Russian ПП-1 type Optical Sight for MG (part 1)

[mlespaul]

Hey all, going through my archs and poking around other places I shouldn't, I found these, in case anyone needed.

First off, This is a 1939 Maxim wheeled MG manual that discusses the optical gunsight fitting for the model 1932 ПП-1 optical sight and it's reticle. Wheeled maxims had optical sights, who knew?

Shows the fitting of the ПП-1 model 1932.

More description and the reticle (more about this later on):

Adjusting the rotation of the lenses (degree and azimuth/angle settings at scales) for a panoramic field of view (you throw down the locking lever to rotate the head):

And the associated reticle view against an infantry target:

The round circular edge is not existent in real life, it's only part of the a diagram to show the extent of the field of view, in reality you would only see the vertical lines and the "V", not a round circle at the edge like seen in many of the rets you encounter in RO .

Example of a model 1937 (looking straight down on it):

Closeup of the marks:

And it's reticle:

At this point you're probably saying, "Hey isn't that a German reticle??" Well, it is similar but if you look closely at the angle of the "V" , it's distance from the vertical lines, and the length of the "V" it is a teeny bit different.

The German MG ZF40:

I'm not 100% sure but I believe the Field of View is much better in the German MG ZF34 and ZF40s which the ПП's were probably copying, or vice versa.
Also be aware that this reticle design had been in place for many years before the start of WW2. For just one example, In the 1920s, Zeiss had a contract with the U.S. to supply the 1928 Model 37 Water-cooled Browning MG with what Zeiss called a panoramic 8A sight, and the reticle was of the exact same design. It was also evident that Russian and Germany were probably keeping close industrial eyes on each other's technology developments through the 1930s as well.

Next: The 45mm AT gun version of this optic.

 

[jeffduquette]

I don't know if these gunsights are in your collection or not. If they are, true FOV can be determined in a rather simple manner. Sight through the instrument on some target at the edge of the sight field\sight picture -- like a post or the edge of a building. the angular movement of the instrument required to shift the position of the target (the post or wall edge or whatever...) to the opposite edge of the field of view is the resultant angular FOV. So if you have a tripod that swivels it should be relatively simple to get the deflection angle and thus FOV of the instrument.

 

[mlespaul]

Jeff, thanks and good tips

 

[jeffduquette]

Since you brought up FOV, how is this accounted for within the game engine and the modded game engine? Moreover, how does the tank gunsight picture with 25-deg FOV differ within the game environment relative to say a gunsight with only a 18-deg FOV. I guess this must be subtle in the mods as I don't really see much difference in apparent sight pictures between various gunsights -- aside from the Panther's modded 5X setting which does significantly lower FOV when at the higher magnification setting (nice job by the way).

Same question for magnification. As I was saying above, one of the mods I play online (AB I think?) has a nice upgrade from the stock game in which the Panther's gunsight uses duel magnification -- I think the higher setting is 5X. However, the gunsight in the IS-2 should be a 4X, yet there is a huge difference between the in-game appearance of targets within the Panthers 5X setting and the in-game apperance of targets within the IS-2's gunsight. In relative terms, it doesn't seem like the IS-2's gunsight magnification is enough. Maybe the game depicts it as only 2X or 2.4X or some such thing. But than again this isn't a scientific assessment on my part as yet, so maybe this is just my immagination.

The other bit is the TC binoculers in the modded version. It has a two magnification settings. It's a nice\fun add, but I think most binoculars carried by TCs should be only a single high magnification setting with low FOV -- like 8x or some such and 5 or 6-deg FOV.

 

[Shurek]

Jeff, those are all excellent questions, and the answer to the FOV portion of your query is that it is not utilized "correctly" in the stock cannon pawn settings. I can't speak for Amizaur's AB code because I haven't delved as deeply into it (as I should).

In the cannon pawn code, there are settings for WeaponFOV and ViewFOV. From my observations, in the stock code they are used interchangeably with setting the zoom magnification. As far as I can tell, they are one and the same. In order to simulate proper (more realistic) FOV for the scopes, the texture artist would need to create reticles with larger or smaller openings, i.e. the clear circular area inside of the black screen canvas. Again, from my observations - and someone feel free to correct me - the stock RO sight textures all use the same base canvas texture with the same circumference opening. And then of course, they have applied whatever range and aim markings inside of that.

