Your answer to my constructive criticism is simply to threaten to silence me.

No. Your opinion, even if it runs contrary to mine, is appreciated. What I do not appreciate is that you ignore all arguments coming from the very developer that you want to change somethin telling you that it's not quite as simple as you make it to be. That's not "constructive criticism", it's closer to ignorant dismissal. You don't actually read or try to comprehend what the people who disagree with you are trying to tell you. You just pick the bits and pieces that fit your preconceived ideas and ignore everything that doesn't. Either this is a disingenious way to participate in a discussion (you don't sound like you're stupid), or it's at least on the borderline to trolling.

Tree collisions alone, just to stick to that point that so far you chose to ignore, is a HUGE issue in ground simulation, simply because of the sheer numbers (millions), the large areas that are affected (anywhere up to 80%), the fact that tree branches can prematurely detonate munitions passing through, and we haven't even touched the issue of line of sight calculations. Given that the topic of trees in ground simulations is a widely covered topic in the academic field of modeling & simulations and that you do not need to invest weeks to learn a certain software in order to find out what this is about, I suggest that this time YOU do your own leg work and read up a little bit about the associated mathematics before you go on. Because if you are really interested in meaningful answers, you need to learn to ask meaningful questions and present relevant examples. DCS World and Falcon 4 are not relevant for a wide range of reasons; let me just say "ground resolution".

If we reduced the terrain mesh width in Falcon or DCS to the levels that are used in SB Pro - 12.5 meters - rather than the hundreds of meters that they use you'd grind these simulations to a halt because they simply could not perform the line of sight calculations that they currently do.Handling ground forces in a non-persistent simulation bubble is permissible - good practice even - for a jet bomber simulation, but absolutely no-go for simulating ground combat in professional training for the roles for which SB Pro is being used.

NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that you presented so far can be directly applied to our case in the way that you did it. That's not to say that SB Pro is perfect the way it is and that nothing can be improved. There is a lot of room for improvement. We know it very well, it's just that, and I've been telling you this right from the start, not only are the questions at hand more complicated than you make them sound to be, we're also talking about entirely different economical boundary conditions. Team size is one that you chose to declare as "irrelevant" (based on what knowledge?), market size is one, and let's not forget that the old Falcon 4 engine that the countless volunteers of programmers improved to the culminating point of BMS, had a head start of more than 11 million USD that Microprose sunk into the engine's development.

I'm not the least diminishishing the accomplishment of the people that worked on Falcon after Microprose went bust - the very same people make up for 80% of the current Steel Beasts programmers' team - by saying that they built the BMS pyramid on the top of a very tall mountain that Microprose bulldozed into the landscape.

Steel Beasts is "just" a pyramid built on a level ground. It was literally built from scratch and hasn't yet received the same finishing treatment that BMS is to the original Falcon 4. So it's also not quite so shiny to look at. You don't need to tell me that because I very well know that myself.