AOC AG322QCX

Interlace pattern artifacts

Some monitors suffer from visual artifacts which become most apparent when observing rapid motion of lighter shades on the screen. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but they may also be called ‘inversion artifacts’ by some users. They are particularly common or at least more readily noticed on high refresh rate models. Sometimes these artifacts manifest themselves as an interference pattern or a mesh of interlaced lines, with the lines alternating between a slightly lighter and slightly darker variant of the intended shade. These are often most eye-catching where they are dynamic, particularly easy to observe with lighter shades such as an explosion or smoke effect in a game. We observed some dynamic interlace pattern artifacts, with some textures appearing to break up into a very fine and faint polygonal mesh. The image below, taken from Mass Effect Andromeda, gives a very rough idea of the interlacing effect. It can be seen towards the top right and right central region of this image, but it’s not really as noticeable in practice as it appears on the image. It’s quite faint (less distracting than on some models that display such patterns) and something not all users would notice.

Interlace Pattern Artifacts

The effect was a bit more pronounced in some places, particularly near the edges of some objects. When thin areas were moving (for example nametags above the heads of a character in a game) you could see that the texture appeared slightly fragmented rather than solid. Again, not bothersome or noticeable to everyone, but worth noting. There were also some static interlacing artifacts. These were most noticeable towards the bottom left quarter of the screen but also there to an extent centrally. They were visible as reasonably faint horizontal bands of a slightly darker and slightly lighter variant of the intended shade. These bands are fairly faint so not everyone would notice them.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the AG322QCX, with over 30 repeat readings taken to improve accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 5.61ms (under 1 frame at 144Hz) of input lag. This value was not influenced by enabling one of the ‘Game Mode’ presets in the OSD and was recorded with ‘Low Input Lag’ set to ‘On’ in the OSD. The measured value was very similar when connected to a FreeSync-compatible GPU, which greys this option out but seem to effectively force it ‘On’ anyway. We have no way to accurately measure input lag in the variable refresh rate and frame range environment under which FreeSync would be active, however. Note that the value is influenced both by the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a very low signal delay, which contributed to an excellent ‘connected feel’ as we explore shortly.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In our responsiveness article we explore the key factors affecting monitor responsiveness. One of the key concepts explored here is ‘perceived blur’, which is caused predominantly by the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. It is also influenced by pixel responsiveness, although this is generally a less significant (but still important) factor on modern monitors. We also explore ‘pursuit photography’, a technique which uses a moving camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both of these elements of perceived blur. This is something that normal static photography or video can’t capture.

The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a practical speed for taking such photographs and sufficient to highlight both elements of perceived blur. The monitor was set to 60Hz and 144Hz with its various various ‘Overdrive’ settings tested; ‘Off’, ‘Weak’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Strong’. All rows of the test were used, which differ in the shade level (dark, medium and light). The final column shows reference shots, a Dell S2417DG set to 60Hz and 144Hz. This model offers very fast pixel responsiveness and well-tuned pixel overdrive, so shows what things should look like in this test where response time is not really a limiting factor.

At 60Hz you can see that the object itself looks relatively soft, broad and quite ‘fuzzy’ in its appearance. This indicates a relatively high level of perceived blur caused by eye (camera) movement. There are various degrees of trailing behind the object, too, which comes down to pixel responsiveness. As this is a VA panel, there is quite a bit of variation between the speed of pixel responses depending on the grey level (i.e. shade depth) that the monitor is transitioning to and from. With ‘Overdrive = Off’ you can see a significant amount of trailing behind the object for the dark background, a little less but still a lot for the medium background and significantly less (but still some) for the light background. Using the ‘Weak’ setting reduces the trailing slightly in all cases, particularly for the medium background. Trailing is still most significant for the dark background. The ‘Medium’ setting ramps up the pixel overdrive significantly, causing obvious bright trails of inverse ghosting (overshoot) behind the object. This is particularly prominent with the medium background, but still visible for the dark background and to a lesser extent the light background. Using the ‘Strong’ setting causes extremely strong overshoot; an unmistakable mess of inverse ghosting is now visible, particularly for the medium background. At 60Hz, it’s quite clear that ‘Weak’ is the optimal setting in this test – reflecting our experiences more broadly.