The stock IS-2 has a WeaponFOV of 21 which apparently correlates with a an RO zoom of 4x. An FOV of 85 is considered the unaided zoom/FOV in the RO world.

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Nice find again, mate!

 

[jeffduquette]

Yes -- the reticle photos are nice. I looked through the field manual for the maxim. It has line drawings of the gunners sight, but nothing on magnification or FOV. However my copy is missing several page from the optics section.

Thanks for your reply SHurek. Very informative. Regarding the IS-2's
ТШ-17, my understanding is that it has the following basic parameters:

Magnification: 4X
FOV: 16-deg

I think exit pupil is indicated as 5.5mm -- but I'm not completely sure on my translation on this last bit.

It occured to me that one can use the azimuth indicator (lower left corner of the game screen) to get a rough approximation of a tank gunsights FOV -- within the game environment that is. I got to fiddeling with this last night during my marathon online session. I only tried it a couple times, and I was having a few glasses of wine while blowing stuff up, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seemed like I was getting an FOV for the IS-2 of maybe 10-degrees for the gunsight. But I need to double check that with a couple of screen captures.

 

[jeffduquette]

I looked at this in a bit more detail today, and my rough look at the IS-2 gunner

 

[Amizaur]

Hi Jeff

Didn't trace this thread, so only now I can answer.

In AB mod I tried to reflect as accurately as possible both gunsight magnification and true field of view. Also the apparent field of view is kept in true proportions for all vehicles. The highest possible (so full scren width) is assumed to be 70deg (apparent) like in the Panther - I believe I'm not too likely to met a higher apparent FOV than 70deg in any WW2 optics that could be modeled in RO, so 70deg feels ok as maximum possible value. Everything else is scaled proportionally down. So the things like Stug doesn't have too much apparent FOV, same for T-34 telescopic.

The German ATguns with ZF 3x8 will have even smaller apparent FOV probably, and I'm already concerned how small it will be in game (mod). 3x8 is 24deg only !!!! So only a 0.34 of the screen width :| But if I get the thing correctly then they just were that small for the gunner's eye - 3x8 is just 24deg so they really had just 24deg of apparent FOV... that's a very poor telescope I believe...

The gunsight "zoom" in RO is controlled by screen FOV setting. The standard RO "naked eye" FOV is 85 degrees. In AB it's a bit more complicated, I used different standard of 75deg for from-the-turret eyewiew, I'm not yet sure if I leave it or get back to 85.
And to get best possible (in game) picture quality trhough the sights, the optic parameters are calculated basing on 70deg "base" virtual 1x FOV. Why I have chosen that, it's a long explanation, beyond this post, I have explained it before. In short the in game 85deg FOV or even 75deg FOV has nothing to do with real life "eyeview" x1 view, on an average monitor. Nothing could be do about that. But in optics we can chose different parameters and get closer to reality in FOv/zoom combinations than in naked eye view.

For example x5 magnification would equal in game 28deg FOV - and it's corresponding with other parameters (true FOV and apparent FOV) as I noted above.

So the Panther have x2.5 and x5 magnification (in game FOV of 28 and 14deg), true sightn FOV of also 28 and 14 deg (as the sight takes just full screen), and apparent FOV of... well you can get 70deg if you close your head to the monitor

The IS-2 have magnification of x4 (as 70/4 is 17.5 and I can't set in game FOV of 17.5, it uses 17deg so it has really magnification of 4.11 in AB standards), the apparent FOV is proportionally smaller than in Panther (Panther is 70deg (2.5x28) and IS-2 is 4x16 so 64 - also very nice IMO, so the circle of IS-2 sight takes only 70/64 so 0.91 of the screen width. And so on.

(BTW checked the the IS-3 manual, it says the TSh-17 exit pupil 5,5mm - the manual was get by emule IIRC). No luck with Is-2 manual...

Stug has a narrow 5x8 sight (x5 mag. 8deg true FOV, 40deg apparent FOV) and it's reflected in the mod as well, you can check that it has really 8deg of true FOV, the magnification is x5 (FOV=70/5=14) and apparent FOV is close to 70/40=0.57 of the screen width. Even the reticle in Stug have almost correctly scaled mil scale (maybe just twice as big as true one) - distance between triangles is 8 mils.

