User Panel
Thank You!! I have always been interested in the CORE. It performs to my expectations actually.
Fantastic review.. Top drawer. |
|
Nice review David. I will be keeping my gen 3 though.
So for the 100 dollar question. If you were in the market for a entry level setup what would it be ? Digital or Core ? I think this is what it will boil down to with consumers. |
|
Definitely a fantastic review. A perfect example of the capabilities (good and bad) of Gen 1. The pictures of the kangaroo at 100 meters was particularly telling.
For me personally this has solidified that fact that Gen 1 is pretty much obsolete (or at least near obsolete) given the latest generation of digital. While the FoV is ridiculously small on my Sightmark/Yukon Photon and the image is not quite as clean as what is shown in this review, sensitivity is way, way better. No problem at all seeing 100 yards with just moonlight (or IR if no moonlight) and 150-200 yards is doable. Given that the Photon and SPARK are pretty much the same price, I think the win would go to the Photon for anyone wanting to hunt, |
|
Quoted: Nice review David. I will be keeping my gen 3 though. So for the 100 dollar question. If you were in the market for a entry level setup what would it be ? Digital or Core ? I think this is what it will boil down to with consumers. View Quote An interesting question. The SPARK has a market price of around $500 from Optics Planet ( site sponsor ) - $459 actually at the moment, and from ARFCOM there's 5%, so that's about $436. Normally I'd say "avoid any Gen1 over $300" but in this case I'd make an exception to my rule and it comes pretty close to a reasonable price. Likewise they have an aimpro for $380 ( after assumed discount ) at the moment. Then there's the IR810 for about $105. Together the total cost to get into the setup is about $945 street price.. Just under the thousand dollar mark. You could throw in a hand-held digital scope and use that with the AIMPRO, but let's leave that out of the question at the moment. Let's compare that to digital. ATN X-Sight seems to be the latest, but we don't know if it's any good. The pictures on the web are kinds of dodgy ( at least, I hope they are, or I would question it's value ) and we don't know how well it works. Let's assume it needs a good illuminator and with accessories may well cost the same - it's just too new to know. However digital usually underperforms on gain, so while you can tweak it with lasers for good range, there are problems getting lasers in the US. And the Pulsar, widely considered the best in digital, costs a lot more than that. The SPARK has higher resolution and fairly good high-light resolution, with a very light weight. And you can head-mount. Also, it has some passive capability and will at least let you detect, if not recognize, a little past unaided vision range. Also, if you're in and out of light, it's a big difference, even passive. So if you're aiming for an upgrade-possible SHTF solution, it's the SPARK, hands down. It's still not a serious competitor to Gen2/3 but it's better than nothing - while most Gen1 is actually worse than nothing. So for anything head mounted, hand mounted or the likes, it's a clear winner over digital. Also, the AIMPRO can be used 1x or 3x in daylight with optical adapters - it's quite a versatile system. For accurate placement of shots at over 100m? For pest control? It's still digital. The SPARK won't see that far, unless it's a moonlight night. So then it's more of a dedicated vs head/rifle solution question. Also, digital sucks your batteries dry in a few nights. Armasight claim 40 hours for the SPARK, but at 30mA, I can imagine one running up to 80 hours with a good battery. So you don't really need to carry spare batteries for an extended run with the SPARK. I guess it comes down to the application, and then the same questions are relevant to Gen2/3. Also, if you upgrade a SPARK system to Gen3, you only lose the $440 dollar component, and you can probably sell it for a couple of hundred dollars. That's probably it's main benefit. It's still just a Gen1, but they way they've made it, it provides a few options that weren't previously available. I think that's it's main strength. I can see people buying it for that reason, then later getting a Gen3 and really having a passive capability. Though if someone didn't like red-dot or reflex type sights, then it's not really a solution at all. Regards David |
|
A missing image from the review- This shows the effect of immediate-field reflection on the image - The prism that reflects the reticle is normally not seen as it's smaller than the lens of the objective, but if it starts reflecting IR, it's really noticeable and will stop the image being clearly seen. A small piece of duct tape around the IR810 to form a "funnel" was all that was needed to resolve the issue - it's just a matter of keeping any IR splash from the torch, or any nearby light for that matter, from hitting the prism. Regards David |
|
Damn, that is a first class review for sure, nice work, David. Would like to see you do a similar review of some Gen III equipment, then we would really learn something.