At 144Hz the object itself is significantly narrower and more sharply focused. This reflects the lower level of perceived blur caused by eye (camera) movement. This comes with the territory when the frame rate and refresh rate is increased from 60fps@60Hz to 144fps@144Hz. There is again various degrees of trailing behind the object, with the characteristics looking quite different to 60Hz for some of the ‘Overdrive’ levels. With this set to ‘Off’ the trailing is largely comparable to 60Hz – significant trailing, particularly for the dark background. The ‘Weak’ setting cuts this down a little bit, particularly for the medium background. The ‘Medium’ setting further cuts down the trailing and unlike at 60Hz, does not replace it with obvious overshoot. There is a small trace of overshoot with the medium background, but this is fairly subtle really and actually looks quite comparable to the reference shot. There is still a fair degree of trailing for the dark background, but less so than with the ‘Weak’ setting. There is a minor reduction with the light background as well, although the trailing here is already rather light even with weaker overdrive settings. The ‘Strong’ setting again introduces obvious overshoot. Unlike at 60Hz, the ‘Medium’ setting is now the one we consider optimal – again reflected by more general use of the monitor.

Note that although refresh rates between ‘60Hz’ and ‘144Hz’ are not documented here, they were tested. Results lie some way between these two, with overshoot becoming more and more noticeable as frame rate decreases. At 100Hz, for example, we’d still give the edge to ‘Medium’ as it does cut down on some of the conventional trailing of ‘Weak’. The level of overshoot is some way between what you see at 60Hz and 144Hz as well, a little closer to 144Hz but certainly more pronounced. This presents an interesting choice for users who wish to use FreeSync, as the monitor dynamically adjusts refresh rate and therefore the optimal setting to use wouldn’t always be the same. This is explored in more detail deeper into the review.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1, where the frame rate kept up with the 144Hz refresh rate, the experience was fluid. The monitor provided what we refer to as excellent ‘connected feel’, with inputs from the controller (mouse and keyboard) translating very rapidly into movement on the screen. This is not only down to the low input lag of the monitor, which does help in this respect, but the fact it is outputting up to 2.4 times as much information every second as a 60Hz monitor. This provided a nice ‘competitive edge’ and we did feel our ability to aim consistently, quickly and accurately was greatly aided by this strong ‘connected feel’. Another advantage of the monitor outputting up to 2.4 times the information every second is perceived blur, which as demonstrated in the ‘Test UFO’ images earlier is greatly reduced when comparing 144Hz (@144fps) to 60Hz (@60fps). To truly minimise this as much as possible, though, it’s also important that pixel response time can do these high refresh rates and frame rates justice. Overall the monitor put in a respectable pixel response performance, able to make very good use of the 144Hz refresh rate and high frame rate potential that brings. Many of the transitions occurred quickly enough for a strong 144Hz performance, bringing with it the sort of low levels of perceived blur enjoyed on the fastest 144Hz (non strobing) LCD models. This kept the game world and enemies within it in much sharper focus than on even the fastest 60Hz monitors, or indeed on this monitor at much lower frame rates. It made tracking and engaging enemies that bit easier and just made the overall gaming experience more comfortable and enjoyable.

There were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, however. There were some transitions that were a fair bit slower than optimal, between certain medium shades and medium-dark shades. Such transitions are not all that uncommon and it gave a little bit of a powdery trail behind certain objects – increasing perceived blur slightly. We found this perfectly tolerable as the trailing was by no means extreme. There was also a little bit of overshoot in places, usually manifesting itself as a weak ‘snail trail’ semi-transparent trail behind objects. This was faint and blended in fairly well for overshoot, so wasn’t bothersome in our view. As is typical for the VA panel type, the weakest pixel transitions on this model occurred where darker shades were brought into the mix. This gave more extensive trailing, the most pronounced of which we refer to as ‘break-up’ trailing. This is whereby very dark shades that appear pretty much black to the user, but actually have slight tints of other colours mixed in, have those more colourful elements leach out. It leaves a trail which is akin to wetting fountain pen ink on a page. On BF1 such transitions were not very common, fortunately. So there wasn’t the sort of widespread smeary trailing that some VA models are prone to and we found the advantages of the high refresh rate and low latency shone through regardless on titles like this. It’s important to note, though, that on some game titles these high-contrast transitions with lots of dark elements and bright contrasting elements are far more common.

