front/rear rims in forged and milled aluminum, wrapped in Pirelli PZero tires, developed specifically for the rear-wheel steering found on the Centenario.

The interior can be finished to each client's specification and it includes lightweight carbon fiber sports seats, new stitching on the length of the dashboard, steering wheel, sunvisors, rocker covers and new carbon fiber-made inner door panels, wrapped in Alcantara.

Sat-nav with a high-def 10.1-inch touchscreen is at the driver's disposal, along with internet, e-mail, social media, online apps and Apple CarPlay compatibility.

The Centenario continues on the same path started with the Reventon, which included the Sesto Elemento, Aventador J and Veneno.

Hi Culties & Spookies, time for even more sales for your Sunday Leisure!!

★ For Lazy Sunday!!! ★ Elowynne ★ For So Kawaii Sundays ★ Melinda ★

★ marketplace.secondlife.com/p/CULT-Elowynne-Fatpack/27257030

★ Rigged For ★ Maitreya-X ★ Legacy F ★ Reborn ★ Kupra ★ Lara ★

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/33

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

thegoldensieve.com

A good thing continues

Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.

The A7/r game-changer?

In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.

The RX1 is smaller and more discrete

This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.

The D800 has important functional advantages

On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.

Okay, so what is different from the last review?

For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.

My “be-there” camera

The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.

The family camera

I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.

Where to go from here.

So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.

Even though my Steamroller is a pretty good do-it-all-bike, I wanted a new bike for cyclocross, gravel grinding and touring. The specs were: steel frame, large tire clearance, easy single speed compatibility and disc brakes. The only options were really the Surly Straggler or the Soma Wolverine, and I was thinking about the latter.

Luckily, a friend offered this old Crosscheck frame, which he had modified by adding disc brake mounts and waterproof inlets for the cables. I think I'm the third owner of this frame and its was well-ridden before me. The frame needed a bit of painting, so I rattle-canned it. So, wanted a Wolverine, but got this, and it looks like a Racoon, or "trash panda" to me.

Specs:

* Saddle: WTB Volt (most comfortable saddle for long-distance thus far)

* Post: Cinelly Vai

* Stem: 70 mm no name ("Xtreme") stem

* Bar: Rose Bikes compact drop

* Levers: Sram S-500

* Head set: Cane Creek EC34

* Brakes: Avidd BB7 Road

* Tyres: Schwalbe Smart Sam 47 mm

* Front wheel: self-built Alpkit Love Mud Juice dynamo hub and DT Swiss R460db rim

* Rear wheel: old second-hand 29er wheel (Mavic rim, forgot which hub)

* Rear cog: Surly 21t cassette cog

* Cranks: second hand Sugino Messengers (170 mm), although the left crank seems to be a random crank

* Chain ring: Velosolo 44t 3/32", second hand as well

* Chain: some KMC

* Pedals: Shimano M520 SPD

* Front lamp: Büchel Immerlicht (or whatever) with USB-port

* Rear lamp: B&M Toplight (small)

* Fender: BBB quick release

About Valentine’s Day Premium Lightroom Presets Collection:

Valentine’s Day Lightroom preset enhances and adds more beautiful colors to pictures and make photo look cinematic. Our Lightroom Preset is perfect for photographers and graphic designers. They help you to perfect your photographs and backgrounds and to make them unique and look gorgeous. With this preset you will be able to add a professional finish to your images quickly.

INCLUDE 10 PRESET FOR ADOBE LIGHTROOM:

10 Original Preset:

01_Love Sunset Color

02_warm_love

03_Pure_Love

04_Natural_Style_Tone

05_Film_Love

06_Beach_split_tone

07_Magical_moments

08_Vibe_Love_Fade

09_Happiness_color

10_Moments

BEST FOR

Creative portrait photography Lifestyle, family and love-story photography Fashion street photography

COMPATIBILITY

Adobe Lightroom 4 and higher, including CC 2017. These presets are for Lightroom only and won’t work in Photoshop.

INSTALLATION

Standard for Lightroom presets. Brief installation and usage instructions are inside the archive.

bit.ly/RomanticPresets

Hi Spookies & Culties, Here is your "must have these Cult Items" Weekend Shopping List!!

★ For Happy Weekend Sale ★ Annalesse ★ Infinity ★

★ Rigged For ★ Reborn ★ Maitreya-X ★ Legacy F ★ Lara ★ Kupra ★

★ Featuring Color Hud w/ 10 light colors & 10 dark colors & 3 metal colors!

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★ Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility ★

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/337

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult MarketPlace

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

Hi Spookies & Culties, Here is your "must have these Cult Items" Weekend Shopping List!!

★ For Saturday Sale ★ Alinta ★ Savita ★

★ Surya Rigged For ★ Reborn ★ Maitreya-X ★ Kupra ★ Legacy F ★ Lara ★

★ Featuring Color Hud w/ 10 light colors & 10 dark colors & 3 metal colors!

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★ Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility ★

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/337

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult MarketPlace

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

This custom LEGO train station MOC features a Neoclassical facade, detailed interior, and modular compatibility. Designed by Symbioza and available on Rebrickable. Includes over 9200 parts and a 2088-page instruction booklet.

📎 Building instructions on Rebrickable:

rebrickable.com/users/symbioza/mocs/

One of the most original Nikon cameras ever, yet plagued with a very short life span. The cute Pronea S is world famous for its lack of reliability, a very unnikon tittle. In spite from being an APS camera, it still retains full compatibility with all Nikon models current at the time. It even will autofocus with AF non G lens, something that most Nikon AF SLR of today can't do. Still, a very cute camera that still works (hurray!) and a must have in any Nikon collection.

Hi Culties & Spookies, Time to kick off your weekend shopping just right!

★ Item ★ The AbazirV2 Boots

★ Rigged For ★ Reborn ★ Legacy Female ★ Kupra ★ Lara ★MaitreyaOG

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/33

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult MarketPlace

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

Hi Culties & Spookies, Time to kick off your weekend shopping just right!

