The problem with that (if it is a problem from your perspective) is that limited realism arenas dominate when they are an option and that is followed by people going where the numbers are. You end up with a heavily populated limited realism arena and a nearly empty full realism arena.
That is fine and all, but it would a very sad thing for those of us who prefer full realism. There isn't any other home to go to right now for us.
If you like, you can turn on the stall limiter in the existing arena, you just won't have quite as much control as those without it.
After reading your post, that almost sounds like it's admitting a problem.
Sort of like "We can't let the slaves be free, because they'll enjoy their freedom and never come back if we give it to them."
If relaxed-realism is where the market is going, then be assured: this game needs to go there to or it will die.
Directly to the point, relaxed-realism is better, both historically and in my personal opinion, for gaming purposes. There are so many non-realistic aspects of Aces High that even it fails to model actual WWII combat accurately. The few things that are modeled (that other games do not model) typically tend to make a very complicated mess out of something that's very easy to do in real life.
Example? Cockpit-only views.
The user either has to
a) Spend $100 for TrackIR, take weeks to learn the setup, and then wear a hat (or other device) for gameplay,
b) Build their own tracking software, spending money for the materals, take weeks to learn the setup... and wear a hat (or other device) for gameplay,
c) Use a non-intuitive hatswitch+multi-key combination to get limited 45* views, or
d) Not adapt and fly at a disadvantage.
Many of us would laugh at thinking the above is complex (I personally run TrackIR and find it very easy to use), but for your average user, this is
beyond ridiculous. And for what advantage? To say that "we're
realistic"? The only functional limitation of cockpit-only views is shooting over the cowling and lead-turning someone at close range.
In real life, it's comparatively effortless to track another plane while flying, much more so than this game makes it.
Giving players access to a full-forward view, combined with a padlock view (not the limited version we have now) makes the game that much more accessible to new players. So what if it's easy to shoot close range? Is it "realistic"? No, but it's no less realistic than Spitfires fighting Spitfires or 109K-4's getting 1-shot kills on a fighter at 200yds. And don't get me started on the chess-piece teams (which I believe damages attractiveness to prospective players, including myself at one time, greatly).
In the meantime, you've just lost multiple potential new subscribers.
And so on.
Full-realism rarely scales well in sims. Trying to limit players' access to a relaxed-realism arena, acknowledging that they wouldn't play with you given the option, is a very sad admission and a very self-defeating position to take.
