hockley91 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Yes, learn it all! Any chance you get to learn new technology do it! It took me 6 months to learn Revit fully. Our office had some structured courses every week and it was in-house. Quite invaluable. I then just went on my own and learned more and more. If you know any BIM technology, you will be more valuable. Knowing all the software and techniques and being able to use all the interchangeable software just makes things go much more smoothly for you and for your office. I'm able to really be a bi-directional person. We use Revit, Sketchup, Autocad, and all that stuff. A lot of people don't really know how to efficiently transfer information back and forth and they also don't know the best and efficient way to do certain things with 3D models. Since I know how to use Revit, I am able to go into the model and add what I need to, in order to make it easier for me when I have to work the magic in 3D Studio Max. The production team does not have the time to get those textures to work correctly in Revit and the little details I usually add later because the Revit models tend to get very very large in the polygon counts when you start adding more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Larsen Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I agree you have to learn it - not because I think it’s all it’s cracked up to be, but because far too many companies have bought into it, and you need to know it to get a job. Like everything AutoCAD it will probably morph into something great over time (lets not forget the profits earned through all those releases - my favorite is when a particular command or icon is moved to a new location, this way they can say they did something to justify the upgrade fee they charge you), but it isn't there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockley91 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Learning it has just made things that much easier for me and the team on the projects that I work on. Not only that, since I have an architectural background, I'm able to give my input on what should or could be in the model before it's even handed over to me. In any case, I'm able to access the central file at any point and do what I need to. What irks me about Autodesk is that although they are pursuing new technologies they still are in this business to make $$$ so they are not going to go out of their way to give us an all in one solution. The backwards compatability issue with Revit is a killer. Not being able to save down to at least the previous version. I'm sure they can do it....it's just gonna have to make them work harder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Larsen Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 The backwards compatability issue with Revit is a killer. Not being able to save down to at least the previous version. I'm sure they can do it....it's just gonna have to make them work harder... Just a way to force you to keep buying new software so they can keep lining their pockets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockley91 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Just a way to force you to keep buying new software so they can keep lining their pockets... Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kris McIsaac Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 yes we have to pay, but this then gives them money to spend on development and support. If there products were not good we would not use them. Besides, we are all out to make money. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Some people act like they are forced to use Autodesk (and Microsoft) so the resent them but you can always try something else like Turbocad. Revit is a tool that allows me to do things I could not do before or with anything else. I still use other software for some tasks. I don't think there will ever be a program that does everything and I don't think we need one. The more they put in the more it will cost which will hurt the smaller guys who may not even need all the extras. for those who do they just buy the extras separately. The fact that Autodesk have opened the API for Revit shows they are not so bad or maybe just very smart as now they are getting their programming done for free by the users. I am sure when they see a good add on they will buy it (with the money we gave them for development)and integrate it for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockley91 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Autodesk is just way too expensive for some folks... Take a look at these low prices!!!!! $5,495.00 Revit Architecture 2012 $3,495.00 3DS Studio Max 2012 $3,995.00 Autocad 2012 and Microsoft.... $247.99 Windows 7 Professional $408.96 Microsoft Office I don't see the smaller firms buying into the BIM thing yet with these prices. I work for a 30 person firm and it's been tough. We went to the subscription method and we are even thinking about using a network license so not everyone will have Revit on their machine. We each want Revit on our machines, but it's just not possible with these prices... In any case, I am glad our office has the software. I just wish the prices were lower for Autodesk....then they wonder why there is so much software piracy going on... My old boss started using TurboCAD because Autocad was just too much for him. He's pretty happy with that. He's also started to use this program that is very similar to Revit on the surface. I forget what it's called though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sauger Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I´m not an Adesk apologist, but their MSRP for Building Design suite Premium is 6495$. Subscription is not included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMyers Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Karl, I know a firm which adopted Revit 4 years ago which now saves 30% of their time in the CD phase compared to where they were with AutoCAD 4 years ago. I also work with a major KC architectural firm that has transitioned to Revit on all new projects because they can document their projects better in the software than they did before. That doesn't mean they use Revit exclusively, they still use a variety of products in design (including Rhino), but Revit is a major part of their practice. Best