★ Item ★ The Jamie shoe is unisex and holds unique details that would make any outfit stand out!

★ Rigged For ★ Legacy M/F ★ Jake ★ Gianni ★ Maitreya ★ Reborn ★ Kupra ★

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/33

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult MarketPlace

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

Hi Culties & Spookies, time for even more sales for your Sunday Leisure!!

★ Item ★ The Myka wedges are cute and sweet! The Celine shoes are also cute with their bows and ruffles!

★ marketplace.secondlife.com/p/CULT-Myka-Fatpack/27217871

★ Rigged For ★ Maitreya-X ★ Legacy F ★ Reborn ★ Kupra ★ Lara ★

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/33

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

BRANDI DRESS

⊡ Weekend sale

☰ Items Included: Color Hud

⋮ 22 Colors

☰ Compatibility with:

☑ Kupra ☑ Maitreya + Petite ☑ Belleza (Freya ,Isis) ☑ Slink (All) ☑ Tonic (Curvy) ☑ Legacy + Perky

maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Morenci/109/41/2

Weston 18/04/14 Preserved at Weston

First Flown

29/05/1968 Holme-on-Spalding Moor

25/07/1968 Allocated to 'Electromagnetic Compatibility' and noise-level investigation

Date Delivered 19/08/1968To Royal Navy - NASU Lossiemouth

13/09/1968 On static display SBAC Show Farnborough

23/09/1968 Returned to NASU Lossiemouth

19/05/1969 To 'C' Sqn, A&AEE Boscombe Down -'Carrier Trials'

17/06/1969 Issued to 809 NAS, RNAS Lossiemouth

29/04/1970 Transferred to 736 NAS, RNAS Lossiemouth - coded '650/LM'

25/05/1971 To NASU Lossiemouth

17/11/1971 To RNAY Sydenham, Belfast for modification

26/02/1973 To Hawker Siddeley, Holme-on-Spalding Moor

01/03/1973 To Hawker Siddeley, Brough for upgrade to S.Mk.2D standard

10/06/1973 Returned to Holme-on-Spalding Moor

05/09/1973 To RNAY Sydenham, Belfast

14/11/1973 Issued to 809 Sqn., (RN Unit) RAF Honington - coded '020/R'

06/06/1974 Embarked HMS Ark Royal - coded '020/R'

(Cruises: 3xHome & Mediterranean Sea + 1xAtlantic)

09/06/1975 809 NAS, dis-embarked HMS Ark Royal - coded '020/R'

26/07/1975 To (RN Unit) RAF Honington

19/01/1976 Re-issued to 809 NAS, RAF Lossiemouth - coded '025/R'

06/02/1976 Embarked HMS Ark Royal - coded '025/R'

(Cruises: 1xAtlantic)

14/07/1976 809 NAS, dis-embarked HMS Ark Royal - coded '025/R'

31/08/1976 To (RN Unit) RAF Honington

20/09/1976 To No.23 MU RAF Aldergrove

13/10/1976 Returned to (RN Unit) RAF Honington

18/03/1977 Re-issued to 809 NAS, RAF Lossiemouth - coded '036/R'

05/09/1977 Embarked HMS Ark Royal - coded '036/R'

(Cruises: 2xHome & Mediterranean Sea + 1xAtlantic)

27/11/1978 Dis-embarked HMS Ark Royal

Date Delivered

27/11/1978 To Royal Air Force - to No.19 MU St. Athan

1979 upgrade to S.Mk.2B standard

17/01/1980 Issued to 16 Sqn., RAFG Laarbruch, West Germany

Feb. 1980 Buccaneer fleet grounded for six months following crash of XV345

at Nellis AFB, Nevada, USA during Exercise 'Red Flag 80'

1982 16 Sqn., RAFG Laarbruch, West Germany - coded 'U'

Apr.1984Transferred to 237 OCU, RAF Honington - coded '863'

Oct. 1984 237 OCU relocated to RAF Lossiemouth

07/11/1984 237 OCU, RAF Lossiemouth - coded 'CC'

1985 Returned to BAe, new avionics to ASR1012 - Sea Eagle 'Anti-Ship' missile capability

05/11/1985 Issued to 208 Sqn., RAF Lossiemouth - coded '863'

29/10/1987 Transferred to 237 OCU RAF Lossiemouth - coded '863'

Date Received 29/07/1988

To BAe Woodford - ASR1012 (Set No.029)

Avionics Upgrade Programme (AUP) - 48wks cycle

Date Delivered

26/03/1989 'AUP' completed - returned to 'Operational Status'

27/03/1989 To 'Station Flight', RAF Lossiemouth

Apr. 1989Re-Issued to 237 OCU, RAF Lossiemouth - coded '863'

Date (exact) Between

(unknown)

Aug.1989

Jan. 1991

Mod.1736 'Modified' - Smaller Wingtips — Fitted to extend airframe flying hours by reducing wing-loading. Result of fatigue testing of XN982 at HS Brough, to determine cause of the crash of XV345 while participating in 'Red Flag 80' on 07/02/1980 - (Fatigue testing commenced Jun. 1982 - solution implimented to specific airframes from Aug.1989-onwards)

Jan. 1991 Prepared for Operation 'Granby' - painted Desert 'ARTF' (Alkali Removable Temporary Finish) - coded 'S'

07/02/1991 Deployed to Gulf - Muharraq Air Base, Bahrain (batch of second six aircraft)

XX863/ S XX885/ L XX894/ O XX895/ G XV352/ U XX901/ N

'Nose-Art' added during campaign: 'Sea Witch/Debbie/Tamnavoulin'

By the end of campaign, six mission symbols displayed on starboard nose below cockpit canopy