Hey, I would like to know what this German text means (especially the one marked with bold line):

I don't know German language at all, sadly But from what I see on this page, I have suspiction that the size of the right pattern is twice as big as size of the left pattern. The Left triangles would be 4 mils wide (more precisely, 4 mils apart) so exactly like in tanks. The pattern also looks like the one from tanks.
But in the right side pattern (the one we use in game) the half-triangles could be maybe be 8 mils apart (the marks between triangles - 4 mils) so the whole pattern would be twice as large.

Left pattern has 3 triangles each side, the max side deflection would be +/-12mils (most left or right triangle). In the right pattern, assuming the half-triangles are 8 mils apart, the max deflection would be 3x8=24 mils.

And I see numbers like that printed below, in the part I marked in red. But I have no idea if my guess is correct. The numbers +/-12 and +/-24 may come from different calcs. Also the reticle pictures are marked a and b, and would they suddenly become der 1 and der 2 in text ? A typo ?
Anyone can help and translate this page/marked parts and tell if I'm guessing right or wrong ?

(The available photos of Sflzf1a and ZF3x8 reticles, showing the right type of pattern, are suggesting rather 8 mils distances between triangles. No one of the photos shows full sight's FOV up to the edge, but some seem to be close to it. Well, they seem to be, I may be wrong again...

Back to the question about AB optics - aiming 'arrows' and aids in T-34/85, Is-2, Su-76 and 45mm gun (first AHZ package) are scaled as well to correct size (as well as practicly possible in GFX program) and are functional for range estimating. 45mm gun have also functional vertical (ballistic) scale at least to some range (2000m or so).

BT-7 sight has currently incorrect parametrs (too large FOV) as I had no time to make separate texture for it. It uses same texture as 45mm gun with different zoom, so it have to be larger. T-60 sight was not modified (only the zoom/fov were set).

German tank sights are not scaled in mils yet, only the "look" is updated in AB 2.08.

Commander's binoculars textures are functional in the second magnification, based on historical reticles with every element correctly scaled.

That's all I think... Paul - sorry for hijacking the thread a bit for the Stug question, I should make separate one maybe...

Regards

 

[Lt_Kettch]

Handling of the telescopic sight

The telescopic sight SflZ.F.1 magnifies five times and makes aming and observing targets over large distances possible.

/pics

Into the first version of the telescopic sight are 7 target spikes, 1 main spike and 3 secondary spikes applied.

Into the second version of the telescopic sight are one main spike in the middle, to the right and left of it, alternating three "in-between lines" and three secondary spikes applied.

/pic description, literal translation fails

The space between the main and the secondary spike alternatively the in-between lines averages 4^-.

According to this the whole optical allowance averages for the

first version +-12^-

second version +-24^-

/doesn't even make sense in German

 

[Amizaur]

Yes yes yes !!

Thanks!

So the pattern of the second version is twice as big as the first version. The first is like in tanks (4mil between triangles, triangle size would be 2 mils then, +/-12 mils of max lateral correction - like in tank sights), the second one is different with 8mil distances between the half-triangles, 4mil triangle size and distance between triangle and the smaller mark, and resulting +/-24 mil of max lateral correction (for aiming at moving targets).
Big LOL - the StugIII sight I made for AB is - accidentally - of correct size and I believed I made it twice as big

P.S.

 

[2fisted]

I just wanted to pop in here & say I find these sight/AB moding discussions to be very interesting & educational. This is why RO is such a great game!

 

[mlespaul]

Ami - No worries.

Kettch -
thanks, I agree it doesn't make sense to me either. Why where there two versions of the SflZF1, listed in this manual? Well, because this manual goes to not just one type of AFV, but of both the Pzjgr IV and the Panzerjager 38(t)/Hetzer. The title of this instruction was "Service instructions and shooting instructions for the PanzerjagerIV and 38t with the 7,5 cm Pak 39"
dated 24 June 44.

I'm thinking the two types, due to their differing dimensions of the reticle marks had to do with the differing physical characteristics of the Pzgr IV and the Hetzer. Which one went to which is something I'm not sure of. But there had to be a reason for the differing dimensions. As I have read/seen pics, etc. the Hetzer had a VERY limited viewing ability of the outside. Even the driver had to rely on an electric light/turn signal to tell him to go left or right as he really couldn't see enough through his own driver slit. Perhaps the ultra-limited visibility of the outside had to be incorporated into one of the versions of the SflZF in this instruction and it's subsequent FOV? Just a theory.

