well, why do you play a game in front of a PC? why not buy a real F-18 and fly like real? if you are soooooo into realism.

the word "simulation" can mean a lot of things. for some people it means simulation of technical data(F-18 can do mach 1.8 and no more! ), historical data ( there is no F-16 in the year 1965! )...
for some people it means simulation of technical theories ( acceleration = force / mass )... and a 3D model of aircraft is just a shell that looks nicer than the "X-Y-Z" symbols.
i don't mind an F22 doing VTOL like F35 or an F18 flying in the outer space, as long as the shell looks pretty.
i prefer a single 90%-correct-looking 3D model with 1000 historically-wrong functions than 1000 pieces of 60%-correct-looking 3D models with historically-correct functions in the package, which can easily be found on the internet.
so if you see a guy made an outer space flight game with an F-18 model, don't think he is an idiot who believes there is plenty of oxygen in the outer space. he may be smarter and more knowledgable than any "expert" whom you believe in.

some "expert" would say: if he is not an idiot , so why does he use an F-18 model in an outer space game?
well, why do you play a game in front of a PC? why not buy a real F-18 and fly like real? if you are soooooo into realism.

F-16 can't do VTOL! F-16 can't do carrier Op! yeah blah blah blah, a real F-16 should have an MS keyboard and Logitech joystick in the cockpit , or your "sim" can't be realistic.

Sorry Fenix, this is not aim at you. i am just talking about the common tendencies of people's thinking.

some people think they are experts and the most common reason is that: they haven't seen the real experts, or, they can not understand what the real experts do. just like a pilot who calls himself "ACE" would never expect being shot down by another pilot, until he was.

it was not your problem Fenix. just that your comment reminded me of some others' behavior.