yet, neither of these organizations perform major government projects where budgets demand it. The fact the kids out of school know Revit better than many of those that don't use design software each day is no surprise. But that's not the fault of the software, that's a cultural issue that needs to change within firms. Also, if they are not willing to pay to actually get their employees trained on the software (or they can not afford to do that) then that's not the fault of Revit either. It's a business decision and ultimately they need to decide where their place is in the market and if using older technology is ultimately going to keep them competitive. In some cases yes, in other cases it's going to cause them to lose work. The difficult thing is that the companies the spend money on education and development are the ones that ultimately see the long term benefits of adopting the software. The deeper the education and the more quickly they invest and absorb the initial costs of software adoption, the faster the begin to profit on their projects. Broad stroke statements such as "BIM belongs in government projects" etc are simply incorrect and are taken as fact by those that don't know any better. In truth, software such as Revit, ArchiCAD, Bentley Architecture, etc can all, long term, be highly profitable and better at the process of creating architecture. The issue comes in upfront cost of education and adoption... the fact that not all companies are capable of making that jump is unfortunate. But many have and can. Ultimately it becomes a matter of the types of projects you need to work on and competing with other firms in the free market system. That doesn't mean the "BIM" products are a must, but stating you CAN'T adopt them and be profitable or put out a good set of plans is either an incorrect statement or a statement of the environment you are familiar with. That doesn't make those statements true as companies that have spent the proper time and investment in the technologies are now starting to see the benefits of that adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMyers Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I don't see the smaller firms buying into the BIM thing yet with these prices. Most smaller firms are investing in Revit when they start going after projects that demand a BIM or Revit deliverable. They then normally purchase the software by upgrading their existing AutoCAD licenses to Revit ones or to the Suites which include both Revit and AutoCAD. That doesn't make it inexpensive, that just makes it less expensive. I do agree that price is always going to be an issue and budgeting (and hiring new employees) will always be affected by that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMyers Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I just want to maximize my employment opportunities. Abby, In the end you should look around and figure out what you need to learn and why. In Europe ArchiCAD, Vectorworks and other software programs have a strong following, Revit may or may not be the best choice for you. But ultimately when it comes down to design documentation and the later phases of design development Revit and other BIM software really comes into play. You will need to learn this kind of software, but you'll need to weigh what you need to accomplish over the next year+ in determining if this is the best time for it. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Larsen Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Brian, I’m kind of a direct person, but I don’t mean any disrespect. I've been in the business for 30+ years and wish I had $5.00 for every time I've heard claims like this, each time a new version of a program becomes the latest glitzy trend, and if I had $0.50 for each time a Cad guy told me how wonderful the "new program is", Bill Gates would be jealous of me. Karl, I know a firm which adopted Revit 4 years ago which now saves 30% of their time in the CD phase compared to where they were with AutoCAD 4 years ago. To illustrate a point -- In the old days a door was 2 lines and an arc, and you filled out a door schedule. Then it was you entered the door schedule info to the door tag (AutoArchitect S8 (you might have to look that up)). Then it was you entered the door schedule info in a dialog that drew the door and the tag (Architectural Desktop), etc., etc., etc... The bottom line is the basic information has NOT changed only the means by which you get it to print out on a sheet of paper has - no matter which way of doing it floats-your-boat, if you enter the wrong information the schedule is wrong. 5-years from now when Autodesk thrust a NEW way of doing what you are already doing, on you, and limits your backward compatibility, and oh-yeah, charges you or the company paying you, through the nose for a half-baked program with bugs that needs service pack after service pack, we'll talk... Lastly, and with complete respect, any firm that can produce CD's for 30% less cost (suspiciously something addressed on my website) by using Revit, didn't know what they were doing prior to adopting Revit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlotristan3d Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Brian, I’m kind of a direct person, but I don’t mean any disrespect. I've been in the business for 30+ years and wish I had $5.00 for every time I've heard claims like this, each time a new version of a program becomes the latest glitzy trend, and if I had $0.50 for each time a Cad guy told me how wonderful the "new program is", Bill Gates would be jealous of me. To illustrate a point -- In the old days a door was 2 lines and an arc, and you filled out a door schedule. Then it was you entered the door schedule info to the door tag (AutoArchitect S8 (you might have to look that up)). Then it was you entered the door schedule info in a dialog that drew the door and the tag (Architectural Desktop), etc., etc., etc... The bottom line is the basic information has NOT changed only the means by which you get it to print out on a sheet of paper has - no matter which way of doing it floats-your-boat, if you enter the wrong information the schedule is wrong. 