If I'm off here, just tell me to shut up, but here goes:
It seems to me the RoF devs might actually be listening to it's users
We're all aware of the shortcomings of flight sim views - a human has about 165° view. Sim= 90° maybe 120° if there's a genuine "widescreen" function. Lots of sims have "enemy" (friendly too - blue)markers on the edge of the screen and this is some help in that regard. There's also sometimes the "radar" HUD item. I don't know yet if RoF has Player to Target and Target to Player outside views but that is cool.
Call the following, QUESTION 1:
Do you think these "compensators" are important to flight simming?
My opinion is it's just not "realistic" without them. Sure, it's not realistic with them either, but more realistic than not having them.
Another shortcoming is lack of visibility of your target regarding struts, braces, cowling, wings and the like getting in the way. Most of this is not a factor in RL because you have binocular vision and can move your head and stretch your neck. There's been a lot of difficulty adequately compensating for this(RB3D transparent 'pit, etc.). There are sims where you can move your head but it's just too much key presses to deal with.
Call the following, QUESTION 2:
My idea: Allow the target to be visible "on top" of the cockpit view to the extent that you could move your head/stretch your neck. Naturally there would be a cutoff point somewhere below the cowling view, but you could see the target below the cowling to that cutoff point. The target could be some degree of opaque in these spots. The target shape itself would determine the area of translucency.
I like it, whaddya think?

In your list of compensators are you referring to the blue arrows and radar maps?

If so, radar maps are flat out cheats, IMHO, especially in WWI aircraft like in RoF. They give way more situational awareness than is actually available to the pilot. Same with making the pilot's own aircraft translucent or overlaying an indication of target position when it goes behind a strut/cowl/etc. Sure, this makes it easier to track the enemy, but a real pilot would lose the target as well. It could be argued that this symbology could be a suitable simulation for the pilot moving his head to maintain sight of a target going behind a strut or just beyond the cowl (especially for folks without head-tracking systems like TrackIR), but it would have to be limited to only those areas the pilot would be able to see.

Padlocking could also be considered a cheat, since one could keep hitting the padlock button to try and detect enemy aircraft, but it pretty reasonable for those pilots not flying with head-trackers.

The markers on the edge of the FOV simulate peripheral vision, so, in my opinion, they have some merit. I would still choose to fly with them off, though.

Hello.

Do I think the compensators are important for flight simming? Not for me; never used 'em. I don't like being shown where planes are outside my FOV; too fake. I feel the same way about padlock. Being able to track targets is a lot of the fun for me. The view in the cockpit isn't great, but remember that many goggles WW1 pilots wore limited peripheral vision a great deal. Also, they couldn't turn their necks 180 degrees to look behind them, either, as we can in the sim. Strapped into a plane via shoulder harnesses without inertia reels, you can't look/see behind you like that. You have to either turn or yaw the plane to clear six o'clock.

Regarding struts, cowlings, etc getting in the way, it most certainly was a factor. My real air time is just in modern civil aircraft but you'd be amazed how a cockpit frame can completely hide an airplane that is approaching very close to you. You have to continually bob and weave to look around struts, frames, plumbing, etc. Improved visibility is the reason why Albatros relocated the radiator and its associated plumbing from center to starboard starting with the Albatros D.II, not for reasons of the "pilot being scalded" as is often erroneously thought. Proof of this is that they continued to make airplanes with central radiators. Pilots of Albatros C.XIIs, for example, weren't less susceptible to scalding than were pilots of D-types, but pilots of Ds needed the better forward visiblity to stalk and attack enemy airplanes afforded by an offset radiator that the C-type pilots did not.

Too many key presses to look around things? Can't argue with that since that is your experience. I just look around with the mouse or Track IR, or you can yaw the nose side-to-side with the rudder pedals to visually clear the airspace. I wouldn't mind the implementation of compensators for guys who have a hard time tracking enemy planes because most certainly it would be a selectable feature and I could just not utilize it.

"Champ on downwind, I have you in sight."
"Cessna, where are you?"
"Half mile your three on downwind. You go first."

(Frantic looking about)

"Where the f--- is he?" I grumble.
"Lift your wing a bit" says my passenger.

(small slip)

"Roger, Cessna, I got you."

It's been noted that I can really spot aircraft while flying a RL aircraft much better than most (wonder where I learned that!), but you'd be amazed at how hard it can be to find them sometimes, even when they're up close and telling you where they are.

Have to agree with responders, I have no issues with how the sim plays visually. If you aren't using TrackIR, or the freeware FaceNoTrackIR, then you are really diminishing your experience. It is simply worth the effort, and cash if you go for TIR.

If you want to have the in-game map on, and implement distant icons for the map, then by all means do so. Nobody can pass judgement on how you want to play your sim, just don't look for sympathy from the more hardcore Heck, I can't even stand to have a pre-encounter/pre-spawn stutter that announces some airplane (friend or foe) has entered my virtual sphere of existance!

I think what REALLY needs to be done is for the devs to implement better anti-aircraft artillery AI, and use correct AAA bursts (white for entente, black for central), so that the bursts indicate where just beyond visual range aircraft are. This WAS how pilots detected most of the aircraft BVRy.

Padlock and icons are for wimps. They only hurt you in the long run. You'll become a much better pilot when you learn to fly without them.

JFM,

I dont think most these WW1 birds had shoulder harnesses. Just a lap belt or rope.

Thus explaining the pads on the MG butts. Still must have hurt even with the pads.

The belt was pretty wide - the examples I've seen they are a good two feet wide, covering from belt to sternum.

?