Pyemia--
I am not going to be particularly rude to you, whether you're a troll or not. However, some of your examples are quite obviously wrong.
Take, for example, in AW3:
AW3 Bf-109K4's top speed was only 400 MPH; this is from 28 to 58 MPH too slow depending on the source you believe. With your massive flightsim experience, how did you not notice this? AW had many other faults; as an AW player for many years I am well aware of them.
Also, calling AH's flight model simplistic, then using FA and AW as examples of "better", is laughable. Fighter Ace's flight modeling is designed for play balance, NOT strict realism, and so the planes in many cases simply do NOT perform like their historical counterparts. AW was generally better than FA, but even then it had problems in Full Realism. AW's blackout model was artificially tied to joystick deflection, and its stall modeling had a timer on to limit when you could recover from a spin.
AH's flight model indeed feels a bit quirky, but in terms of the numbers it spits out for the planes it is more accurate than either FA or AW3, and very comparible to WarBirds. I don't like it much myself either, but in the end that's more a matter of personal taste. In my opinion WarBirds has the best flight model currently available, and even then it's very similar to AH.
You DO have a valid point in one regard--the AH interface. AH's interface is by far the most "spartan" of the online flightsims, and in my opinion needs some serious work. However, HTC can't do everything at once and they've been busier producing a better game than with making the interface look pretty. Still, if AH is ever destined to make it "big time", they need a better interface.
If you are a Troll, then you were quite successful. If not, you must decide if AH's pros outweigh its cons.
J_A_B