5-years from now when Autodesk thrust a NEW way of doing what you are already doing, on you, and limits your backward compatibility, and oh-yeah, charges you or the company paying you, through the nose for a half-baked program with bugs that needs service pack after service pack, we'll talk... Lastly, and with complete respect, any firm that can produce CD's for 30% less cost (suspiciously something addressed on my website) by using Revit, didn't know what they were doing prior to adopting Revit. I agree with you, but it's a neccessary evil. There is really no way to quantify if you've saved money by migrating to Revit. But you would have lost projects that require you to be BIM capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Larsen Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I agree it is necessary to learn it if you want to gain employment in companies that use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMyers Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Karl, We feel the same as this is just a discussion and no disrespect is intended. I've been using CAD software for 22 years and yes I've also used AutoArchitect for a very short time. It was good for its day, but it's day was roughly 1996 as by 2000 it was gone and Architectural Desktop had taken its place. If you really want to go back, I have done drafting professionally with a pencil and paper, so I understand your examples. As far as the "basic information" has not changed, that's only partially true. With 3D models we can leverage the ability to do collision detection, measure energy efficiency, perform lighting studies and reduce RFI's. It allows us to do our jobs better. So even if it takes the exact same amount of time to produce our CD's, our final deliverables will be more accurate and our designs better tested. Also a certain level of risk (toward liability) will be removed because our designs will be better tested. The fact we can update that "basic information" faster and with more confidence of accuracy across a set is only a bonus. Of course, if a firm decides to not leverage this information or a client doesn't demand it, that's up to them. If a firm wants to do extra work to do it the old way or send drawings out to outside consultants to generate those numbers architects can now generate in-house, that's fine. If they want to resist the old way because CAD users in the past said a certain way was better, well that's kind of silly, but OK. The reality is that every major architecture firm in the world is moving to 3D. That's a simple statement of fact. Every one of these firms that has used it for several years would not go back to the old ways. They are not doing this because they have several hundred individuals working for them and they all don't care about making profit or performing architecture better... obviously they do. These firms also have even their small projects done in 3D software programs now because ultimately it makes more sense for them. Sure it can be argued that not EVERY project going out the door is done that way, but the majority are and most have the goal of doing it in their 3D software within the next 5 years unless legacy data brings them back to the older software. So do what's right for your business... that could be Revit, Pencil, AutoCAD, Star Trek holograms :-) ... but at least have discussions with those that have had success with this software to get better educated. It might not be right for you at this moment, but strictly looking internally without trying to understand the success stories in the industry is just bad business practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sauger Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Since I´m more or less on Karl´s side if lazy I will make him mirror me. I got ton´s of designs in my head, I just hire a slave to do my work? Since a lot of slaves will deliver, you make a nice game in 5yr, this is killing art. I´m not dissing you, but you got it comming badly. Wan´t design that make you fear planning?, I will do it. Then I´m 0 without very organised souls like you, so I bow. I´m way out of my league wit my 15yr plan, but you are sure some1 I need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sauger Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Sorry, I just had to do it I love your work, it´s just that I got used to steady work. You need to get free, money/control is not everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sauger Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I´m not a this or that, In fact I love Cryengine, with Chief Architect. Will I make money?, I do not Care. I will make art. You never limit yourself, and you did me great help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockley91 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 This has been a great thread to read. We have a BIM committee in our office and we've been meeting once every two weeks to discuss our execution plan for BIM. There are many factors involved in these discussions. The main issue right now is how much longer do we hang on to Autocad right now. It seems like a security blanket to a few people in the office. So, if they can't figure it out in Revit and there is a deadline then they just drop it and go back to Autocad and pump it out. In the long run that just was wasted hours because it has to go back into the Revit model. I understand both points of view. I worked with Autocad for 14 years in all phases of design and construction. I am by no means a Revit expert, but I can work in Revit. I am learning new things all the time with Revit. The more I learn and work in that environment, the more I can see it's benefits. I think most detractors of Revit who have not learned or worked in that environment do not understand its benefits and the pro's vs. con's. We all need to keep in mind that Revit really is just a tool for BIM. There is a larger picture at work here and I think we all need to understand that Autocad or 2D drafting cannot take us there as well as 3D drafting and information modeling can. The whole idea of BIM is for the testing and validation of a building's efficiency over it's lifespan. The only way to do that is through information modeling and by attaching assets to a virtually simulated computer model. With that, anyone can access that data....build from that data and manage that data over time. Cars and airplanes are tested over and over before they are given to a client and meet strict standards. Why can't buildings meet those same expectations for a client. Moving towards