BUT...I think I'm onto something else here as well. If anyone has a copy of "The Combat History of German Heavy Anti-Tank Unit 653 in World War II" by Karlheinz Munch and if you go back and take a look in the photographs section, you'll see two pictures of burning/hit T-34s that were photographed directly through the lens of the SflZFs. I believe the caption says they were taken through the gunsights of the Elefant. Or at least one of them.
One of the pics is (co-opted into an old Ebay ad - the guy took a picture of the page in the book, hence the 2007 date, you wise guys! It's an expensive book):

The second picture right next to it, is of the first reticle style in the instruction page Amizaur posted. I'm thinking that possibly the "1 Ausfuhrung" picture from the instruction may be the actual ret for the Elefant's version of the SflZF1. The other possibility may be that the "1 Ausfuhrung" is the SflZF1 while the "2 Ausfuhrung" may be the SflZF1a.

Of note is the lack of the vertical line in the instruction's reticle for the "2.Ausfuhrung".

2 years later and we're still discussing this page from the instruction LOL, eh, Alan?

Anyway, I'll go and take a snapshot of the page from the book and post it. At any rate it should help the mod folks with their Elefant.....which....I'm....sure....is.....coming....right?

 

[Amizaur]

Wow, interesting photo . I hope it's really an actual photo because the pattern is composed from quite thick lines, as opposed to anything we seen before (always quite thin lines). At least it seem so for me now... The vertical line you are talking about - I understand the UPPER vertical line ? It can very well be there, it's just above the upper edge of the picture. The distance between the center and beginnong of the lower vertical line (measured from two/three available photos (SflZF1a and ZF3x8) placed one on another and rescaled so they are overlapping almost perfectly, both SflZF and ZF3x8) seem to be 20 mils, and distance from the center to beginning of the upper vertical line seem to be 40 mils (from two photos measurements of 39.5 and 40.16).

Well, again (I fixed the PNG, removed transparency):



The triangles on all the pictures I examined are always perfect "isoceles" (if that's the right word) - so kind of triangles which have all sides equal length and all angles = 60deg.

But interesting is fact that on two of the photos I found, the triangles have a HEIGHT of 4mil, and then of course the width can't be 4 mils but is 4.62mils (geometry - if a perfect isocele has a height of h, it have side length of about 1.155 of h). Also the triangle width is visibly larger than distance between marks (4 mils). It's clearly visible on the photo with burning tank - the triangle width is larger than the space that is left between them.

But on one photo, the triangles were a bit smaller so they had a WIDTH of 4 mils (so same as distance between smaller marks) and then the height was less than 4 mils (geometry again, 0.866x4mils). Triangle width was identical than space left between them. So there was no strict standard maybe... Most sources (like fibels) say about triangle HEIGHT to be 2 or 4 mils so this was probably more common. It would be used to estimate target height rather than width.

Well, just a detail

P.S. About the different characteristics of two guns (JzpzIV and Hetzer) - the limited Hetzer traverse was about +/-10deg IIRC. More or less. The second (larger) reticle has a maximum side correction of 24 mils which is... about 1.35deg - so several times smaller.
Maybe a smaller reticle with finer side-angle gradation would be better for long range shooting (feels like Elefant or Jagdpanther)... but the second (larger) version has in-between marks between the triangles that makes it just as precise (2 mils) like the smaller one.... So I have no slightest idea why there were two versions. Maybe one was older and the other later ? One was for hmm assault guns used in tank units (because the reticle is same as in tank sights) and the other for vehicles used in artillery units... Or they came from two different manufacturers and you could just get any of them ? Just few ideas without any support...

 

[mlespaul]

Wow, interesting photo . I hope it's really an actual photo because the pattern is composed from quite thick lines, as opposed to anything we seen before (always quite thin lines). At least it seem so for me now...

Yeah, I know, but I've seen the actual photos in the book, and it looks authentic. I'll sneak some photos of it and post next chance I get ...

The vertical line you are talking about - I understand the UPPER vertical line ? It can very well be there, it's just above the upper edge of the picture.

Exactly right The 2nd reticle in the manual doesn't have the vertical line above....interesting.....

