Here are some comments from a different perspective.
1. You can 'see' the planes from far way. Why the other games don't do this is beyond me.
This is really subject to debate.
Some people claim that acknowledging the presence of an actual object in the sky is way easier than in computer monitors, and that fact justifies the use of icons. I agree to this premise on a technical level only.
The levels of graphical representation in IL2 is noticeably high enough to run a non-icon game in most of the cases, but it is also true that in certain situations the visual detection is quite limited due to the differences of real life and computer monitors. Besides, real life pilots had 20/20 vision. If a game makes it mandatory for the gamers to have perfect physical conditions as per real life, then it becomes problematic. The existance of icons themselves is IMO justified.
However, there are some points which should be made. For onething, one may be able to question how easily IFF was done in real life. In WW2 only limited varieties of planes existed in a given theater of operations, and most likely the process of identification relied heavily on previous experiences -
not on actual visual confirmation.
For example;
1) You are flying for the RAF in 1941, over the English channel. You look around and notice a group of dots to which existance you weren't notified of by the HQ. Then most likely it means they are hostile. You prepare for combat and approach, and readily notice some of the most distinct features don't match those of the German 109s you've grown accustomed to. A few days before, intel has notified the pilots of the existance of a new German fighter type. Since they don't seem, or feel like 109s, then it must be the latest fighters designated "190"s.
2) You are flying for the Luftwaffe in late 1944, over German skies. On your regular interception duties you notice a group of very high dots shining brightly from the glare of the sun. Since all your friendlies use dark camouflagees, it must be the Allied planes, most probably American fighters that fly bare-metal. The Americans seems to have dropped their classic olive-drab. During the last few months, you've seen less and less of the P-38s over German skies, since the USAAF was transitioning into P-51s and gradually phasing the P-38s out. Therefore, you guess that they are either P-47s or P-51s. As the distance draws a little bit closer, the shape of the planes are definately slick, instead of rotund and robust. It can only mean that they are the American P-51s.
Now, the question would be, in the above two examples how much of the actual identification process was done by visual recognition alone? Many people who claim identifying the types of individual fighters from miles and miles away was fairly simple, seem to be forgetting the fact that the process of 'identification' relies heavily on empirical evidence and intel as well, rather than by pure visual input alone.
There is a very important historic evidence which illustrates this point.
Fatal misidentification despite sufficient visual information led to the massacre of P-38s on June 10th of 1944, referred to as the "Blackest Day for the P-38". The 82nd FG lost at least 23 of 45 P-38s on that day, which went down in history as the day that recorded the highest single-mission loss for P-38 units of the entire war. The domestic Romanian IAR 80/81 fighters of the Grupul6 were totally obsolete in performance, and yet the P-38 pilots misidentified them as Fw190s and resorted in tactics which proved to be fatally wrong.
The IAR 80/81 looks only fleetingly similar to the Fw190, as its side profile somewhat resembles that of the slender 190D. However the wing configurations are totally different and the cowl resmebles the La-5 or the La-7 more than the Fw190. An observant pilot during combat may have noticed that there is something largely different about this fighter when compared to the Fw190D, but the IAR 80/81 was an obscure domestic fighter of the Romanians. Despite some clearly different characteristics the lack of knowledge led the P-38 pilots to believe that it was a 190. A definate proof, that 'identification' relies more on empirical knowledge than actual visual perception.
In this sense, the manner how AH depicts planes far away as clearly visible black "dots", and the amount of information given out to the gamers by the icons from woppin' 6 miles out, is undeniably too lenient in most cases. It ruins a lot of the fun involved with the process of observation and identification of hostile targets. Granted, that some people may find the amount of concentration required to fly a non-icon session of IL2 MP rooms too much demanding, but for people who have grown accustomed to it the immersion factor is very high and satisfying. Besides, AH already has the "AWACS" - radar info which tracks the location of enemy targets down to the individual dot, and then relays the information directly to the pilot via his clipboard on real-time.
There are a lot of alternatives to the current icon/radar/visual identification scheme, and many different ways to handle the icons so it invites just a little bit of more realism into the game, without making it too demanding as IL2.
2. You can move your vision around the cockpit frame. Why IL-2 series has not changed is beyond me.
This is because of an inherent problem with the IL2 engine itself. AH plane cockpits are rendered in true 3D, and the cockpits are actually located in that spot on the 3D model itself. However, IL2 cockpits aren't 3D. Its actually more close to a 2D scheme, perhaps similar to those 'facades' used in the old Hollywood movies when they depicted streets or buildings. Since the cockpit isn't true 3D, moving around the head positions might reveal an 'ugly truth'.
However, while some people praise the customizable head postions as the prime factor which makes AH superior, I agree to it only upto a certain extent. Personally, I find that AH is on the opposite extreme of things when it comes to views - its overly lenient. Its a very reasonable and well designed system for sure, but it provides the pilot with some head positions that wouldn't be accessible at all in real life, most particularly involving rear views. This may make the overall combat easier, but on the downside it supressses a lot of the 'suspense' factor to the game. Recently added/updated plane models looks into this problem a little bit, and restricts the views a lot more than the old models. However its still very generous.
3. The FM (not the plane control options like mixture, magnitos and such) see excellent to me (p38 i am thinking about).
The FM would probably require a separate post to discuss, but in general I agree that AH FM's better. For one thing, the planes in IL2 in many situations seem to be totally devoid of torque. On the other hand, the planes in AH feel almost too sensitive of aerial forces acting around the plane.
The main issue I have with AH is there is no arena where you can have nice outside views like in EAW and CFS3 (dislike CFS3 online). You can all talk all you want about 'archade' and such. All I care about is having fun and making me believe I am in a dog fight. I like to see what my plane is doing and what someone is about to do to me. Why I don't have that as an option is beyond me. If you don't want that for you, I have no problem with that. If you don't want to fly with me that way, no problem.
This is a very interesting point, because many of the AH gamers uses this very logic to justify some of the lacking aspects of realism in AH when compared to games such as IL2.
Personally, I find it either a double-standard, or an excuse to reject anything they are not familiar with. AH gamers say AH doesn't need any of those 'realism' stuff in the game (which IL2 has), because they want to enjoy combat more, instead of really dabbling into the 'realism' or 'immersion' factor of it. But then again, when it comes to the external views and stuff, they say allowing external view throws off too much realism, despite some people like you find that more entertaining.
Therefore... this very typical response from stickpig;
All in all though once you get used to flying from the cockpit you'll never miss the external view.
...almost directly applies to AH itself as well, when being compared to IL2.
If AH enhances its level of realism a couple more notches, people might find it not so difficult as they have imagined - once they get used to higher levels of realism, they'll never miss the old 'simplifed' form of it.
Its only a matter of getting used to it.
As for me, something smack in the middle of AH and IL2, would probably be the dream WW2 game for me.