a more performance based design will require changes in the timeline for SD,DD and CD phases. In Revit, the SD has taken the longest amount of time in our office. By the time DD comes along, there really isn't much to change. CD phase has been shorter. Again, we are still working on a complete changeover to Revit, but it's taking some time. Easier said than done right? The idea makes sense, but the reality is we are market driven. So, once the market fully embraces it, it's going to take time. That may be another 10 years...who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabkal Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Hi Dave, NYC is where I recieved my formative training in architecture, 30+ years ago, and I have watched our business model change drastically over those 30-years. I started back when lead and vellum was king and have worked all the way through ink/mylar/pinbar (go look that one up) and AutoCAD since release 2.2 through AutoCAD 2011 and Revit 2011… I was a Studio Director in an Internation Branding Company and was responsible for the development of some well-known restaurant concepts that you probably drive past regularly. Revit is a scam. Great architecture, and great design, has zero to do with software, and some of the greatest architecture on Earth was created long before Revit. Funny how all that great architecture happened with only a pencil and paper and people that were trained how to visualize and think. BIM is great, if you are NASA, or the Government, and you can afford to pay 4 or 5 people to stand around a computer trying to figure out how to get 3-walls to intersect. I don’t know of a single small business that can even begin to use Revit profitably, or efficiently, yet so many have been hooked into investing huge resources into its implementation, only to hide the fact that in the end they outsource the Construction Documents. Remember this next time you hear of any Architecture firm outsourcing your work to India… Sketchup for concept modeling, 3DS Studio Max (for rendering) and a few really good AutoCAD drafters will beat anyone using revit, any place, any time. In the end, good architecture and good design can only come from a good mind – and the biggest trick to becoming profitable on the production side is to learn what you don’t have to put into a set of drawings. I agree with you 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianMyers Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I agree with you 100% Why? Agreeing is fine, it shows support to a comment. But in this thread that you agreed to 100% it was stated: 1.) Revit is a scam. I know many companies which are producing better, more tested architecture and are profitable using Revit. So while it may not be the solution for everyone, it's not a scam to those organizations. 2.) Funny how all the great architecture happened with only a pencil and paper. Since for the past 20 years virtually every major architecture firm has used computers when producing their construction documents, this isn't a correct statement. But taking this thought process to the next level, when did you do your heavy design work in your drafting software? Or during the CD phase when you were still drafting by hand? Revit's a great tool during the later phases of design. It can test your concepts more efficiently and make changes more quickly than was ever possible in the past. I've also seen it used during the earlier phases of design, but it wasn't the only tool used and there is no reason for it to be. Using a tool inappropriately doesn't make the tool bad, it makes the process by which you use the tool bad. 3.) ...you can afford to pay 4 or 5 people to stand around a computer trying to figure out how to get 3-walls to intersect. Not understanding how to use a tool appropriately or the workarounds if you run into a limitation, that's an internal issue. Sure it's going to create some complexities you didn't have before, but it's also going to solve many of the complexities you used to have. Ask any project team that's been using the software for 3 years (and there are many) if they would go back to the old way. All things being equal, most won't. Not because they are a masochist, it's because they realize the advantage of the tools vs their old processes. 4.) I don’t know of a single small business that can even begin to use Revit profitably, or efficiently,.. This seems like a stand-alone statement. It can be read as "I don't know of a single business that can even begin to use Revit profitably, or efficiently?". That's the actual problem, there are many firms that use it profitably and efficiently, more discussion needs to be had on how they do it. 5.) Remember this next time you hear of any Architecture firm outsourcing your work to India… Where due to client demand they are using their cheaper labor to now produce... Revit models. CAD or BIM, that discussion remains the same, so it's not really relevant at the moment unless it means you'll go out of business a year sooner. 6.) Sketchup for concept modeling, 3DS Studio Max (for rendering) and a few really good AutoCAD drafters will beat anyone using revit, any place, any time. I know many companies that use SketchUp, Max and Revit during this process. Since they use Sketchup and Max, it comes down to Revit vs AutoCAD. I'm sorry, but with all things being equal, Revit's faster down the stretch. It will look at first like AutoCAD has the lead, but in the later stages (particularly once we do schedules and building sections) Revit will take a huge lead and never look back. While many highly AutoCAD proficient individuals with basic Revit skills will disagree, those that used to be highly proficient AutoCAD users that are now highly proficient Revit users will tell you Revit is faster... and be correct. (Having 22 years of using AutoCAD, 5+ years of using Revit... I wouldn't work for a strictly AutoCAD job again.) 7.) In the end, good architecture and good design can only come from a good mind – and the biggest trick to becoming profitable on the production side is to learn what you don’t have to put into a set of drawings. I agree. That applies to Revit as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabkal Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Why? Agreeing is fine, it shows support to a comment. But in this thread that you agreed to 100% it was stated: 1.) Revit is a scam. I know many companies which are producing better, more tested architecture and are profitable using Revit. So while it may not be the solution for everyone, it's not a scam to those organizations. 