Which makes those areas objective and not subjective.
It's not my opinion that GT doesn't model those areas, so I don't need to add that in at all. Its an objective fact that GT doesn't model those areas.
As such I'm not sure why you keep insisting that every area of physics has to be a subjective discussion, because that's clearly not the case at all.
The reason why the analogies don't work for every area of the physics engine in question is that it assumes that both try and model exactly the same areas, and they clearly don't, as you have acknowledged yourself.
The feel or peception of those areas visually, by the hearing and through the wheel is subjective. And so our judgement of a realistic or not realistic simulator. Different of a Physic-based simulator or not Physic-based simulator.
Both try to model the whole simulation feeling, not only one by one cut aerea.
When you base your argument on a point no one has made and change what people have said when you quote them you are being dishonest and misleading, its not up for debate, don't do it.
I've never changed what people have said. You are wrong.
I only cut I sentence from you, when you said "feel". I'm sorry about that if that has bother you.
No one has said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on pushing a point no one has ever made.
Yes, I said AC felt not so realistic for me and some people are trying to say the opposite from a objective point of view. So I think I can pose those questions.
Please don't tell me what I do or don't think, you don't know me and the presumption is quite rude.
I've already agreed with you that some areas of physics are subjective (but that doesn't make it impossible to quantify them to a degree and compare them). I don't agree that every area of the physics is subjective, as if one doesn't model an area and the other does, then its totally objective.
You are right. Some simulators doesn't model some aereas. And that's objective, I agree.