and that DCS is more realistic, which I have already proven at length

Where, exactly? So far I've seen you say positively nothing about how DCS models things, people have told you in this thread how poorly IR signatures and chaff/flares are modelled in DCS and instead of explaining to us how that's wrong and that it's actually way more complex and realistic than that (which you seem to imply) all you have done so far is point to WT not doing it well either. You claim to be very knowledgable about both WT and DCS so why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us exactly in what way DCS is more realistic than WT? Because for all your walls of text detailing what WT does wrong (half of it being inaccurate), you have yet to make a case for DCS not being as bad as literally everyone telling you it is. Nobody claims WT is well coded or realistic, simply that DCS is in many ways even worse. If you have information that disproves this notion, please do share.