I don't know why every issue becomes completely black or white. Now you're making it sound like rF2 tyres require an engineering degree to develop. Close enough can be good enough, especially when comparing to rF1 tyres which have more inherent limitations in their behaviour. Part of the reason modders find the rF2 model difficult is because it's different to rF1, another part can be that the data they have on hand is performance based instead of construction based, and finally it's a longer process and trial and error therefore takes longer (much longer). Many good rF1 mods weren't based on data at all, but trial-and-error testing with a few people checking how the end result 'feels'. You don't need an engineering team or classified information, though of course it would help. Regarding the above list: some of those actually aren't modelled, some of those are in the [Realtime] section which means you can quite quickly narrow down to values that give realistic-looking results. The geometry is obviously a difficulty to get exactly right, but how close do you need to be for it to feel pretty good? Then we're back to a laser-scanned track vs non-laser scanned style debate, where again I would argue close enough can be good enough while for some people just knowing it's not 'exact' makes them unhappy with it. Once you bring the FFB discussions into things it's difficult to know how anyone can be completely happy with anything.