|
|
Quoted: Thank you for review David. I have a Spark here that came just for the same thing (testing) and while i can say it is best among almost all gen1, comparing it (their marketing terms) with gen 2-3 in real life situations it's far from fair. I am adding 3 photo comparisson situation with gen3 , i hope you don't mind David. If needed let me know and i will erase them. I tried to catch the exact same situations. 1. really dark area http://astb.ro/tmp/core/core1.jpg http://astb.ro/tmp/core/comp1.jpg 2. semi, with moon light http://astb.ro/tmp/core/core2.jpg http://astb.ro/tmp/core/comp2.jpg 3.well lit area http://astb.ro/tmp/core/core3.jpg http://astb.ro/tmp/core/comp3.jpg Here is the unit i have received (no idea if there are more models) http://astb.ro/tmp/core/core8.jpg View Quote No, I don't mind at all. Technical and comparitive discussions are always good and help to contribute to a thread that people will be able to reference for a few years. I believe that the only difference between earlier models and current models is that datasheets are available now. Regards David
|
|
Impressive for the price point.
This looks interesting as an economical add on for hunting with a pvs 14. https://www.armasight.com/direct-view/weapon-sights/armasight-aim-pro/ https://www.armasight.com/direct-view/weapon-sights/armasight-aim-pro-l/ |
|
David,
Excellent and comprehensive review. it answers all the questions. thank you for taking the time to do it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
An interesting question. The SPARK has a market price of around $500 from Optics Planet ( site sponsor ) - $459 actually at the moment, and from ARFCOM there's 5%, so that's about $436. Normally I'd say "avoid any Gen1 over $300" but in this case I'd make an exception to my rule and it comes pretty close to a reasonable price. Likewise they have an aimpro for $380 ( after assumed discount ) at the moment. Then there's the IR810 for about $105. Together the total cost to get into the setup is about $945 street price.. Just under the thousand dollar mark. You could throw in a hand-held digital scope and use that with the AIMPRO, but let's leave that out of the question at the moment. Let's compare that to digital. ATN X-Sight seems to be the latest, but we don't know if it's any good. The pictures on the web are kinds of dodgy ( at least, I hope they are, or I would question it's value ) and we don't know how well it works. Let's assume it needs a good illuminator and with accessories may well cost the same - it's just too new to know. However digital usually underperforms on gain, so while you can tweak it with lasers for good range, there are problems getting lasers in the US. And the Pulsar, widely considered the best in digital, costs a lot more than that. The SPARK has higher resolution and fairly good high-light resolution, with a very light weight. And you can head-mount. Also, it has some passive capability and will at least let you detect, if not recognize, a little past unaided vision range. Also, if you're in and out of light, it's a big difference, even passive. So if you're aiming for an upgrade-possible SHTF solution, it's the SPARK, hands down. It's still not a serious competitor to Gen2/3 but it's better than nothing - while most Gen1 is actually worse than nothing. So for anything head mounted, hand mounted or the likes, it's a clear winner over digital. Also, the AIMPRO can be used 1x or 3x in daylight with optical adapters - it's quite a versatile system. For accurate placement of shots at over 100m? For pest control? It's still digital. The SPARK won't see that far, unless it's a moonlight night. So then it's more of a dedicated vs head/rifle solution question. Also, digital sucks your batteries dry in a few nights. Armasight claim 40 hours for the SPARK, but at 30mA, I can imagine one running up to 80 hours with a good battery. So you don't really need to carry spare batteries for an extended run with the SPARK. I guess it comes down to the application, and then the same questions are relevant to Gen2/3. Also, if you upgrade a SPARK system to Gen3, you only lose the $440 dollar component, and you can probably sell it for a couple of hundred dollars. That's probably it's main benefit. It's still just a Gen1, but they way they've made it, it provides a few options that weren't previously available. I think that's it's main strength. I can see people buying it for that reason, then later getting a Gen3 and really having a passive capability. Though if someone didn't like red-dot or reflex type sights, then it's not really a solution at all. Regards David