What I'm wondering now, what exactly do you want to hear around this topic?
(sorry for off-topic)
IDK if this question was directed at me specifically (because your post was in response to my post) or if it is just a general question...
What I personally would like to see (which is not really within the scope of possibility for guys like us), is more direct comparisons to the sim car and it's real life counter part with a series of standardized tests. Not just lap times, but actual tests set up in a fairly controlled enviroment such as a skid pad, that demonstrates the exact behaviour of the car in certain scenarios. Such a thing would be difficult to do and probably would not yield much usefull information unless it was done to an extrememly exact standard.
An example of one such test in real life is the "Moose test", where a car has to negotiate a very sharp right/left manouver to see if it rolls over or not - again the test must be very standadized so the comparisons between cars are valid. It fasinated me that the best car ever to complete this test was not some hot hatch or mid-engined sports car, but a Citreon Xantia (FWD family car).
I find "testing the integrity" of something rather entertaining. One of my favorite shows growing up was Mythbusters, and I could see this hypothetical show being somewhat similar to that format (test something to see if it works, and then if it does not, what needs to happen to "replicate the results").
As far as you personally - I think just keep doing whatever you feel passionate about and simply go wherever the inspiration takes you. If that happens to align with what others want to watch then great, but if it dosn't, who cares. It's only Youtube, no one really cares anyway which is harsh but true. If you want to make a living out of it - maybe thats a different story and you should care more what others think, otherwise just do whatever feels good.
Harsh criticism but true!
I admit not having that deep knowledge of physics, or motorsport in general.
I've acquired a bit of general basic knowledge about setups. But also rather superficial.
I slipped into SimRacing myself 4 years ago.
My negative comment definitely wasn't about guys like you who are simply sharing their love of the hobby and are genuine, regardless of whether you have super in-depth knowledge or not. Even if your intention is to grow your channel and gain a following and you came to rF2 only somewhat recently, I see nothing wrong with that.
There is just something about these bigger channels that rubs me the wrong way, like the wider they try to cast their net to appeal to a larger audience, the more superficial their content becomes. And then because they gain a somewhat decent following, they think they are suddenly authorities on simulation even though they really don't have much in depth knowledge on the subject. I am not saying that I do have such deep knowledge... my criticisms of simulation have become less as I realise that I don't have the amount of technical knowledge needed to make concrete definitive statements about hardcore physics questions, let alone how to simulate such physics.
Funilly enough, a similar thing happened with Mythbusters (a kind of "selling-out). Where I saw that it was becoming more about the explosions and the spectacle, rather than staying true to the base concept. I noticed that some of there testing methods (though they were never really proper science) really took a real downturn with blatantly poor methods for testing something. It's like they no longer cared about the rigour of their testing, because it was more about pure entertainment. No doubt, it was all about entertainment to begin with obviously, but the passion of the presenters at least in the beginning was real.