17/03/1991 Returned to RAF Lossiemouth form the Gulf

Mar. 1991 Re-joined 237 OCU, RAF Lossiemouth

-----

Withdrawn from service - Allocated 'Maintenance Airframe' number 9115M

Mar. 1994 Gate Guardian, RAF Lossiemouth, Scotland in Gulf Markings "S" (9115M)

-----

Allocated 'Maintenance Airframe' number 9139M

-----

Allocated 'Maintenance Airframe' number 9145M

09/11/2001 Placed in storage, RAF Lossiemouth, Scotland - (9145M) — Replaced as Gate Guardian by: Tornado GR1 - ZA475

06/04/2007 Sold by Disposal Services Agency (DSA) for £5,300 to the Christie Keane Museum, Weston (8 miles west of Dublin)

25/08/2007 Arrived: Christie Keane Museum

— Transported by road and sea to Ireland via Liverpool

This picture was taken when logging into SL at dial up speeds thus the utter emptiness and half rezzed look - I'm standing in SL nothingness :). I'm on the equivalent of dial up speed for a week... it's a killer. (The RL component of it changes from time to time )

I have plurked the challenge here.

16 random facts about RL Moggs that you may not know

1. I once rode a mechanical bull for about 3 seconds. Three times in a row. I kept getting back on. My nemesis from school was at the controls ... taking me from 0-full speed in seconds.

2. Moggs is a nickname from real life.

3. I twirl my hair when I get tired. Which is probably better than ripping it out in handfuls like I used to do as a baby to make myself to cry so I'd sleep.

4. I love people and think you can never have too many GOOD people in your life... something I don't regret but which means trying to keep up with people can get interesting at times. I randomly mix my various (and quite different) groups of friends who live locally once or twice a year and never pause to think about who gets along with who or worrying about compatibility - it'd never happen otherwise. My friends are diverse in age, sexuality, religious and moral beliefs, culture/sub-culture and I love them all. (I believe you have to be a little bit in love with all of your [true] friends.)

5. I try to use my powers for good - unless someone 'makes' me do otherwise. (I'm relatively easy going and easy to get along with but don't like bullies. I will stand up for what I believe - vocally, in writing and with my feet.)

6. I love the city and the country. I hate the suburbs. I've been living in the outer 'burbs for the first time EVER for the last year and a bit and I HATE it (and my suburb smells like toilet - for real. I'm not making that up!). I'm currently plotting my return to the inner 'burbs or city. [Note - this woeful situation was rectified in March 2009... I'm closer to the city but aiming to move closer still... reasonably happy where I am but have a lot of my stuff stored so this place is just temporary]

7. I hate political correctness. I much prefer bluntness. I blame political correctness and the over use of weasel words for exaggerating a number of issues in our society. I don't 'get' discrimination based on gender, sexuality, religion, skin colour and I think that bluntness and common decency are not incompatible (BRUTAL honesty, however, is unneccessary... the regular kind of honesty is just fine and can be served with kindness on the side). I believe common decency is more important that being politically correct. (See also Soft Language by George Carlin).

8. I was a bridesmaid for someone I met in rest rooms at a pub - I'd raided the men's toilets for toilet paper and handed it over the cubicle... the person recognised my watch later while we were at the bar ordering drinks at the same time. We started chatting and went on to become good friends. Oh... did I forget to say that I meet people in strange and unusual circumstances?

9. I did the 'get to know you thing' with a guy who turned out to have 64 aliases (we didn't get to know each other too well - he was a little strange... even for me. We wouldn't have got to know one another at all but I'd made up this dumb rule for myself that I had to at least make an attempt to get to know the next guy who asked me out - something I'd regret a whole lot more if the resulting story wasn't so good!). He was a magician who often wore a bobby policeman outfit which, retrospectively, was very amusing. When the news hit the local papers my phone rang hot. One friend rocked up at 4am at my door, having walked from the city totally drunk and hardly able to speak. He held up the paper and then fell into my house (literally!) in a drunken laughing mess. When I shared the story with my grandma in a letter, she wrote me back a fictional letter - thinking if I could make stuff up, she could too!

10. My favourite colours are red and green. I love particular shades of green. I'm a Leo. I was born on a Thursday at either 00:43 or 00:46. I'm a ENFJ Jung Personality Type - E 11%, I 44% F 88% J 11% (well, according to an Internet based test on the humanmetrics site that I did thanks to Laleeta's plurk back in October 2008).

11. In my own opinon, I'm equal parts serious and nutty. I like to play. And I like to think.

12. I am not really into large parties but attend them and host them anyway because I love catching up with people. I much prefer catch ups when you can have actual dialogue rather than a range of greetings and short superficial topics. My parties generally go quite well despite the random mix of people and the fact I tend to let things evolve rather than try to direct proceedings. When I'm tired I revert to childhood shyness but few people believe me if I explain why I'm not so social - I had to learn to be outgoing and meet people when I moved to a new town when I was 12 or 13; it was hard work but now it's like second nature, except when I'm really tired.

13. I love sharing things that impress me (make me laugh, think or propel me to action). I love promoting the people I love... or those whose skills I respect. Many of my friends jokingly call me a pimp - but then ring me when they are after people or information. I compulsively share new finds with friends and aquaintances and go out of my way to email people with trivia or recommendations if I know they are interested in a particular topic. I'm an information junkie and sometimes think I absorb things by osmosis.

14. I believe it's important to tell people the good stuff as well as the bad. I will offer criticism (that I hope is constructive) but I'll also offer compliments. I don't understand why most people don't hestitate when it comes to the negatives but many find it so hard to share a compliment, pass on something good or to say I like/adore/love you.

15. I've never had a broken bone - even though I was a bit of a tomboy as a child and probably should have broken any number of them.

16. When it comes to people, music, tv, movies and books I'm very eclectic in my tastes and like a bit of everything... I think this comes back to the fact I'm insanely curious and hate not knowing.

