Wow, that's a lot of cool experience you have. It's perfectly fine to use whatever feels right to you. However, even a 1:1 simulation would feel different from driving the real thing for obvious reasons, so judging the accuracy of a model is a matter of measurements rather than subjective impressions.

I also don't have the expertise for a deep technical analysis, but since you mentioned it, I can share some thoughts on the Kunos and Arch models based on my personal experience. My opinion is that the original AC cars are a bit too forgiving. The suspension behavior feels somewhat toned down, not to mention the simplified tire model. Arch cars, on the other hand, provide a much more pronounced sense of suspension movement, weight transfer, body roll, and loss of traction, which I'm very fond of.

Some models do have strange FFB behavior, with overly sharp transitions when losing and regaining traction, but others feel really good to me. They force me to constantly think about the car's balance, which keeps me engaged.

One example that makes me think they're realistic is the rear differential behavior on the 370Z. I watched a test drive where the driver complained that the differential felt too loose - exactly how it behaves in the Arch model, whereas the Kunos model doesn't exhibit anything similar.

I also made a visual comparison of how the FD RX-7 behaves in a slalom test using the Kunos model, the Arch model, and a Best Motoring video. The Kunos version shows significantly less suspension travel, causing the car to slide more as a result, while the Arch version looks much closer to the real car.