On Dirt Rally, where frame rates were suitably high, there was clear benefit from the high refresh rate. This applied both visually, in terms of perceived blur, and also in terms of felt responsiveness (‘connected feel’). At the level we play this game at we can’t really rant about how this gave a competitive advantage, but to some racing fans it certainly would and even so it was nicer having the game environment a bit more sharply focused when racing around the tracks. The same sort of weaknesses observed on BF1 were there again, particularly where darker shades were involved. These were common on this title when racing at night, but also when driving past shaded areas of vegetation. There was some ‘break-up’ trailing that gave a slightly smeary look in places, but we didn’t observe anything too eye-catching or distracting. It’s worth noting that this is subjective and some users would find this sort of trailing more bothersome than others. On the whole things were significantly better than on many VA models we’ve tested, including older high refresh rate models such as the Acer Z35 where weaknesses were more widespread, but weaknesses did still exist. Finally, we made some observations on the Blu-ray film titles we tested. As these were limited to 24fps it didn’t really give the monitor a chance to shine in terms of responsiveness, but equally didn’t expose any obvious weaknesses. Compared to a 60Hz monitor there was some advantage to be gained by the fact 24fps divides evenly into the 144Hz frame rate, which reduces juddering. The monitor can also be set to 23Hz or 24Hz for users who prefer the refresh rate to match the frame rate exactly.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. The monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU, where possible. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the Club3D Radeon R9 290 royalAce used in our test system. There is a list of GPUs which support the technology here, with the expectation that future AMD GPUs will support the feature too. The monitor itself must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The AG322QCX supports FreeSync via DP 1.2a (or ‘DP 1.2a+’) as well as HDMI 2.0 on compatible GPUs. AMD’s recent drivers include Radeon Software Crimson, which makes activation of the technology very straightforward. It should be enabled automatically, but you can check its status by opening ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and clicking on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider, ‘AMD FreeSync’, is set to ‘On’. If you hover over this, it will also report the variable refresh rate display supported by the display. Note that the image below is for a different monitor and is just used as an example here.



The AOC supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 144Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 144fps, the monitor adjusts its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 144fps, the monitor will stay at 144Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 144fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >144fps). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game was running at 35fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 70Hz to keep tearing and stuttering in check. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

VSync is configured in the ‘Gaming’ section of ‘Radeon Settings’, where it is referred to as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. You can either configure this globally under ‘Global Settings’ or for each game individually. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or final option in the list, shown in the image below.



There are a few final things to note related to the technology. Firstly, the application must be running in fullscreen mode, not a window (borderless or otherwise). Secondly, this monitor does not provide any obvious ‘at a glance’ indication that FreeSync is active, such as a change of power LED colour. In the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD it will have ‘FreeSync’ listed as the ‘V. Frequency’ if the technology is enabled in the graphics driver, but this does not tell you whether it is currently being used by an application or not. Hopefully the difference that the technology makes in practice will be an obvious enough indication that it is working, however.

FreeSync – the experience

We tested the monitor on a range of game titles, including Dirt Rally, Mass Effect Andromeda and Battlefield 1. The overall principles of FreeSync and the benefits it brought were quite similar on all of the titles we tested, so we will simply focus our attention on Battlefield 1 for the purposes of this section. The flexibility with the graphics settings meant it was possible to test the full variable refresh rate range of the monitor, from 45fps and below all the way up to 144fps. With fairly conservative settings the game tended to run at triple-digit frame rates, sometimes reaching up to the maximum of 144fps. With FreeSync enabled slight dips below this maximum were of little consequence, whereas without the technology enabled we found the tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) to be very noticeable. As the frame rate dropped to the lower end of those triple-digit values (~100fps), the connected feel dropped a little and there was a greater degree of perceived blur. But things were still good in both respects, providing an experience that even the fastest 60Hz LCDs would not provide. Although FreeSync couldn’t overcome the slight increase in perceived blur and lower connected feel compared to running at higher frame rates, it certainly still did its thing. Sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, but we find it rather obnoxious whilst running games at ~100fps on a 144Hz monitor. So having the monitor match the frame rate with its refresh rate and hence removing such mismatches was much appreciated.

Increasing the level of graphical detail provided an inevitable drop in frame rate. Depending on the settings used and the scenes being rendered, the frame rates we observed could fluctuate anywhere from around 30fps to ~100fps. Again, it was always beneficial having FreeSync active. At relatively low frame rates any stuttering and tearing becomes even more pronounced when a variable refresh rate technology is not employed and a relatively high static refresh rate is used. Having these imperfections removed was certainly a nice bonus. But as frame rate decreased, the connected feel ebbed away and significantly increased levels of perceived blur came into play. There is certainly a gulf between running the game at around 60fps compared to 144fps, for example, and things became down right painful with further drops. By around 40fps it felt like everything was running in slow motion – and relatively speaking, that’s pretty much what’s happening. There was no abrupt transition below 45fps as LFC kicked in – this worked as intended, with the monitor sticking to multiples of the frame rate with its refresh rate. There was also more noticeable overshoot, particularly some bright trailing in places, at reduced frame rates. This seemed to be inversely proportional to frame rate (i.e. as the frame rate fell, the overshoot become ever-more pronounced). Although it’s very crude, we’d actually say that the ‘Weak’ setting for ‘Overdrive’ was preferable at ~60fps and below. Possibly ~80fps and below depending on preferences. This was due to lower levels of overshoot and no real benefit in reducing perceived blur for faster settings at such frame rates. In our considerable experience, overdrive tuning for different refresh rates is something that monitors featuring Nvidia G-SYNC tend to do better. That’s not surprising given that it’s something Nvidia specifically works with manufacturers to tune for different refresh rates. In contrast to using a ‘one size fits all’ solution for the pixel overdrive.