Supplementary facts inspired by other people's posts

S1. I sometimes shop for shoes with my sense of humour ON (something you should never do but I can't help myself!) - inspired by Vixie Rayna (11)

S2. I'm not a fan of city beaches having grown up with beautiful country beaches. I like the beach best when it's relatively empty... and I love being near the sea when it's raining or there's a storm inspired by Serene Footman (6)

S3. My youngest sister (there are three of us) once told me if I wanted to punish someone, I should sing to them. - inspired by Bunny Brickworks (3)

S4. I'm seriously addicted to people watching - - inspired by Vixie Rayna (15)

S5. I have a dog-made-dimple on one of my cheeks... I fell over and during my fall my hand met with the dogs tail and bent it back the wrong way, he turned around and bit me (as a natural reaction) and stopped as soon as he realised he'd bitten one of his humans. The dog and I were both fine and I got a dimple. In other crazy ventures with pets - as a child I was annoying the dog, he gently grabbed my arm with his teeth in warning. Being a stubborn child rather than take the hint and let go, I bit the dog back. They tell me that the dog increased his pressure a bit... and then I did the same and the battle of wills continued until finally I let go. (My parents were watching and ensuring that I wasn't hurt - obviously I wasn't too scarred as I love all animals and have no fear at all of dogs) - inspired by Trinity Dechou (7)

S6. I am not a member of any organised religion. I strongly believe in the right to choose. I believe there are things that can't be explained and haven't decided whether to attribute them to god, science or our lack of knowledge of the human brain. I once house sat in a house I swore was haunted. I lasted there a whole week where as anyone who came to stay with me lasted a night or less. I ended up leaving a week early and just popped by morning and night to feed the animals and water plants (explaining to my family why I was home early was embarrassing). - inspired by Dolly Voom (7)

S7. I don't like the bed linen tucked in at the feet. My feet seem to be the master control for my body temperature and I like to be able to move them in and out of the covers. - inspired by Denise Rowlands (13)

S8. I have an excellent memory - which my friends often curse. Don't tell me stuff you don't want me to remember. BUT if you tell me anything about cricket (one of the few things that holds zero interest for me) I won't remember a bit of it. My dad likes to tell me about cricket highlights just to torment me :) - inspired by Bunny Brickworks (10)

S9. Caterpillers gross me out. (My favourite insect is the praying mantis). Not a lot else grossed me out - though if I'm going to be squeemish, it's generally in response to a sound or to a smell more than visuals. I have friends and family in the medical industry so very little phases me or grosses me out as a topic of conversation while eating - inspired by Madame Maracas (2)

S10. I'm a non-smoker but people often think I am a smoker because many of my friends smoke. I am probably one of the few non-smokers that will look at smoke fanners with reproach. - inspired by Vixie Rayna (17)

S11. The people in a range of cafes I frequent know my face, order and a number of factlets about me (though generally not my name - unless they specifically make a point of asking). I'll talk to anyone and I love coffee. I am fussy about coffee and am not a fan of chains like starbucks and hudsons - I'd rather go to small cafe with a skilled barista. If my sisters don't have real coffee and only have instant they won't bother offering me one. - inspired by Denise Rowlands (2)

S12. My legs are extremely ticklish. Which would be fine if no one knew. Kids, especially, are ruthless if they find out. - inspired by Trinity Dechou (7)

S13. I used to watch 'tear jerkers' with my mum when the rest of the family was out so we could sob without being mocked. These days I cry or laugh without shame in the cinema - I cry quietly and just let the tears stream down my face. I laugh whole heartedly and not particularly quietly. (BUT People who talk in the cinema during a movie drive me insane). " [...] , you're going to burn in a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater." (Book, Firefly) - inspired by Bunny Brickworks (11)

S14. I have many (nick)names and they make me smile. I once read some quote that said, 'a child with many names is a much loved child ' - inspired by Vixie Rayna (18)

S15. I've only been on fire once... oh ... twice (that I can remember) - once was my thumb due to a flaming sambucca - I was in a crowded pub so couldn't just drop it either... months later I was at work assisting a client and he said, 'I know you from somewhere...' as soon as I mentioned the suburb where I hung out.. he said, "you were the girl with your thumb on fire!!". another time I caught my pants alight via a tea light candle my friend had artfully sat on the ground - much to the amusement of my friends. - Inspired by gr33ncat

S16 I hate chain letters and junk email. When I receive them and have time, I'll go through and harvest everyone's email and send (using BCC) a reply to them all - starting with, "now I have your email addresses, I can subscribe you all to porn lists..." - but then go on to reassure I won't really do this and provide advice about using the BCC field and sharing some basic email/web etiquette. I really hate junk email and figure if I tell people why, they might stop (or at least might leave me off their spam list :)). (moved up from my comments).

The challenge

Post your RL pic and 16 random facts about your person. But you needn't if you don't feel like. It's not that bad karma will hit you. // Post a pic of yourself on flickr and write down 16 random facts about yourself, funny, quirky, weird stuff then send on to/tag 16 other people.

I didn't tag anyone else... but if you do it.... or have already done it, please leave a link to your own post here in the comments as I'd love to see yours too. You'll find a number of other people's responses to this challenge by browsing my favourites or by visiting the 'You Got Tagged' flickr group.

Hi Culties & Spookies, time for even more sales for your Sunday Leisure!!

★ Item ★ The Maisie heels are cute and delightful with all kinds of details!