View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Nice review David. I will be keeping my gen 3 though. So for the 100 dollar question. If you were in the market for a entry level setup what would it be ? Digital or Core ? I think this is what it will boil down to with consumers. An interesting question. The SPARK has a market price of around $500 from Optics Planet ( site sponsor ) - $459 actually at the moment, and from ARFCOM there's 5%, so that's about $436. Normally I'd say "avoid any Gen1 over $300" but in this case I'd make an exception to my rule and it comes pretty close to a reasonable price. Likewise they have an aimpro for $380 ( after assumed discount ) at the moment. Then there's the IR810 for about $105. Together the total cost to get into the setup is about $945 street price.. Just under the thousand dollar mark. You could throw in a hand-held digital scope and use that with the AIMPRO, but let's leave that out of the question at the moment. Let's compare that to digital. ATN X-Sight seems to be the latest, but we don't know if it's any good. The pictures on the web are kinds of dodgy ( at least, I hope they are, or I would question it's value ) and we don't know how well it works. Let's assume it needs a good illuminator and with accessories may well cost the same - it's just too new to know. However digital usually underperforms on gain, so while you can tweak it with lasers for good range, there are problems getting lasers in the US. And the Pulsar, widely considered the best in digital, costs a lot more than that. The SPARK has higher resolution and fairly good high-light resolution, with a very light weight. And you can head-mount. Also, it has some passive capability and will at least let you detect, if not recognize, a little past unaided vision range. Also, if you're in and out of light, it's a big difference, even passive. So if you're aiming for an upgrade-possible SHTF solution, it's the SPARK, hands down. It's still not a serious competitor to Gen2/3 but it's better than nothing - while most Gen1 is actually worse than nothing. So for anything head mounted, hand mounted or the likes, it's a clear winner over digital. Also, the AIMPRO can be used 1x or 3x in daylight with optical adapters - it's quite a versatile system. For accurate placement of shots at over 100m? For pest control? It's still digital. The SPARK won't see that far, unless it's a moonlight night. So then it's more of a dedicated vs head/rifle solution question. Also, digital sucks your batteries dry in a few nights. Armasight claim 40 hours for the SPARK, but at 30mA, I can imagine one running up to 80 hours with a good battery. So you don't really need to carry spare batteries for an extended run with the SPARK. I guess it comes down to the application, and then the same questions are relevant to Gen2/3. Also, if you upgrade a SPARK system to Gen3, you only lose the $440 dollar component, and you can probably sell it for a couple of hundred dollars. That's probably it's main benefit. It's still just a Gen1, but they way they've made it, it provides a few options that weren't previously available. I think that's it's main strength. I can see people buying it for that reason, then later getting a Gen3 and really having a passive capability. Though if someone didn't like red-dot or reflex type sights, then it's not really a solution at all. Regards David I would agree that mostly it is application driven. Battery drain is a good point but I use eneloops in my Hornet 5x24 digital (yes I own digital ). I also have to take into account the durability aspect. Gen 1 is easily damaged by bright lights (at least in my experience) and I wonder about the durability of the core technology. Digital does not care if the lights are on or off and MTTF is a long time. I don't know how long because I don't use mine much but I doubt most can wear one out. I still would recommend folks save up for a SHP Gen 2 at minimum but I see where this could be useful for low budgets. I am on the fence I guess but think I would still go digi. My use for digi would be pest control though and that is only one aspect of use. Sub $300 is where I would feel comfortable. I still think I would build something used for under 1K but realize this is not a option for most. I could build something with a beater Gen 3 for sub 1K and band clamp it to a day scope for a respectable varmint setup. Great review and thanks for taking the time to do it. I know that took hours of work. |
|
That was a pretty awesome review. I don't have anywhere close to the technical knowledge you do, I'll give my thoughts on the unit as an end user if you don't mind me adding to the thread.
