In my experience flying at Air Combat USA, where they use camo-painted planes against ground cover, yes, it is simple in real life.
My opinion is based on reading, r/l pilot accounts, and watching planes out of planes I have not been the pilot of. Clearly, I must cede the experience battle here.
Except in the case of coming out of the sun, that typically happened because they weren't looking at the plane as it came in close enough to attack, not because they were looking at it but didn't see it. That happens occasionally to people in Aces High, too, when people don't have dot radar, such as in scenarios.
I agree, but I also believe that a more
realistic approach would be a simple highlight, rather than a billboard many, many times larger and more informative. (Stressing again, that I am speaking on what is more realistic, not what is right for the MA). Pilots had to be far more perceptive to stay alive, and eagle-eyed wingmen were worth their weight in gold.
In addition to some dogfights against camouflaged aircraft, I had a course on vision, using the book "Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information," by David Marr. That was back in the early 1990's, so I can't claim to remember every detail, but there are at least a couple of significant aspects that stand out for me.
One is seeing aircraft at long distance. That's where you can miss planes even when you look at them. That's when there shouldn't be icons. The other is seeing them at shorter distance. That's where, in real life, you don't have much trouble seeing them. It's because your eye has excellent resolution, excellent ability to differentiate colors, even slightly different shades of colors or textures, and excellent ability for motion of an object to make it stand out for you (i.e., an aircraft on your 6 is not like a truck parked and unmoving in among bushes). These aspects are only partially replicated in a computer-monitor environment. In a game, there is less resolution, differential shading, differential luminosity, and differential texture on the plane and its background compared to viewed motion in real life, and very significantly the game environment has the ability to have camo that much-more-closely matches a background color, luminosity, texture, etc., which never happens in real life.
To compensate for those effects in a game environment, at some closer-in range, you need to enhance the visibility of the camouflaged object. One way of doing this is using icons. There are other ways, but icons are OK. If you do nothing, you are making it much, much harder to see the aircraft than a person has in real life, and so it is less realistic to do nothing.
I agree, but again I do not think there is any legitimate foundation to the argument that "doing nothing" (i.e., no icons) is LESS realistic than what we have in the MA. (Stressing, again, that gameplay trumps realism in some cases.)
As for range, that also presents a lot of difference between real-life and the computer-monitor environment. Without any range on your target, it is much harder to estimate range than in real life. With range shown on an icon, it is easier. So, you have a choice to make there, and people could debate which is more realistic, range shown or no range shown.
I think that I literally do. 
I guess I should have clarified that I do not believe that you have a
valid argument that MA Icons are MORE realistic than NO Icons... (see my awesomely rendered scale for scientific proof
)
Thank you. I also appreciate that comments here (even if I disagree with them) are usually in the spirit of suggestions for the better.
Honestly, I am honored that you and several others in this thread have taken the time to respond. I believe I am correct, but am more than willing to listen... and you've forgotten more about Air Combat and flying in general that I will probably ever know.
To me, these:
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
look painted whereas these:
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
do not.
Gameplay trumps graphics, and in some cases in WT (over ack) it detracts from the dogfight... while the shaking of the cockpit, and blasts everywhere obscuring vision are (to ME at least) more realistic, they make the difficulty of acquiring targets that much harder. Aces is far more pure and uncluttered. Also, that last pic... that ship gunner must have been awesome!
(To clear up any other misconceptions some may have over my feelings on this game or WT, please see this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,361504.msg4804413.html#msg4804413)