★ Rigged For ★ Legacy F ★ Reborn ★ Kupra ★ Gen-X ★ Lara ★ MaitreyaX ★

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility★

★ Comes with a Color Control HUD for changeable color options

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cult%20Coven/129/75/33

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult PrimFeed

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card

PERIYAR E.V.RAMASAMY and WOMEN RIGHTS

With regards to marriage, Periyar has stated that it is one of the worst customs in India. He claimed that the marriage principle, briefly, involves the enslavement of a woman by her husband and nothing else. This enslavement is concealed under the cover of marriage rites to deceive the women concerned by giving the wedding the false name of a divine function.[7]

There have been numerous papers in South India reporting how husbands have killed their wives, suspecting immoral behavior. The husband's suspicion of his wife's character has often led to murders. Those who believe in the divine dispensation, according to Periyar, do not have the knowledge to ask themselves why marriages conducted according to religious rites and the approval of God end in this fashion.[7]

Periyar further states that the very idea that the only proper thing for women to do is to be slaves of domesticity, bear children and bring them up, is a faulty one. As long as these restrictions are imposed on women, we can be sure that women have to be subservient to men and depend on men for help. If women have to live on terms of equality with men, they must have the liberty, like men, to have the kind of education they like and also to do unhampered, any work suitable to their knowledge, ability and taste.[8]

Furthermore, Periyar objected to terms like "giving of a maid" and "given in marriage". They are, "Sanskrit terms" and treat woman as a thing. He advocated the substitution of the word for marriage taken from the Tirukkual "Valkai thunai" or "life partner".[9]

Expenses[edit]

With marriage comes the expenses. Periyar stated that in our country, and particularly in Hindu society, a marriage is a function causing a lot of difficulties and waste to all people concerned. But those who conduct the marriage function and those who are getting married do not appear to notice the attendant difficulties because they think that social life necessitates wasteful expense and many difficulties and therefore they must necessarily face those inconveniences and hardships.[10]

Wedding feast, jewels, expensive clothes, procession, pandal, dance, music—money is spent on all these to satisfy the vanity of the organizers. Whatever may be the amount of money spent on the wedding and however pompous each of the items may be, the mirth and jollity associated with these are over in two or three days. In a week's time the prestige and honor connected with these are forgotten.[10] But the wedding expenses leave many families crushed; for many poor families these expenses leave an enormous burden and the debts remain uncleared for a number of years.[11]

However, if the money intended for the wedding expense is not borrowed and belongs to either of the marriage parties, then that amount could be used by her to bring up her children and to educate them. Such a procedure would be highly beneficial to her.[12]

Arranged marriages[edit]

In South Asia we mostly hear of arranged marriages as part of custom, heritage, and religions. Periyar thought that the Aryan wedding methods were barbarous because of the Aryan religion and art: Vedas, Sastras, Puranas, and Epics belong to the barbaric age. He further stated that is the reason why their wedding methods involve the parents giving the girl, prostituting the girl children and some stranger carrying the girl away by force or stealth.[13]

Arranged marriages in general were meant to enable the couple to live together throughout life and derive happiness, satisfaction and a good reputation, even years after the sexual urge and sexual pleasure are forgotten.[14]

But, with the selfish manipulation of this pact, Periyar claimed that women find 'pleasure' in slavish marriage because they have been brought up by their parents without education, independence and self-respect and because they have been made to believe that marriage means subordination to males. The inclusion of such slavish women in the group of 'chaste' women is another lure to them, leading them to find pleasure in such marriages.

Because a man is also married before he has understood the nature of life, its problems and its pleasures, he is satisfied with the slavish nature of the wife and the sexual pleasure she gives. If he finds any incompatibility, he adapts himself to his partner and the circumstances and puts up with his lot.[14]

Love marriages[edit]

Love marriages, claims Periyar, on the other hand will suit only those who have no ideals in life. Such a wedding gives primacy to sexual union along and it is doubtful if it indicates an agreement between the couple for good life. Sexual compatibility alone does not ensure happy married life; the couple should be able to live together cheerfully. Suitability for life or living together can be determined only if the man and woman get used to the company of each other, and are satisfied with each other. Only then, they can enter into an agreement to live together.[13]

Periyar further states that love marriages can give pleasure only as long as there is lust and the ability to satisfy that lust. If there is no compatibility between the partners in other respects, such marriages end only in the enslavement of women. The lies of such women resemble the lives of bullocks which are tied to a cart, beaten up and made to labor endlessly until they die.[14]

Therefore, there is a proverb stating, "A deeply loving girl is unfit for family life; a suitable life partner is unfit for love." Periyar believed that the agreement between partners to live together will constitute a better marriage than a love marriage.[14]

Self-respect marriages[edit]

In a leading article of Viduthalai, Periyar states that a self-respect wedding is based on rationalism. Rationalism is based on the individual's courage. Some may have the courage to conduct it during the time which almanacs indicate as the time of the planet Rahu and that, particularly in the evening. Some others may have just enough daring to avoid the Brahmin priest and his mother tongue - the Sanskrit language.[15] Some may feel nervous about not keeping the traditional lamp burning in broad daylight. Some others may have the rotten thought that conducting a wedding without 'mangala sutra' is disgraceful.

Still, the self-respect weddings conducted during the past thirty years have some basic limits. They are: Brahmins and their mantras should be utterly avoided; meaningless rituals, piling mud pots, one on another, having the traditional lamp during day time, ritual smoke - all these should be avoided. Rationalism does not approve of these. Periyar then asks why can't the government pass an Act that legalizes weddings which avoid the above-mentioned superstitious practices. If all these details cannot be accommodated in the Act, the latter can legalize weddings which don't have Brahmin priests, the Sanskrit language and the so called holy fire.[16]

Thus, marriages styled as Self-Respect marriages carried a threefold significance: a) replacing the Purohit, b) inter-caste equality, c) man-woman equality. Periyar claimed to have performed Self-Respect marriages unofficially since 1925 and officially since 1928.[17] Self-Respect marriages were legalized in 1967 by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Government.[18]

Widow-remarriage[edit]

On the remarriage of widows, Periyar states that among the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindu male population against women, here we have to consider the treatment meted out to widows alone. If a girl loses her husband, even before knowing anything of worldly pleasures, she is compelled to close her eyes to everything in the world and die broken-hearted. Even in Periyar's community at the time, there were widowed girls below the age of 13 years. Periyar stated how it is a touching sight to see the parents of those widowed children treating them like untouchables.[19]

He goes on to say that whatever may be the reason for the present state of the Hindu society, my firm belief that the low position given permanently to widows may prove to be the reason for the utter ruin of the Hindu religion and the Hindu society.[20]

If we try to find the reason for such conduct, we will have to conclude that they instinctively feel that women are slaves, subservient to men and that they must be kept under control. That is why these people treat women like animals. They seem to feel that giving freedom to women is equivalent to committing a very serious crime. The result of this attitude is that there is no independence or freedom to one half of the human race. This wicked enslavement of half of the human race is due to the fact that men are physically a little stronger than women. This principle applies to all spheres of life and the weaker are enslaved by the stronger.