Having used most night vision out there on both the mil side as a ranger/long range target interdictor, and as a hunter. Ill try to paint an accurate picture of where I see it placed among others. I bought one on Amazon last May (actually my wife bought if for me) or so and reviewed it on sniper's hide. At the time, it was a 45-50 lp unit, for this year it has been upgraded to units that have up to 75lp with better glass. I had mine upgraded to the newer version and I'll get to the differences in a minute. What it is not, is a gen 3 device. However, it doesn't resemble gen1 much either. All my pictures linked here are from me holding an iPhone 4 by hand and taking the pic, so keep that in mind. The shortcoming with CORE, Gen2, and digital is the need for supplemental IR illumination, which rules them all out for running around Baghdad or the mountains of A-stan. Where they do come in to play is for running around the field killing pigs. That said, what illuminator you use will be paramount to image quality when using anything other than Gen3. Pitted against anything in the same price range, I don't think you can compete with them. Some guys on the board can build one from parts with the same coin that can achieve the same or better results, but I don't think you can buy one off the shelf that will. I view gen1 as a child's toy (excluding well done cascade units, but it would be hard to helmet mount one of those) not a useable toy, thus I wont go there. There are some digital's in the same price range, but they don't have the resolution of this unit, or image quality in general, and are not mountable to either a helmet or a weapon. Using the exact same illuminator, side by side, there will probably be a comma in the price of a digital with a comparable image. I have used some pretty good digital units, which is where the future probably lies, but nothing that is neck and neck for both price and performance. The upgrade to the Spark was pretty significant. It took out some of the edge distortion that was there on the original, leaving a nice flat image. The resolution was also improved enough that you could easily see the difference, and I was happy with it for the price beforehand. With a good illuminator, I can manage shots on steel with consistency respective to my skills, at 200+. I can get about half that out of a gen 1 with the same illuminator, and we are talking a gen 1 scope in the same $500 price range, so it is not a multi purpose unit. In December I got one of the Vampire 4x rifle scopes that uses the CORE technology. While it is not as versatile as a monocular, I found the image to be better yet than the Spark. I'm sure the 90mm objective lens plays no little part in this. At around $700, it pulls away even further from gen1. I was doing a teir'ed review if you will, of sub-$1k scopes from a few manufacturers and another of high end gear. I ended up purchasing the Vampire, albeit, not at full price but rather dealer. I would have paid $700 for it though. Ill be spending some time next month to go hog hunting with some of my 1/75 buddies from the good ole days, in Austin, with a stop in Dallas for another rendezvous. If anyone is on my route between here and there and has some good digital and/or anything else they want to compare it too, Id be glad to link up with you and get some opinions from others. I'm going to take a break and dig up some pictures, but Ill come back and finish where I left off. |
|
Thanks CJ
The unit resolution appears to exceed the 800x600 oled display screens of the digital scopes currently marketed. Delta4-3 The pics and review of the vampire will be great! Keep us posted. |
|
qavro, checking out your comparison photos and they are very informative. I would like to see an unaided photo for a base line comparison. How much better than than no NVD at all was the Spark Core. Thanks Lee
|
|
Quoted:
qavro, checking out your comparison photos and they are very informative. I would like to see an unaided photo for a base line comparison. How much better than than no NVD at all was the Spark Core. Thanks Lee View Quote Keep in mind the sensitivity of the camera may make it brighter or darker, unless the photo's brightness is adjusted using an editor to make it match what naked eye will see. If a comment is attached to say that actual image is slightly darker or brighter then the photo, that would work as well. |
|
Quoted:
Ill be spending some time next month to go hog hunting with some of my 1/75 buddies from the good ole days, in Austin, with a stop in Dallas for another rendezvous. If anyone is on my route between here and there and has some good digital and/or anything else they want to compare it too, Id be glad to link up with you and get some opinions from others. I'm going to take a break and dig up some pictures, but Ill come back and finish where I left off. View Quote I haven't posted here before, but I live near Wylie in the NE Dallas burbs and hog hunt with a Digisight n550 on my 6.8 AR. I've been contemplating moving to the kind of setup described in this thread but have been reluctant to spend the money on a PVS14/eotech. I would like to see how this setup works in person. My big problem with the digisight is the lack of FOV when the hogs start running. I'm not sure this will be any better on dark nights after reading this thread unless an illuminator can flood a wider area than where the reticle is. It was painfully obvious this Saturday when I shot a sow under a feeder and then missed a big boar twice that ran buy so closely that I had trouble finding and tracking him in the scope. If I'd had more FOV I could have done a much better job of shooting. I almost never shoot over 100 yards at night so the the range limitations of this setup are not likely to be a problem. Anyway, thanks for this thread and all those who posted pictures as it is very helpful to me. George |
|
Hard_ware is right. I should have said what i could see with my naked eyes.
