Yes, what your post was about was how development resources are allocated given that some of the assistance features were broken or needed improvement.
I posted this Do simmers generally not care about the flight physics of the sim? - #41 by AlpineB4652
in a separate thread examining why people don’t seem to care about game physics more - which is really the flip-side of this debate.
Understanding how things should be prioritised is much more useful than pie-in-the-sky debate about 2 versions of MSFS.
The market scale that comes with the expanded user base is of great benefit to all, but there is a risk when it comes to deciding on what features should get priority. The biggest risk is that a simulator that has too many ‘assists’ baked-in to the flight or weather model/physics becomes less capable as a simulator.
There is some evidence of this risk playing out: regression in cloud turbulence and icing effects following forum feedback. Likewise new options now exist for Devs to bake-in what are effectively hidden crosswind take off and landing assists to aircraft flight models following forum feedback. So, be careful what you wish for!
My own view is that as a design principle it is sounder to make the core physics as high-fidelity as sensible for a home entertainment sim, then enable different play-style through user choice of optional assists. It’s way more difficult to go the other way and if you do, you run the risk of alienating the core user group who play an important role in driving development.
But if so, this puts a real premium on making sure the assists that are there actually work and that as new realism features are added there is a way to tune these as had to be done with turbulence.