If slavery has to be abolished in society, the male arrogance and wickedness which lead to the enslavement of women must be abolished first. Only when this is achieved, the tender sprouts of freedom and equality will register growth.[21]

One of the reasons why Periayr hated Hinduism and the orthodoxy practiced in the name of Hinduism was the practice of child marriage. Many of the girl children who were married before they were ten or twelve years old became widows before they knew the meaning of the word. According to the 1921 All India Census the details of the child widows reported living in the country that time were as follows:[22]

1 year baby widows - 497

1 to 2 year child widows - 494

2 to 3 year child widows - 1,257

3 to 4 year child widows - 2,837

4 to 5 year child widows - 6,707

Total number of widows - 11,342

5 to 10 year young widows - 85,037

10 to 15 year young widows - 232,147

15 to 20 year young widows - 396,172

20 to 25 year young widows - 742,820

25 to 30 year young widows - 1,163,720

Total number of widows - 2,631,238[22][23]

Periyar was deeply disturbed when he realized that among the widows in India, 11,892 were little children below 5 years and that young widows below 15 years numbering 232,147 were denied the pleasures of life.[24]

With regards to the re-marriage of widows, Periyar stated that it is the practice of our people to refer to such a wedding as "a widow's marriage". Such an expression is used only with reference to women and in connection with men. Just as this lady is marrying another husband after the death of the first husband, many men marry again after the death of the first wife. But the second marriage of a man is not referred to as "a widower's marriage", though that is the proper thing to do.

Periyar himself was a widower. After becoming one, he took a second wife. He claimed that in the ancient days, both men and women in the country had this practice. There were numerous instances in sastras and puranas of women getting married again after the death of their first husband. Periyar further stated that this is not an unusual practice in the rest of the world though it might appear strange for us at the present time. Christian and Muslim women marry again after the death of the first husband. 90 percent of women in Muslim countries get married again soon after the death of the first husband. This may be unusual in certain sections of Indian societies. But it is a common practice in certain other sections of our society which are called very backward communities.[25]

Further, inter-caste marriages and remarriage of widows are on the increase in India. Brahmins oppose these because they are afraid that they cannot exploit the people any more in the name of sastras. For the same reason they oppose the Sharada Act which is necessary for social well-being.[26]

Child marriage[edit]

In all the meetings of the non-Brahmins and the Self-Respectors, Periyar condemned child marriages and emphasized the need for educating all girl children and giving right to young widows to get married again.

Periyar has been very much against child marriage and stated that it reflects the cruelty to which innocent girls were subjected by their well-meaning parents. Periyar asked that if these parents can be considered civilized in any sense of the term. There was no other leader other than Periyar who reacted against this practice of child marriage.[24]

Those who supported child marriage were strongly against Periyar's condemnation of this act. Take for example, the Sharada Act. Those who opposed this Act say that it was against the Sastras to conduct the marriage of a girl after she has attained puberty. They further say that those who conduct such marriages are committing a sin and therefore will go to hell.[27]

Chastity[edit]

Periyar claimed that "household duties" have risen out of the foolishness of people and were not natural duties.[28] He went on to say that it was our selfish greed which has multiplied our household work. Nobody need worry that without household work, the women will lose their "chastity". On chastity, Periyar went on to say that it is something that belongs to women and is not a pledge to men. Whatever, chastity is, it was something that belonged to individuals.

In society, it was believed that if people lose their chastity, they will get divine punishment. Others are not going to get that punishment. Referring to the doctrines of institutionalized orthodox religions, he went on to say that men need not to worry themselves that women are committing a sin by not doing household work. Thus, let men realize that women are not slaves and that men are not their masters or guardians. Women should be allowed to develop the competence to protect themselves and their chastity and men need not be their watchdogs. He also believed that it was derogatory for men to play such a role.[citation needed]

It was said by the orthodox[who?] that women will develop diseases if they lose their chastity. The disease that a woman gets affects the husbands also. If we[who?] educate the women, they will develop the capability to keep themselves and their husbands pure. Thus, Periyar stated in the Kudi Arasu for the society to think deeply about taking a decision and do the right thing for their sisters and girl children.[29]

Periyar kindled the thoughts of everybody by also ridiculing the use of the word chastity only with reference to women. (Periyar-Father of Tamil 32) He stated that character is essential for both men and women and that speaking of chastity only with reference to women degraded not merely women but men also. He extended this thought and said that in any sphere of activity, civilized society cannot think of one law for men and another for women. He also said that the way most men treated their women was far worse than the way the upper class people treated the lower class, the way in which rich men treated the poor and the way in which a master treated his slave.[30]

Education[edit]

On education, Periyar stated that some foolish parents believe that if girls get educated, they will correspond with their secret lovers. That it is a very foolish and mischievous notion. No parent need be anxious about it. If a girl writes a letter, it will only be to a male. We can even now caution men not to read any love letter addressed to them by a woman and, even if they read it, not to reply to it. If men do not listen to this advice, they, as well as the girls who write them must be punished. It will be a hopelessly bad thing, if parents keep their girl children uneducated for this reason.[29]

At a speeched delivered by Periyar at the Prize Distribution function in the Municipal School for Girls at Karungal Palayam, Erode, he stated that girl children should be taught active and energetic exercises like running, high jump, long jump,and wrestling so that they may acquire the strength and courage of men. Their time and energy should not be wasted in light pastimes like Kummi (groups going in a circle, clapping their hands rhythmically) and in Kolatam (striking with sticks rhythmically).