My camera have no chance to take a picture in that conditions (we are talking about the dark ones) What i was able too see with my naked eyes was nearly as much as spark was, but the main problem was the light that spark put it out on the ocular side, quite dim to be honest, while gen3 is so damn light that could have been taken for a flashlight ,i had to actually lower exposure value to get a picture near to what i can see thru it... none of my camera settings were able to resemble what my eyes have seen on Spark, but it was quite close. I am a bit amazed reading here that can be actually 2 sparks with 2 different tubes. As i said, this is what i was able to do with the one that arrived to me for test. It is not mine. To be fair, i think david did the whole job here, i just wanted to add a small bit simply about the one that i've had here. I still have it here for a few days if someone wants me to try something else. |
|
Do you have a powerful IR illuminator to test at about 100yds?
|
|
To be fair, i think david did the whole job here, i just wanted to add a small bit simply about the one that i've had here. I still have it here for a few days if someone wants me to try something els View Quote Sorry to pass over david's effort. It was a very well thought out and very informative review. Thanks again David and qavro. Lee |
|
Hard_ware, i don't have one. I am building one from scratch using an Oslon Black driven by a wired buck-puck driver
so i can lower the light to zero, but this illuminator will not be ready in time for Spark. I do have a small flashlight with 1W infrared led. Will that one be good enough? Will be harder to find those 100 yards because we are under 2 meters of snow :( and no line of sight good enough from my house. |
|
Quantum tunneling composite pill, will make light 10-100%.
The device works by applying pressure to get it to conduct. Should work on flashlight or motor anything low voltage under 10Amps. Ebay 3 for 4.99. You still need a led driver to set the maximum current level to protect the led. Try the 1 watt inside in the dark at what ever range you have, see if it over powers the spark. Which power Oslon are you using. I might build a 10W Oslon black IR with adjustable focus and 0-100% using 3 18650 batts to provide power if the spark will work out to 500yds with 3x mag. The 70-75lp/mm (way way better resolution then any digital NV) is very tempting to try and have enough IR light to make these work out to 500yds with proper magnification. 10w IR light should be under 100.00 to build, 30 degree for spark @ 1x and zoom for 3x or 5x lenses. I would like a dual bino setup for a cheap beater setup. 1/3 the cost of a PVS14 gen 3 mono with the same resolution just needs IR light to function at that resolution. |
|
Great Review. It looks like the Spark is actually a pretty decent option for those on a tight budget who want some night vision capability for navigation or short range varmint hunting. I like the fact that it can be helmet mounted and It probably would make a good loaner option when you upgrade to a PVS-14 down the road. An interesting piece of technology, I will look forward to the Vampir reviews as well.
