man, i wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt but i really think it was unjustified now given you chose to ignore the actual substance of my response for the sake of... defending your ego i guess?
my point was that the burden of proof is on you - while this [redacted] character with their potential 'shortcomings' has defended their work with data, probably more than we could reasonably ask for as a community over the years, you have not provided a single number beyond the car's weight? to demonstrate how supposedly far-off the tires are. you state yourself that you dont understand any of the extended functionality but think your claims fall under 'reasonable certainty'. no telemetry, no data... something about shortcomings.. i wonder if you can even see the irony in that?
there is no magic or belief involved here, there is math that leads to consistent and measurable input -> output behavior. not understanding this is a real example of "a fault or failure to meet a certain standard".
there is an objective difference between 'i feel' and 'i know', and it's important to understand the difference between subjectively familiar, and objectively realistic when the context is simulation physics.
I understand your scientific attitude etc etc... as i said "I am not saying nor claiming that my solution is the closest to reality".
I have either never claimed to demonstrate mathematically that a sports car of that type does not behave like this in conditions of loss of grip and that the pressure and temperature cannot rise so rapidly in response to that load. (maybe it could even be done...)
If I find myself in front of the ravine, I don't wait for the mathematical proof that shows me that if I take a step I will fall down... my opinion is to go back
so my opinion is for example that from the many best motoring videos and tests it can be deduced that the nsx tyres "do not catch fire" when pushed to the limit, yes i know i know it is not mathematically proven it is just my opinion..
Clearly i haven't the proof you answer for, and maybe I doubt the developers of the mod have it either....
I simply as other people have a doubt which arises from this reasoning of mine:
If the fundamental parameter surface_transfer** is less than 0.0150, and the mod value is 0.99, the case are 2 or this value is overridden by some csp extension Or is take into account as in original cars.
In the first case there are many consequences: being set wrong buggy csp etc.. or i am wrong and the tyre model is set right.
In the second case or is simply wrong because all other cars have extremely lower values or all assetto original tyres are set wrong.
**the parameter is explained in various documents on modding and if modified its impact is evident on the behavior of the tires therefore it is fundamental...
So the burden of proof is at its best on developer...
Sorry the long discussion
Ciao, Marco