In ancient Tamil literature, poets have stressed the value of education for women. In a famous verse, a poet by the name of Naladiar stated that, "What gives beauty to a woman is not the hair style or the patter of her dress or the saffron on her face but only education".[31] In a verse of Eladhi it states, "Beauty does not lie in the style of wailing or in the charm of a blush but only in the combination of numbers and letters (education).[32]

In a 1960 issue of Viduthalai Periyar stated that "There should be a drastic revolution in the desires and ideals of Indian women. They should equip themselves to do all types of work that men are doing. They should have good domestic life without allowing nature's obstacles in their own lives. Therefore, there should be a welcome change in the minds of our women. The administrators also most pay special attention to the advancement of women".[33]

Armed forces[edit]

Periyar advocated for women to be given weapons to protect themselves in reply to a question put in the Central Legislature. He stated that we have no hope that the state governments will do anything in this sphere because most of the state ministers hold the orthodox belief that women are slavish creatures.[34] Though here and there we[who?] find women also as ministers, they are old-fashioned traditionalists who will say, "We don't want any kind of freedom. We are perfectly happy with slavery".[33]

In Periyar's time he explained that ""Indian" women had no self-determination in any sphere of life like education property and marriage. They thought that modern civilization meant dressing themselves like British and American women and adorning themselves. Even our educated women do not entertain any thought that they must enter the police and army departments and learn to pilot airplanes like the women of Russia and Turkey. Just as modern education has made men cowards an book-worms, it has made our women decoratie [sic] dolls and weaklings".[33]

In a leading article written by Periyar in Viduthalai in 1946, he claimed that unless there is a drastic, fundamental and revolutionary change in our[who?] administrative machinery, it is impossible to make our women independent beings.[33]

Periyar goes on to explain that in our country also, there are thousands of women with the courage, competence and desire to work in the police department. Just as girls going to school was considered wonderful and cycle-riding by girls was considered funny, a few years ago, women on police duty may appear to be wonderful or strange for a few years. Then, in course of time, this will be considered natural.[33]

We[who?] need methods that will effect an astounding revolution in the world of women. Until we acquire those methods, we will be moving forward like a tortoise and writing and talking about Drowpath and Sita.[35]

Periyar, in a 1932 article of Kudi Arasu, explained that "women should develop physical strength like men. They must take exercise and get training in the use of weapons. They must acquire the ability to protect themselves when any sex-mad person tries to molest them. They should get the necessary training to join the armey [sic] when need arises and fight the enemy. This is the view of all civilized people. Women also wholeheartedly support this view. When the general view in the world is like this, who can accept the statement of some people that there is no use in giving higher education to women?"[33]

Birth control[edit]

"Others advocate birth-control, with a view of preserving the health of women and conserving family property; but we advocate it for the liberation of women."[36]

In the Kudi Arasu of 1932, Periyar explained the basic differences between the reasons given to us for contraception and the reasons given by others for this. We say that contraception is necessary for women to gain freedom. Others advocate contraception taking into consideration many problems like the health of women, the health and energy of the children, the poverty of the country and the maintenance of the family property. Many Westerners also support contraception for the same reasons. Our view is not based on these considerations. We recommend that women should stop delivering children altogether because conception stands in the way of women enjoying personal freedom. Further, begetting a number of children prevents men also from being free and independent. This truth will be clear if we listen to talk of men and women when their freedom is hampered.[33]

He went on to say how birth control does not aim at preventing the birth of children altogether, but aims only at limiting births. A man and his wife may have two children, or at the most, three children. This birth control policy is against bringing forth an unlimited number of children.[37]

While Periyar and the Self-Respect movement were advocating for birth control, Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachariar) very strongly opposed it. Others who opposed birth control was Thiru Adhithanar, the publisher of an extremely popular newspaper, Dina Thandhi at the time. In response to Rajaji's stand against birth control, Periyar explained that he was against this since he was of the Vedic Brahmin community that staunchly engrossed in the Manu Dharma. Thus, limiting births of overpopulation would limit diseases and death from many and therefore leave Brahmin priests without a job of doing ceremonies for the sick and funerals. In a 1959 article of Viduthalai he exclaimed that "If people like Rajaji discover new islands, make the forests habitable, do propaganda for the birth of more and more children and have farms for the upbringing of children, we may be in a position to understand them."[38]

During the late 1950s, 80 percent of the men and 90 percent of the women in Tamil Nadu were illiterate. Siriyar argued in a 1959 article in Viduthalai that "in this situation, if birth control is not practiced and people are allowed to have any number of children, the result will be the multiplication of castes among the "Sudras", like washermen, barbers, pot-makers, kuravas or gypsies, hunters, fishermen, famers [sic], toddy tappers, padayachies, pillars, cobblers, pariahs, and a thousand others and a limitless increase in population. The increase in population will force the 'Sudras' to preserve themselves from starvation by standing with folded hands before lazy fellows and calling them 'swami', 'master' and 'landlord'. What good result can we expect if birth control is not adopted?"[39]

Previously in a 1933 article of the Kudi Arasu, Periyar, in his words, explained that "even a High Court Judge in India does not know the amount of trouble that a mother takes to bring up a child. If a husband is kind to his wife and shows concern for her health and happiness, he must adopt the contraceptive method. Otherwise, he must be one who could manage to see that in delivery and in the brining [sic] up of children, she does not have much trouble. Therefore, the proper thing to do now is to drastically cut the expenses mentioned above and spend money on the proper upbringing of children with the help of nurses."[40]

Property rights and divorce[edit]

With regards to property rights for women, Periyar stated that there was no difference between men and women. He went on to say that like men, women should have the right to own property and enjoy its benefits. With regards to divorce or separations, he advocated that a woman can lie away from her husband if he is an undesirable person and if he has nay virulent disease. When a woman has to live apart from her husband in these circumstances, she is entitled to maintenance allowance and a claim on the husband's property. Even if a widow gets remarried, she must be given the right to claim a share of the first husband's property.[41]