P.S. About the different characteristics of two guns (JzpzIV and Hetzer) - the limited Hetzer traverse was about +/-10deg IIRC. More or less. The second (larger) reticle has a maximum side correction of 24 mils which is... about 1.35deg - so several times smaller.

But again, Ami, it's still basically a hand-drawn illustration, so it's only a general reference picture for quick reading but you may still be 100% right about the measurements. On second thought...you probably are right

Maybe a smaller reticle with finer side-angle gradation would be better for long range shooting (feels like Elefant or Jagdpanther)... but the second (larger) version has in-between marks between the triangles that makes it just as precise (2 mils) like the smaller one....

Ok....when I go back and take a pic of the page, it says which one was taken from which kind of tank....I think....it's a personal chronicle of the guy who served in the unit - they are his/his unit's pictures...

So I have no slightest idea why there were two versions. Maybe one was older and the other later ? One was for hmm assault guns used in tank units (because the reticle is same as in tank sights) and the other for vehicles used in artillery units... Or they came from two different manufacturers and you could just get any of them ? Just few ideas without any support...

LOL. could be....another German Manual Mystery....Call Hercule Poirot!

 

[Amizaur]

Paul, I'm not talking at all about the MANUAL pictures - it's pointless as they are just schematic pictures, out of scale, and with many elements missing. Just as you wrote - it's a hand drawn illustration. We both know that.

I was talking about the photo from the book (that there is no upper line visible). Only now I realised that you were talking about manual picture, sorry for misunderstanding.

About the measurements - I did not measure the illustration !!! I only used it to put the measurements on it !

I did measurements from 2 photos (not illustrations) of SflZF1a and one of ZF3x8, all of them from the web.

All 3 photos were resized to same size, rotated and placed one on another in GIMP (I removed the bacground, keeping the pattern), and guess what - all matched almost perfectly - there were very small differences only because photos were made at bit different angles, and also scaling/rotating was not ideal. But it was perfectly clear that reticles from all 3 photos are the same reticle, and that the other elements (lines) are also identical. The only exeption was that one of SflZF1a photos had smaller triangles (they had 4mils width), two other had triangles with 4mil height. The ZF3x8 photo in fact did not have the upper line - the place it should be was obscured by the upper edge of the picture, so it could be there or not. I would bet my money (a little) that it is there as well.

Your illustration/photo from the book would fit too, only here the difference is that the line used to draw the pattern is visibly more thick than on photos I used.

Of course if there was another version of SlZF WITHOUT the upper line, that would be no strange at all (so many versions of everything produced probably by everyone ). But so far it seems most of SlZF1a had it, as most of photos seen so far have identical layout of elements.

BTW I made also similar measurements of TZF5d photo and TZFd scaled drawing, they also matched almost perfectly (the general layout) so I would risk a statement that layout didn't change in this period (from 5d to the end so 9d), only minor elements (like lines, triangles/Vs, different scales of course) were changed but general dimensions of 5d and 9d were almost identical (within error range).
I tried to match those basic layout dimensions when I played with German sight textures for AB 2.08.

I will made a dimensioned scheme of TZFs and post it on some another day. Not sure if here, or maybe better on DH forums...?

 

[mlespaul]

I'm sure if you wanted to, you could post them on DH. You and me should have our own forum section! Seriously I totally agree that the German reticles (dimensions, specs, lengths, overall layout) for AFVs were fairly similiar. Usually the range/ammo scales differed. The observation types of optics really tended to widely differ as did the Kriegsmarine weapon optics.

I found the Russian manual for the 45mm PP sight that shows the reticle measurements. Let me know if u need.

Just thinking: back to my post of the burning RS tank in the reticle pic-and the thickness of the line-
if we assume that the focusing qualities of cameras of that time not being as advanced as today's, since the camera lens was actually focusing on the distant burning tank and not focused as much on the nearer lens etching on the reticle cell, could that possibly result in some slight blurring of the reticle line if the camera were focusing off beyond the ret? Maybe that is why it appears "thicker"?

Ill still try to get a picture from the book itself. The actual picture as published appears different than this as I remember - seemed more scratchy looking.

 

[KrazyKraut]

The space between the main and the secondary spike alternatively the in-between lines averages 4^-.

