It seems 80% of all judgements of a bad or great physics car come from how good they can powerslide the car, with the remaining 20% going to "everything else". Even the few different "famous" simracing youtube guys/channels just mostly keep on about the same 2 things "Can I control and save oversteer at will" (or " Does it do what I want/ask it to do" ), and how they personally get on with the FFB (we are so far from the days when people would disable FFB when judging pure vehicle behaviour, now the FFB itself is one of the biggest influences on how people judge pure vehicle behaviour, sadly). If God himself made the most perfect simulation in the history of mankind, with the exception of power oversteer physics, and made the power oversteer trickier to handle than not only real-life, but trickier than even current gen sims, then people all across forums, websites, "famous" youtube reviewers etc. would hail the car as a fail, as an example of the incorrect "harder = more realistic" philosophy, a bad sim-car, etc. (Remember, with the exception of power oversteer controllability, the physics of this car would be a perfect 1:1 representation of real life, and pretty much the greatest sim-car ever made from god himself.) And sadly Vice-Versa. If a car's physics were overall terrible EXCEPT for the power oversteer which would be the most natural and perfect ever made (1:1 resemblence of real life), then that car with overall absolutely terrible physics would most likely get hailed as an amazing sim-car just because it does so amazingly well on the "can I save/control/hold a slide" test. You see/hear it all the time. From reviews, to all these known youtube videos/channels. "Can I control a powerslide?" , "Can I save a powerslide?", "How far can I go before the powerslide becomes unrecoverable?", " Does the powerslide feel natural?", "How generally difficult is it when you powerslide?" are examples of 90% of what they all talk about when they judge a sim-car (and often judge them so wrongly). 50% of car physics isn't even judged, it seems, on physics themself anymore but on the personal "feel" of the reviewer's real-life FFB experience, then the remaining 50% seems like it's split into 2 parts; 40% towards the current "power-oversteer controllability" and 10% for, well, everything else ("everthing else" is a MASSIVE amount of different vehicle physics behaviours/situations/characteristics). For this reasom some cars which may have some amazing physics traits but may suffer with some power-oversteer traits will get such a bad rep from most people, and on the other hand some car's that seem to do things odd/weird/incorrect but nail the power-oversteer traits just right will get hailed as some of the best sim cars around. I remember when it came to the RFactor 2 civic (just an example) most of what everyone talked about when judging physics was about how sidewaye you can get it and still save it, as if this were a drifting physics simulation, or a "how far/how much can you screw up but still save the car" physics simulation. Note: This is general speak, not about the Panoz. Regarding my previous comments about the Panoz (in the official Panoz thread) I may have to retract my comments about it, I shall see. I will give it a proper, much longer go later. Note 2: This is general sim-racing talk, not specifically just RFactor 2. Also, this is not intended to compliment or criticize RFactor 2 or any other ISI engine based sim, it is just general sim-racing talk.