The 31.5″ 2560 x 1440 curved experience

Most monitors with a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution are 27”, giving a pixel density of 108.79 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). With a 31.5” screen, the pixel density sits at 93.24 PPI – close to the pixel density of a 23 – 24” Full HD monitor. This is a pixel density that many users find quite comfortable for reading text without scaling and it brings a decent level of detail and clarity when gaming or viewing graphical content. It also provides a good amount of useful ‘screen real-estate’ for productivity purposes – something that is explored by graphic comparison with the Full HD resolution in this article. The screen size itself is rather large and is something people will have their own personal preferences for. We did not find this in any way overwhelming and actually quite enjoyed the immersive experience it provided when gaming in particular. The images below are just for illustrative purposes, providing an indication of the sort of productivity potential of the monitor.

Another important aspect to consider with this screen is the 1800R curve, which is reasonably steep ‘on paper’ but also something we feel some users may misunderstand. When users who haven’t actually experienced a curved screen discuss the concept with others, they might use words as ‘distorted’, ‘unnatural’, ‘weird’ and other similar language to describe it. In practice it is not only something that you quickly come accustomed to, it is also something which feels very natural and visually comfortable. It’s not something to shy away, unless perhaps you’re a designer who requires geometric perfection, as we feel it enhances the experience. Many users who initially described the curve in the negative way we just described would likely change their tune after some eyes-on experience with such a screen as well. Images of the monitor tend to exaggerate the curve and can potentially add to these negative thoughts about it. In practice the effect is subtle – the viewing experience just has a little more depth to it. The manufacturers might also point out that the more uniform viewing distance between the edges and centre of the screen is more comfortable. It also minimises the viewing angle when viewing the peripheral sections of the screen, bringing some improvements to colour consistency from a normal viewing position. Potentially enhanced viewing comfort isn’t something we could back up scientifically, especially as we don’t tend to find flat screens inherently uncomfortable just because they’re flat. But we certainly didn’t find this screen uncomfortable and found the addition of the curve to be a nice but natural one. The images below show the monitor in action in various game titles, note that these are just for illustrative purposes and do not give a good idea of how the screen is to use in person.

Interpolation and upscaling

There are some circumstances where the full native 2560 x 1440 resolution either can’t be used or isn’t practical. If for example you hook up the monitor to a games console, which might be limited to 1920 x 1080 (Full HD), or are running a more demanding PC game. The monitor provides some basic scaling functionality over both DP and HDMI, designed primarily to support devices such as games consoles and Blu-ray players. If you run the monitor at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD), for example, the monitor will use an interpolation process to translate that onto its 2560 x 1440 pixels. This only occurs if you select 50Hz or 60Hz (common refresh rates for AV devices), whereas at higher refresh rates and indeed resolutions GPU scaling is relied upon instead. If you want the monitor to handle the scaling by using its interpolation process at 1920 x 1080 @ 50/60Hz and you’re using a PC, you need to make sure the GPU driver is correctly configured for this. For AMD users the driver is set up correctly by default to allow the monitor to interpolate where possible. Nvidia users should open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. Ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown in the following image.

The interpolation process used by the AG322QCX does a better job than GPU scaling in that the image doesn’t look quite as soft when compared to running 1920 x 1080 on a native Full HD display. However; there is still a fair degree of softening, which can be noticed quite readily if you’re sitting at a desk using the monitor on a PC. This can be avoided entirely by using GPU scaling, as a PC user, and ensuring 1:1 pixel mapping is used. You will get a large black border around the screen as only 1920 x 1080 pixels will be illuminated, so this probably isn’t a good enough compromise for PC users. Games console users don’t have this luxury anyway, as the monitor does not have hardware 1:1 pixel mapping support and they have no ‘GPU driver’ to fall back on. However; the softening of the monitor’s interpolation process is not so extreme that the effect is too obvious from a distance. If you’re viewing the monitor from considerably further away than arms length, which is fairly common for console gaming, it’s quite passable really.