On February 4, 1946, the Central Legislature passed an Act giving the right the Hindu married woman to get from her husband in certain circumstances a separate place to live in and a maintenance allowance. Periyar explained how that it was a useless Act. since it seems that the members of the Hindu Mahasabha and Sanadahnis agitated against the grant of even this right.[42]

Dowry[edit]

On the Dowry system practiced widely throughout the Indian sub-continent not only by Hindus but Christians too, Periyar calls it a "serious disease that was spreading fast amongst Tamilians". He went on to state that the disease was also found in its virulent form among the Andhras and the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu. Periyar also argued that if a man with property worth one lakh has three daughters, he has to become a beggar by the time these daughters are married. In the name of dowry, the parents of the young men who marry the three daughters, squeeze the man's property out of him.[43]

In the 1959 issue of Viduthalai, Periyar stated that, "according to a new legislation, women have the right to a share of the parents' property. Therefore every girl will definitely get her legitimate share from the parents' wealth - if the parents are wealth. It is inhuamane [sic] on the part of the parents of a boy to dump on him a girl whom he does not like and to plan to such as much as they can from the property of the girl's father. There is basically no difference between selling education and love for money and selling one's chastity for money. 'Prostitute' is a germ of contempt for a woman; a boy should not be reduced by his avaricous [sic] parents to get the name, 'a prostituted boy' or 'a boy that has been sold'. A father-in-law who has means, however miserly he may be by nature, will not be indifferent when his daughter suffers out of poverty. Therefore, it is very shameful on the part of the bridegroom's parents to demand from the bride's father that at the time of the marriage he should gie jewels worth so many thousands along with so many thousand rupees as dowry and that he should provide the bridegroom with a house and a care. The fact that another party makes such demands at the time of his daughter's marriage does not justify any parent's demands at the time of his son's wedding. All people must realize that both demanding and giving dowry are wrong and they must boldly declare this when occasion arises."[44]

Periyar calls the dowry an evil and exploitative practice depriving tens of thousands of talented and beautiful young women with sound character remaining spinsters without any chance of getting married.[45]

Devadasis[edit]

Among the atrocities the Tamil society committed against women was the practice of keeping some women attached to temples as Devadasis. Dr. Muthulakshmi proposed the resolution at the Madras Legislature that the Devadasi system should be abolished. The Government wanted comments on that from all important people. Periyar in his statement pointed out that the Devadasi system was a disgrace to Hindu religion. The fact that, in the name of a temple or a god, some women are kept as common property is an insult to all the women in the society. He also remarked that the prevalence of this system encouraged immorality among men and thus set the pattern for unprincipled life in many families. This was stoutly opposed in the Assembly by Satyamurthi Iyer, an orthodox Congress member, under the pretext of safeguarding the Hindu traditions. It should be said to the credit of Dr. Muthulakshmi and the leaders like Periyar that the proposal of the Doctor was accepted and a law was enacted against the Devadasi system.[30]

Periyar's example of the degradation of women in the Devadasi system is explained that "if a man's physical passion is aroused when his wife is not with him, he immediately goes to a prostitute. Rough stones are planted where cows and bufaloes [sic] graze to facilitate the animals to rub against the stones when they feel like it.[46] Likewise, Devadasis served in temples and in all villages rough stones planted on the borders and they say that these two (employing devadasis and the planting rough stones) are aamong [sic] the 32 dharmas mentioned in the sastras. When we consider why his kindness to the suffering and also the 32 dharmas are all bogus".[46]

Resolutions passed[edit]

As the Self-Respect conference held in Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu in 1929, the following were among the many resolutions passed with regards for women's rights:

Women should be given equal right along with men for the family property.

There should be no objection to employing women to any job for which they are qualified.[47]

Schools, particularly schools, should try to employ only women teachers.

At the conference held in Erode in 1930, the same resolutions were passed again reminding the delegates and others that the interest of women was still uppermost in Periyar's mind. M.R. Jayakar who presided oer the Erode conference was greatly impressed by the progressive views of Periyar and other members. He was particularly happy that the movement included not merely non-Brahmin Hindus but Christians and Muslims too. He pointed out that the Self-Respect movement was more progressive than Congress. Furthermore, at the Virudhnagar conference the women members held a separate conference and passed some resolutions demanding that women should have the right to select their life partners without any consideration of religion or community and that weddings should not involve wasteful expenditure and elaborate ceremonies.[47]

LM : maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Isla%20Margaritta/49/149/24

MP : marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/40934

PBR mesh Floor Tiles – Realistic & Beautiful!

Enhance your indoor and outdoor space with this high-quality PBR mesh floor tiles! Designed for realistic depth, detail, and lighting.

▶ High-Quality 2K Textures: Includes diffuse map, normal and roughness within the product folder.

▶ PBR Material Set: Designed for realistic rendering, with compatibility for non-PBR viewers.

▶ Sample Object Included: For immediate application and testing.

▶ Fully Copy & Modify: Customize to your specific project needs.

Hi Spookies & Culties, Here is your "must have these Cult Items" Weekend Shopping List!!

★ Item ★ The Bunbun shoes are cute and come with some legwarmers and are suitable for almost any outfit!

★ Rigged For ★ Reborn ★ Lara-X ★ Kupra ★ GEN-X Curvy ★ Legacy F ★

★ Featuring Color Hud w/ 10 light colors & 10 dark colors & 3 metal colors!

★ Remember to always try the DEMOS!★ Check for Body Type & Body MOD Compatibility ★

★ Cult LM ★ maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Champ/189/200/17

★ Cult's Social Media Links ★

Cult Discord

Cult Mainstore

Cult Instagram

Cult Facebook

Cult Flickr

Cult Flickr Group

Cult Social Card