Two things AH does better than anyone else

[Blank]

Dead six view may be gamey but I think HTC said it was a concession as there is no rear view mirror.

so think of dead six as glancing up at your mirror (jusy a big easy to use one)

[phaetn]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned some of the UI stuff.  While not exactly pretty, it's very verstatile and can be changed on the fly.  I know of very few other flight sims that actually allow key and joystick mappings to be changed in flight .   Sure, it's not used every sortie, but it's an outstanding feature nonetheless.

What has to be mentioned is that AH was an early adopter of DX6 and allowed multiple joystick mappings from the outset.  AH and MS FS/CFS2 were the only games where I could use a stick/throttle/pedal combo all from separate manufactuers and plugged in independently (and had distinct toe brake support) in the early days.  While it's "old hat" now, HTC was definitely an innovator in this department (by virtue of the fact it didn't have a legacy product to support).

The view system is excellent too, but not without a very few minor "issues."  Linda Blair is one aspect I'm not overly fond of, but clearly it has its supporters and if I don't want to use it I merely don't map a dead six view. As it is, I do use the six view button the joystick hat, but I have it set up so it's really  only a minor variation of the five o'clock view.  What is exceptional in AH is the way the head can be moved around the cockpit to look around obstructions;  also the fact that the zoomed view is progressive (not just several fixed FOVs) and can be used in any direction (not just through a gunsight).  In these regards AH clearly stands above the rest.  

The view system itself caters to different tastes (instant views; pan to snap; slow-pan) and while I'd like to see mouse-pan support (and at a quicker head-turn rate), it's definitely very versatile as a whole.  The ability to actually set your own views is pure genius.  While it might be overly generous in some aspects, it can always be tailored to suit and be made more restrictive.

That said, ideally I'd like a mix between what IL-2 has and AH does.  IL-2 is neat in that one can use a hat for snap views, and then use a mouse (likely mapped to a joystick) to pan from there.  The two systems work in concert, rather than like in AH where it's one or the other (snap vs. pan).  IL-2 is limiting in that the head position is fixed, however (and obviously therefore doesn't have the capability for custom set positions, either), and zoom is FOV "jumps" rather than being fluid like in AH.

Issues like icons are always subject to change, so I won't go on at length about them, though WWIIOL's fade in technique is well thought out.  The rest of its view system is quite restrictive, however.  I really don't understand the argument for how there can be a zoom in one view (gunsight) and then not in others.  Surely if one can "hone one's vision" in one direction, it can be done in all, no?  That's another matter though, since in AH it can be done.

What AH did early on was to lay an excellent foundation, and has since built on it.  While any system is subject to tweaks and fidgeting, AH's was well thought out from the beginning and it still shows.  HTC could easily address the points of its detractors by making certain areas more limiting, but the key is that they made the system as a whole extremely versatile and unlike any other.

[edit]
Oh yes, while I already mentioned two things (three if you include early DX6 support)  I'd also have to say integrated voice support is another obvious advantage.  While it's not nearly so clear as RogerWilco or other voice-over-IP applications in terms of quaility, the fact that it works based on in-game players and ranges  is excellent.  This one they didn't invent, but borrowed, but they're the only current flight sim that does it.

Cheers,
phaetn

[McAnne]

I too have wondered about the zoom feature in WWIIOL but I had adjusted to it, and realy didnt use it much other than on long straffing runs or reconning a convoy to see if it was carring troops.   I did however REALLY like that fact that a great deal of people did drive in convoys and made the life of a 110 pilot that much easier, but untill AH gets its act together on its ground convoy speed and size, IE the trucks are TOO small as to everything else that doesnt fly in game.   I thought the head movement in AH was too quick and snappy, but I utterly hated the view system of IL-2, yet WWIIOL FPS kept the game from being smooth or even playable for a great length of time, I didnt even mind not having kill notifications anymore.  That is one thing I will definatly give to AH, if you kill it, you GET the kill, none of this putting 60 20mm rounds and 200+ 7.7mm MG rounds into a H75 Hawk and watch him flame into the ground and NOT get the kill.  I think the major difference between the two is the fact that WWIIOL bit off more than they could chew to start with, and AH is still nibbling on the same long since dried bone.   AH is almost 3 maybe 4 years old, in that time I have seen and played a great majority of the online games out there, and most are starting their sequils, like Asherons Call, both AH and AC came out around the same time(not counting beta), but Turbine(makers of Asherons Call) are working and plan to have out by the first quater of next year is AC2.    The funny thing is Targetware has been working on Target:Korea, and Target:Rebaul almost as long as WWIIOL has been out.  Hopefully they will have all the stuff I am looking for other than a first person shooter with planes and tanks, IE WWIIOL, or snap and pop and 90s graphics with flat maps on a 3D surface, IE AH.    Or maybe I just have too high of expectations of the games being produced nowadays.