Video review

The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action. The video review is designed to complement the written piece and is not nearly as comprehensive.

Conclusion

There have been an increasing number of high refresh rate displays, curved displays and relatively large displays popping up. The AG322QCX covered all of this with its 31.5” curved screen. With a 1800R curvature, it’s certainly a ‘feature’ of the monitor and it is something you’ll notice when using the monitor. We don’t mean that in a bad way, though, as the effect was subtle enough to avoid giving an uncomfortable or strange experience. Quite the opposite in fact – just a bit of extra depth and certainly a comfortable and natural-feeling viewing experience. The 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution does not give an outstanding pixel density when spread out across a 31.5” screen, but it still yields a decent pixel density. One that is similar to a ~24” Full HD screen and therefore a decent balance of readability and real-estate is provided. For gaming this is the sort of pixel density many will be accustomed to as well – so nothing to write home about in terms of clarity or detail, but nothing shockingly bad either.

The monitor was set up quite nicely out of the box, with just a few tweaks required to bring things into line with our own preferences for testing. The relatively light matte screen surface and colour gamut helped bring out some rather vibrant and eye-catching colours – in fact the colour gamut rivalled some Quantum Dot displays we’ve used, even though they aren’t actually used here. The VA panel provided good colour consistency, allowing richness to be better maintained at various areas of the screen compared to some screens using the technology. The curve may also have helped a bit in this respect. The colour reproduction characteristics worked perfectly well for ‘entertainment purposes’ and general-purpose use. However; the extra saturation from colour gamut and lack of IPS-type colour consistency are less than ideal for uses where strong colour accuracy is required.

The monitor put in a pleasing contrast performance, giving a distinct ‘VA’ look with decent shade depth and bright shades that stood out nicely against darker surroundings. Contrast was certainly not as good as you’d see on some screens, but was significantly better than what you’d see on any non-VA LCD really. The lack of ‘IPS glow’ was nice as well, with less obtrusive ‘VA glow’ affecting peripheral areas of the screen. There was also a degree of ‘black crush’, which is expected on a VA panel, but about as little of this as we’ve seen. This left the monitor able to produce quite a convincing atmosphere in dark scenes whilst maintaining decent depth and detail levels. Uniformity was interesting in that it was quite strong as measured by the colorimeter. There was what appeared to be some pressure mark caused by the backlight design, though, and this affected both of the units we tested. This wasn’t particularly noticeable in our view but is still something we feel is worth noting.

The Achilles heel of any VA model is responsiveness. This model was certainly not perfect in that regard, although it was still was one of the more capable VA models we’ve tested in terms of responsiveness. The 144Hz refresh rate was combined with suitably low input lag, bringing the sort of ‘connected feel’ one would hope for from a high refresh rate gaming monitor. Pixel responsiveness was also decent overall, allowing the monitor to provide a good low level of perceived blur at high frame rates and complement its high refresh rate nicely. There were some weaknesses, particularly during dark transitions, whereby some more pronounced trailing could be seen. This was not as widespread as we’ve seen on some VA models, where frequent smearing would mar the experience and really limit the appeal regardless of refresh rate. There were still those niggling ‘sluggish’ transitions though, which some users really dislike – and these crop up more commonly on some titles than others. The monitor also provided support for AMD FreeSync, which worked as we would hope to combat tearing and stuttering from traditional refresh rate and frame rate mismatches. As frame rate dropped, though, some quite strong overshoot was introduced using the ‘Overdrive’ setting that worked best at higher refresh rates. This weakness is by no means unique to this monitor, but is certainly an area that G-SYNC models tend to fair better in.

Overall the monitor put in a competent image performance in all areas, but just like any monitor wasn’t perfect. In addition to the colour consistency and responsiveness weaknesses mentioned above, the monitor displayed interlace pattern artifacts (both static and dynamic). These were not extreme and not something every user would notice, but it’s always nice to be able to say that a monitor doesn’t exhibit these at all. Depending on your perspective the styling might not be a big plus point either, particularly the large glossy plastic bezel at the bottom and rather deep stand. Nonetheless, the ergonomic flexibility and overall solid feel of the stand was quite welcome we feel. The monitor comes in at what we feel is a fair price for the features and performance on offer and certainly feel this will be a welcome addition to the desks of some gamers.

The bottom line; quite a well-rounded monitor that provides a vibrant and responsive gaming experience, with strengths that we feel are more noticeable than its weaknesses.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.