It's really not hard. I swear. From my P.O.V., it's just you fighting the example at this point.
We have had so many examples in this thread at this point and many of our positions have roughly remained the same. So I suspect that the differences of perspective run deeper than a matter of "fighting the example."
Once you attempt to model reality, by definition you have increased the realism (the simulation) because at the point the model can be improved.
And again, we are only looking at one simulation here (one computer flight game, one TTRPG, etc.). Before- no wind. After? Wind. Once you have introduced it, you can at least attempt to improve it, discuss it, and have it more closely match actual wind effects.
You are again just restating/repeating your thesis unsupported as if it were self-evident. Based upon your above comment that "it's really not hard," you find it to be self-evident. But there are those, myself included, who don't find this proposition to be self-evident. You are welcome to accuse us of living in a bubble of group think or being intentionally obtuse, but I do think we are all being genuine here.
I don't think that adding a model for a phenomenon inherently makes it more realistic than one that does not because the unmodeled phenomenon may present a more realistic depiction than one with a modeled phenomenon. Just because others can "improve" the model is just a red herring. It doesn't matter. Because others may never see that model and provide a superior version. So simply having that model is not inherently a net positive. That has to be earned through more than a creative intent to model reality.
Again, one TTRPG may have a model for wind. Another TTRPG may not have a model for wind but will instead allows for participants to freely establish game fiction, which may include wind. Knowing nothing about either the former game model or the latter established fiction, we cannot say which game is "realistic" than the other.
What's more, as per my first post in this thread, most of the sh*t people make appeals of "realism" to when talking about games are not about "realism," but about aesthetic game preferences. These are gamist debates masquerading as "realism" debates.
But what you are stating, in effect, is that you can't even bother because there is no such thing- and that's crazy talk from my P.O.V.; that would mean that, basically, all of science, CGI, simulations, and even such things as econometrics and math applications to sports are useless because model aren't worth either doing or improving. And I'm pretty sure that's not your argument.
Probably because you are presenting a
reductio ad absurdum. I'm stating that simply attempting to model phenomena in reality does not have any inherent objective positive value of contributing to realism and sometimes this models can be more harmful than the lack of models.
Again, I'm pretty sure I'm familiar with the debate, given that I've quoted it several times. Are you familiar enough with the 70s and 80s wargaming and TTRPG debates that you'd like to discuss what EGG really meant? I mean, I'm game! Are you sure you have this right?
I'm not sure what EGG really meant, but I have my own genuine reading of the text that you provided me as you have yours. You seem pretty confident about what EGG meant. But EGG's texts have been used to support people holding wildly different opinions and positions before, so I'm not sure how this may be different.
Again, you are saying betweem games (and what does that have to do with your final example)? If you look back at what I have been consistently saying, I have never stated anything with regards to trying to make qualitative statements between different games, only about statements within a game.
The debate has variously been about both as the topic has broadly been about realism in tabletop gaming. This has included people making claims about the increase of objective realism within games and comparisons between games. The reason I asked about the sword is that systems and subsystems can vary across games. So if we just compare a single item, such as a longsword, can we say which version of the otherwise same game represents a more realistic portrayal of longswords. So if all things are equal between two games - one where a longsword deals d8 damage and one longsword deals d10 damage - which is more realistic?