2.) Funny how all the great architecture happened with only a pencil and paper. Since for the past 20 years virtually every major architecture firm has used computers when producing their construction documents, this isn't a correct statement. But taking this thought process to the next level, when did you do your heavy design work in your drafting software? Or during the CD phase when you were still drafting by hand? Revit's a great tool during the later phases of design. It can test your concepts more efficiently and make changes more quickly than was ever possible in the past. I've also seen it used during the earlier phases of design, but it wasn't the only tool used and there is no reason for it to be. Using a tool inappropriately doesn't make the tool bad, it makes the process by which you use the tool bad. 3.) ...you can afford to pay 4 or 5 people to stand around a computer trying to figure out how to get 3-walls to intersect. Not understanding how to use a tool appropriately or the workarounds if you run into a limitation, that's an internal issue. Sure it's going to create some complexities you didn't have before, but it's also going to solve many of the complexities you used to have. Ask any project team that's been using the software for 3 years (and there are many) if they would go back to the old way. All things being equal, most won't. Not because they are a masochist, it's because they realize the advantage of the tools vs their old processes. 4.) I don’t know of a single small business that can even begin to use Revit profitably, or efficiently,.. This seems like a stand-alone statement. It can be read as "I don't know of a single business that can even begin to use Revit profitably, or efficiently?". That's the actual problem, there are many firms that use it profitably and efficiently, more discussion needs to be had on how they do it. 5.) Remember this next time you hear of any Architecture firm outsourcing your work to India… Where due to client demand they are using their cheaper labor to now produce... Revit models. CAD or BIM, that discussion remains the same, so it's not really relevant at the moment unless it means you'll go out of business a year sooner. 6.) Sketchup for concept modeling, 3DS Studio Max (for rendering) and a few really good AutoCAD drafters will beat anyone using revit, any place, any time. I know many companies that use SketchUp, Max and Revit during this process. Since they use Sketchup and Max, it comes down to Revit vs AutoCAD. I'm sorry, but with all things being equal, Revit's faster down the stretch. It will look at first like AutoCAD has the lead, but in the later stages (particularly once we do schedules and building sections) Revit will take a huge lead and never look back. While many highly AutoCAD proficient individuals with basic Revit skills will disagree, those that used to be highly proficient AutoCAD users that are now highly proficient Revit users will tell you Revit is faster... and be correct. (Having 22 years of using AutoCAD, 5+ years of using Revit... I wouldn't work for a strictly AutoCAD job again.) 7.) In the end, good architecture and good design can only come from a good mind – and the biggest trick to becoming profitable on the production side is to learn what you don’t have to put into a set of drawings. I agree. That applies to Revit as well. I have my reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockley91 Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 The one thing we should remember about BIM is "Begin with the end in mind". If we approach it that way, we'll know right away if it needs to be a 2D set of documentation or an information rich 3D document. If your client isn't requesting it at this time and you're happy as clam, then stick with what's best for you. If your client is requesting some BIM, then it's probably time to look into providing it as a service. If one is totally against Revit and BIM, you should still at least familiarize yourself with the environment. Sounds like some of you have done that already which is great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kris McIsaac Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I wonder if they are sorry they asked this question in the first place. They must be getting sick of the getting alerts to new posts to just find a school yard fight going on. But I guess I am not helping by posting this now. Sorry Abby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Larsen Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I am NOT "against" BIM - I just think the hocus-pocus of it is hogwash, and the excuse that now you can do an Energy Calculation because you have a 3D model is pathetic in light of the fact that so many firms outsource their work to India because they've become retarded when it comes to process management, and anyone that thinks more than 1% of people out there are suddenly going to fall in line with REVIT's dogma for process management is smoking something seriously hallucinogenic... And the other excuse, that near the end of a perfectly executed REVIT project, you can make a change faster than traditional CAD, is a red herring because it ignores the up-front investment in time and money that it takes, in a perfect world, to get REVIT to do what they say it can - in a perfect world. If you have projects and budgets that afford you that freedom, great. 90% of private industry doesn't. In the world of architecture that I’ve witnessed over the last 10 or 15 years, no one actually sits down to think their designs through until a Contractor is on the phone yelling at them because their Construction Drawings contain the stupidest mistakes imaginable. When you can get REVIT to fix that problem I’ll be on-board. Someday I will write an essay on the egomaniacal Taliesin graduate I worked with, that could NOT figure out the elevation of the top a block wall relative to the site topography, to save his life, but he sure could recite all that Frank Lloyd Wright dogma; same story as REVIT and the REVIT Groupies. It takes 20-years to get 20-years experience, and some people take 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now