LOL, looks like most opinions are for sticking with the unrealism of unassisted views rather than the unrealism of compensators!
I hope you all realize that I'd not intended anything extreme, I hate plane icons and don't have TrackIR.
When I made "SLIMPITS" for HASP I could fly and fight quite adequately without transparent cockpit.

For me, whether or not icons are justified depends on aircraft resolution. In RoF, I can easily pick out different aircraft types from far away because they still retain their salient features.

On the other hand, in older sims where aircraft models do not retain their salient features at a distance, where they are all just little blobs, icons make sense.

What doesn't make sense is the tough guy attitude. Some of us are getting old and can't see as well as we used to, some have small monitors, etc. Some of the best virtual pilots I ever saw were back in Warbirds in the '90s, when 800x600 was pretty sweet, and icons with range markers were more or less obligatory (once we got to 1024x768 people began to experiment with more limited icon settings). If you put these guys into the sims of today, without icons, I am highly confident they would still give us a good thrashing.

To me the OP has it backwards. RoF gives the player using full-real settings huge advantages over a real pilot. First of all, that gives the player an ability to see very small planes at over 10 miles regardless of contrast. That might sound reasonable enough to readers of exagerated accounts by famous combat pilots, but not to real pilots who spot planes dozens of times every day they fly. Also, the ability to widen and narrow your FOV is obviously something a human cannot do. The default view seen when you first join the pit is probably about right. Once we zoom back we have eliminated any hold on realism. Yes, it is true that we humans have a large perceived FOV but most of that is pretty useless unless the object in the extremes of that view is large and moving relative to the viewer. Pilots are trained to scan the sky so that the narrow cone that really does all the "seeing" covers the whole horizon.

I think you are exaggerating now. With the map and map a/c icons turned on, I cannot see the pixel(s) denoting a far aircraft outside 5 km let alone the map grid 'box' which is 10 km. Perhaps monitor resolution has something to do with this (I have 1920 x 1200) but 10 miles??? 10 miles is about 16 km, and I challenge you to prove that you can see a distant a/c outside the 10 km box that is on the in-game map.

Far be it for me to judge, and I can understand if you are on a tight budget, but if this is some ideological thing do yourself a favor and get TrackIR, or try the free FaceNoTrackIR. I can guarantee you will not regret it; it will supercharge your enjoyment level. I rank TIR second only to a joystick as a necessity for combat flight sims. Others will agree.

IIRC the maximum distance for aircraft rendering in RoF is 9km. Manipulating the FoV is the only way you'll see them from so far out, however, as RoF doesn't render a giant "dot" in place of an aircraft.

As for controllers/hardware, my list would be:

1. Joystick
2. Rudder Pedals
3. TIR (optional)

If you never learned to manipulate a viewing system proficiently back when TIR didn't exist, then you might think it's necessary. It is not. Some of the best pilots in RoF do not use TIR, including Peter Z, Vaal, and Viks. Fwiw, yes, I do own one.

I agree twice.

Some die-hard "I don't need TrackIR!" folks view that as an elitest statement. I promise you, I am exactly the opposite of 'elitest.' But it pokes directly at the OP's original question. By far, well beyond 'HUD' cheat markers, aircraft labels, or wonder woman cockpits, TrackIR trumps all of those combined in terms of achieving and keeping situational awareness.

...and so how is that the people I mentioned above have better SA than 99% of trackir owners?

Because they are Gods. For us mortals, Trackir is the 2nd most important piece of equiptment after the joystick.

I find the RoF experience when coupled with TrackIr to be very realistic even if the view distance, general graphical appearance isn't. I find myself flying 90% of the time looking behind me, side slipping to see what is behind the cowling/wing and squinting into the sky looking for what might be waiting to pounce on me. Last night I was on a realistic server with DH2's and EIII's and had one of the most nerve wracking, palm-sweating experiences to date. Climbing to intercept a recon plane with the wind and engine sound drowning out everything I, after a long period of time, was able to close with my target. As I opened up on him his observer did the same, I weaved and was only able to spray him with ineffective fire when suddenly I was struck, what followed was a frightening silence, a ringing in my ears and a red darkness closing up my vision. Wounded but still in control I pressed on and kept firing, I was aware of another friendly aircraft nearby who was also firing and it didn't seem like either of us were going to get this bugger, I climbed to his 5 o'clock his 4 and then was struck again this time my plane veered, rolled over and we clipped each other. As the plane shed it's wings and it's spin increased I thought how awful and terrifying this would have been to be part of and I was also amazed that it felt so visceral. It might not be just like real life but, having no icons, radar maps or any immersion killing game features it was as "realistic" as you could get without needing medical help. I only wish "Cliffs" was as good.

No, not an ideological thing and I am somewhat financially challenged. I have just been looking around as to what track IR is. I have tiny security cameras that have IR and see in the dark. I wonder if I can use one for track IR. Thing is, how to connect it to a computer but I haven't researched that yet.
You also need 3 points of reference (IR leds?) for the camera to see for the tracking program?