|
|
George, Ill post up when I know the exact date I'm heading that way and we can link up. Quoted:
I haven't posted here before, but I live near Wylie in the NE Dallas burbs and hog hunt with a Digisight n550 on my 6.8 AR. I've been contemplating moving to the kind of setup described in this thread but have been reluctant to spend the money on a PVS14/eotech. I would like to see how this setup works in person. My big problem with the digisight is the lack of FOV when the hogs start running. I'm not sure this will be any better on dark nights after reading this thread unless an illuminator can flood a wider area than where the reticle is. It was painfully obvious this Saturday when I shot a sow under a feeder and then missed a big boar twice that ran buy so closely that I had trouble finding and tracking him in the scope. If I'd had more FOV I could have done a much better job of shooting. I almost never shoot over 100 yards at night so the the range limitations of this setup are not likely to be a problem. Anyway, thanks for this thread and all those who posted pictures as it is very helpful to me. George View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill be spending some time next month to go hog hunting with some of my 1/75 buddies from the good ole days, in Austin, with a stop in Dallas for another rendezvous. If anyone is on my route between here and there and has some good digital and/or anything else they want to compare it too, Id be glad to link up with you and get some opinions from others. I'm going to take a break and dig up some pictures, but Ill come back and finish where I left off. I haven't posted here before, but I live near Wylie in the NE Dallas burbs and hog hunt with a Digisight n550 on my 6.8 AR. I've been contemplating moving to the kind of setup described in this thread but have been reluctant to spend the money on a PVS14/eotech. I would like to see how this setup works in person. My big problem with the digisight is the lack of FOV when the hogs start running. I'm not sure this will be any better on dark nights after reading this thread unless an illuminator can flood a wider area than where the reticle is. It was painfully obvious this Saturday when I shot a sow under a feeder and then missed a big boar twice that ran buy so closely that I had trouble finding and tracking him in the scope. If I'd had more FOV I could have done a much better job of shooting. I almost never shoot over 100 yards at night so the the range limitations of this setup are not likely to be a problem. Anyway, thanks for this thread and all those who posted pictures as it is very helpful to me. George |
|
Hard_ware, i will answer about illuminator on PM so we can keep the topic clean,
and i will post here just what is relevant to Spark. One thing i want to add though: If the Spark i have here is with 70-75 resolution, it means that my gen3 is around 135-145 lp/mm if not better.. Does anyone know for sure how many tube types are used in Spark? |
|
i know this ,but holding the camera in one hand and nv in the other is not the best for taking pictures. especially with pvs7...
looking thru both the difference is huge for me...and you had to enlarge the gen3 more to make them both approx the same size due to the fact that was a difference in size between the images. |
|
As a new NOD user on a limited budget, the Spark Core is working out very well. My defined uses for the optic are getting home through rough metro areas in the event of a disaster (ie, avoiding dirtbags during travel) and security around my rural property. Neither requires a passive system and the Spark's high resolution is great for my uses. The other night I tested the unit on a hike with my three black dogs. With a half moon and some normal neighborhood ambient lighting, I had situations where I couldn't see one of the dogs against a dark treeline with the naked eye. The Spark allowed me to see the dog and ID which one it was without IR. Impressive. In situations that required it, the Armasight 810 illuminator really lit up the night. It is great for detecting eye shine. The long range 810 illuminator does produce a visible red glow... The ring insert allows the illuminator to be aimed correctly to center the cone of light in the Spark (I have the illuminator mounted on the intensifier).
I have found that there is some technique required to getting the Spark set up properly. Both the ocular adjustment and front focus should be tweaked to get a sharp focus on a star. This infinity focus works great for general outdoor use. Hopefully my backordered head mount will show up soon, and I'd ultimately like to get the 3x A focal lens. These items will increase the versatility of my setup. For my uses, the Spark is going to serve quite well. It was money well spent for a versatile, inexpensive system that performs admirably. My hat is off to the folks at Armasight. |
|
Should also add that I bought my Spark from Adorama for $459. http://www.adorama.com/ARMNSMS01C.html With the headmount and IR810 the total was under $670 shipped. Optics Planet has recently jacked up the price of the Spark (it got up to $579 but is now back at $499) and wanted $185 for the headmount that retails for $104. Be careful where you shop...
|
|
Quoted: OP- Any updates on the AIM Pro? How is it working for you? View Quote It's working better than the radiator in my car at the moment, which is keeping me citybound... :( But a friend has trouble with foxes, so it's a good opportunity for more research... And some comparative research also - :) David.
|
|
Quoted:
It's working better than the radiator in my car at the moment, which is keeping me citybound... :( But a friend has trouble with foxes, so it's a good opportunity for more research... And some comparative research also - :) David. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
OP- Any updates on the AIM Pro? How is it working for you? It's working better than the radiator in my car at the moment, which is keeping me citybound... :( But a friend has trouble with foxes, so it's a good opportunity for more research... And some comparative research also - :) David. PVS-4 for fox problems. Just sayin. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.