According to this the whole optical allowance averages for the

first version +-12^-

second version +-24^-

/doesn't even make sense in German

Okay I have no clue about this stuff but I'll give it a shot:

The space between the main spike and every secondary spike, respectively in-between lines, is 4^- (whatever that ^- means?). Now if you add them up for each scope you get a maximum lead of +-12 and +-24^- for the two scope types, right? So this in turn could mean the second scope has a larger FOV (since it's the same magnification)?

 

[Shurek]

We need a merged optics thread with mlespaul and Amizaur as the moderators!!!

 

[Amizaur]

Okay I have no clue about this stuff but I'll give it a shot:

The space between the main spike and every secondary spike, respectively in-between lines, is 4^- (whatever that ^- means?). Now if you add them up for each scope you get a maximum lead of +-12 and +-24^- for the two scope types, right?

Exactly!

So this in turn could mean the second scope has a larger FOV (since it's the same magnification)?

Well, no. The optical parameters of both are identical - magnification of x5, true field of view 8deg, apparent field of view 40deg. What you described, means only that the reticle of second version (width of the pattern and size of elements) is twice as big. And that the picture from manual doesn't show this difference (it suggest both pattern are same size, when the second is in fact twice the size of the first). And it's no strange at all because as we said, they are just a hand drawn illustrations that can't be taken as a true and actual representation. In fact BOTH patterns are too big compared to the circle representing the FOV.

How this should really look, you can see on picture I already posted:

(I "fixed" the PNG - removed the transparency):



The FOV may be few % to small, as it's just a texture for RO gunsight, so the edge blur visually reduces FOV a bit.

And the first pattern, which is 2x smaller, would really look about that:



This is older image I made few months ago for different purpose. The vertical lines in this picture are probably too close to the aiming marks, this one is an old, outdated and partially incorrect picture as I said, shown only for size comparison of aiming marks.
I assumed back then that the vertical lines are present in this version as well, which may not be true... but possible - the sights had a hand operated (?) "cross leveling" mechanism, that was used to level the sight when vehicle was standing on a slope, banked to the left or right - so the gunner should have (I think) SOME kind of visual help to derermine when the sight pattern is leveled or needs leveling (regardless of any separate "bubble in a fluid" or similar level indicator, that I guess could be used). Few small triangles in center of large FOV would be not enough to see that leveling is needed, an additional element like some kind of vertical or horizontal line makes more sense, especially vertical one).

BTW I just managed to get the scanned (with pictures, poor quality but always) version of TM-E 30-451 - Handbook on German Military Forces 1945.pdf Not always accurate (like in case of Panther G sight's FOV - there is a typo and it says 19deg - instead of 29deg, a number used by other US sources), but still very nice source to read and compare things with, if you don't take it as the "ultimate" source .
Just data collected by intelligence is not always exact, and also full of bugs. Manual is from 1945.

So there is a similar reticle description of some universal (ZF3x8?) German gun sight in TM-E 30-451, I read it somwhere before but only now I understand it fully. I have to admit that so far I misunderstanded the english word "conical", for some uncnown reason I believed it means something like "circular" and I wondered what circular marks are on SflZF1 reticle Now I got it. The distance from conical to vertical mark is said to be 4 mils so exactly like we understand the German manual (distance from center to small vertical or between any triangle to small vertical mark). It says it gives "maximum lay-off of 24mils each side" so... again we are home .

BTW again, I also downloaded lately a M4A3 Sherman Medium Tank Technical Manual.pdf if someone is interested. I can send any resource I have to anyone if asked, my net connection has now much better upload capability than few months before (it was 64kb/s then IIRC so a 100MB file would need several hours to upload, now it's 6 times faster).

Pictures of gunsights (various versions, 75, 76mm guns, different telescopes, single standarised reticle scheme) from the manual are schematic but still worth having. I will use them when I need to make realistic Sherman gunsights for AB . The more exact dimenstions can be calculated from known dimensions in mils. Proportions of range scales are also shown separately for various US guns in US tank gunnery manual (some other TM-E) from WW2.
What I found interesting - in short - telescopic sights (at least) in Shermans seem to have no range setting at all - you just aim using the reticle pattern, placing target at a mark corresponding with range to target. But I have to read it again more carefully to be sure. Maybe it's only a one way of aiming...

Regards

Ami