I'll try to answer this one.
The fact that FSX has a lot of shortcomings (even in certain FMs) and is not a combat sim, doesn't detract from the fact that it has a few features a combat sim would benefit from, like for example the ability to actually model proper operating limits. This is not a procedure, it's just operating an aircraft in a semi-realistic manner.
A procedure is following certain rules during flight, from taxi to landing, like for example VFR/IFR flight plans. And yes, even during WWII they did follow procedures to an extent. How else would they recover a few dozens of aircraft (a lot of them damaged) after a big sortie and make sure they wouldn't crash into each other? They did all those nifty stuff like peeling off the formation at predetermined intervals to add some spacing before coming in to land, giving priority to damaged birds and so on. It's still a landing procedure, they just didn't have to fly a radio navigation assisted arc to land because they didn't have the means to do so (if they would they probably would), but they still didn't just barge in and drop the plane on the nearest available piece of open ground like we do when flying online.
What i'm trying to say is, don't confuse the scheduling, computer systems programming and mostly hands-off computer assisted flying of an airliner flight with the flying of a vintage warbird, or even a small general aviation prop driven aircraft by hand, it's two completely different worlds. I've had a 10-hour FSX flight in a Catalina over the carribean sea on a friend's PC (we took turns flying it during the course of a couple of evenings, since you can save mid-flight in FSX) and there was enough stuff to keep me sufficiently busy that i was not bored in the slightest. No autopilot, fancy electronics or strict flight plan restrictions, just VOR to VOR navigation with a GPS for backup (not precise enough to navigate by,just a "how longer to the next waypoint" device), manual flying through varying weather conditions (turbulence, clouds, etc) and engines that will overheat and seize (or worse) if you go over 120 knots. Yes, your car can probably go faster than a Catalina
That's when i first thought "it would be so cool if i had to monitor a few things this way in SoW, it would give me something to do and think about during the transit parts of each sortie and help form an attachment to my virtual ride, especially if weathering and aircraft stress accumulates over multiple sorties.".
Even if things don't go boom in FSX it's still interesting to see how complicated these things were to operate if you wanted to be a threat to your enemy and not yourself, which lends an extra layer of appreciation for the dangers of WWII air combat. Namely, the dangers of screwing oneself up beyond the point of RTB capability, but without receiving a single bullet hit. I like this challenge for a next-gen combat flight sim (as well as the workload that will help fill the time during cruise to and from the target area) but as you said to each his own, that's what difficulty settings are for.
I'm really happy that the inclusion of such features in SoW has been more or less confirmed in the check-six.fr interview, because we're finally going to start seeing an evolution of flying styles and tactics that has been missing from vintage era combat flight sims. People who don't like it will be able to turn it off anyway. As for those who like it, it will be so much fun to see something resembling an aviation film or even actual footage from WWII, people will be flying that way because the added complexity will make it a necessity to do so.
Today this necessity is missing. I mean, think of all those awesome IL2 movies that we've seen over the years with formations, attack profiles and aircraft that accelerate before attacking (because they were not at full throttle all the time during cruise to begin with). How often does one have an actual incentive to fly that way on our PC? Most of the times it's staged and flown this way to create a movie that resembles what we see in guncam archive films, but nobody would ever fly that way online. The reason?
In IL2 some things are so easy to sidestep and carry no penalty whatsoever that you actually gain an advantage by doing the non-realistic thing. If engines don't seize and burn by keeping them at full boost indefinitely (courtesy of the resettable overheat timer mechanic), then it's no wonder that people will keep the throttles firewalled and just cut back once every few minutes to reset the timer. However, if the simulation is complex enough the evolution will come naturally, because people will have to fly in a way that helps them manage the workload involved. This is not a cheap shot at IL2, because IL2 is friggin excellent for a title that's running on a 10 year old engine. However, a next gen combat flight sim that models these things the way IL2 does will not be excellent, it will be lacking. It's a matter of relative timing and release dates compared to available technology.
To put it in perspective, a lot of people who fly warbirds in FSX can't stop thinking "man, i wish i had these extra features on an IL2 FM/DM in a combat setting" most of the time.
This is why people buy expensive 3D models of warbirds for FSX, because there's not yet a single simulator that does the whole package. Hopefully this will change with SoW.
Currently, IL2 models the aerodynamics and DM that FSX doesn't do that well (or completely lacks in the case of DM), while FSX models the mechanical workings of the airframe that IL2 doesn't do in depth. It's just like it has happened in the past, in European Air War i only needed a throttle since pitch and mixture was automatic in all aircraft, then IL2 came along and suddenly i had prop pitch and mixture to read, learn and think about...and i thought "wow, nice". This is what i hope will happen in SoW as well, when i'll see the FM/DM excellency coupled with a new ingredient, the mechanical inner workings of my virtual aircraft. If SoW does this well, then i guess a lot fewer people will be buying warbird add-ons for FSX
