Proof

This suggestion came up on the Russian side of the forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3717176&postcount=2388 TLDR - the request was denied due to the work it would take in order to introduce the nose gunner, with dev time taken out to make the 3D model, animations, textures, testing etc to make it would not be worth it, with little value gained from doing so.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3510482&postcount=1

I would also like to see a poll, but if you would rather just count posts, +1 for no.

Belsimtek posted commented on /r/hoggit 13 days ago: "Not at the moment, but multicrew for those choppers is not out of the list though..." https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/78fd28/belsimtek_on_reddit/dotrqdu/?context=10000

I would love to see something like this.

I would absolutely love to have a full fidelity Su25

Absolutely.

Will civilian traffic cause these hot spots to appear?

I really would enjoy full fidelity tanks modeled in DCS, honestly not just tanks either, I think I would get a lot of enjoyment out of lighter vehicles, both WW2 period and more contemporary options. And agree I would rather see them come from an additional third party rather than those who are currently working on aircraft, or ED themselves to avoid redirecting resources. However I also strongly agree with what Chuck is saying, right now I feel DCS would require a large investment of time and resources to truly accommodate them; along with Chucks points I think we would need an overhaul of damage models for ground units, the addition of proper fragmentation, improvements to the ai for the ground war among other things. If I am wrong and these things can be added with relative ease I would welcome the addition, again beyond just WW2. I just think improvements to the flight sim should take priority but if unused resources or perhaps a separate team, within ED, can work on improving the sim to better accommodate a full fidelity ground module, it would be fantastic.

Whilst I don't really care for multi crew in the Mi-8, and the Huey to a lesser extent, the upcoming Gazelle and 105 - and the prospect of Hinds and Cobras, makes me extremely excited for multi crew capability. And it is something I have wanted for a very long time. I don't consider it a gimmick in the slightest, I honestly believe I will get far more enjoyment out of such birds whilst using them with a friend than to be sat in one alone, toggling between the two seats myself. There are a few scenarios where I don't think I will ever use it, such as the trainers, and the rear gunners of any WW2 birds we may see (I'm not saying that it should not be implemented) but for modules such as the Cobra, F-14 and F-15E I think multi crew will be a fantastic addition.

Squadron Name: sN1| BLUEFOR Active pilots number: 5 Pilots Callsigns: Foolslappa, SaXoni, Proof, K.Dotman, Phlupple. A-10C, F-15C

I'm not sure if they are considered officially announced but the modules I'm most looking forward to are the Cobra by Belsimtek and the F-15E by Razbam. Beyond that it would be the F-14, BO 105 and the F-5E.

I may be wrong, but I interpreted the list to show the maximum of each type, and to achieve the payload you described simply you would have 4x Mk-82 plus the MER-5 5x Mk-82, which are listed as separate weapons.

I believe he is referencing the streams of the L-39, which also will be multiseat.

Sure it would be interesting, I wouldn't buy it personally, but it would be fun to fly along side people putting it to good use; but I think calling it 'a must' is a slight exaggeration.

Hello, I'd like to register as a lonewolf. Callsign: Proof Preferred Aircraft: F15C/Huey Blue side Preferably, And thanks for doing this :thumbup:

Fantastic :thumbup:

I agree, although I am looking forward to seeing how the C101 develops.

1.b 2.a 3.a 4.a :thumbup:

:thumbup:Thanks, great news

Yeah I completely agree with that. :thumbup:

I agree that balance has it's role in DCS, in the way Hrothgar describes, and I also agree that there needs to be a bit more focus on introducing Russian modules. One thing that I do slightly disagree with though is your example of the Vietnam scenario Kaktus, I think pushing the Russian involvement to match the US forces would almost lessen the experience, personally I feel in that scenario it should be balanced enough to make it enjoyable, but not lose the feeling of having a disadvantage; perhaps lessening the gap, but not making the sides evenly matched, and having the roles the two sides play offer balance - for example the US forces will have their objectives, and the opposition would be there to prevent and disrupt them in trying to accomplish said objectives, not fighting for straight up air superiority. I think balance can be achieved in many different ways than just giving sides equal resources, but I think this is healthy discussion and getting it right can't be an easy task.

Ah apologies, I misunderstood, and was under the impression that it was to be removed from the get go. :unsure:

Why do we want to remove the ability to chat?

Ah interesting, thank you.