It's not really about what I like or my opinion it's about this bold face lie that FP plays like VPX because it doesn't.
You and Terry don't agree anyway as he said it's the same and you said it's close.
I will only comment on what I said. It's my opinion, and mine alone. You also took it a bit too literally.
Playing "like" VPX is not a false statement. I didn't say "the exact same" as VPX.
How VPX plays varies... alot. There is no VPX plays like X, and that's all there is to it, and all VPX tables will play the same as X. You have plane jane VPX physics out of the box.... you have JP's physics... you have various other people's preferences... and you have nFozzy physics (which you didn't even know what nFozzy even was).... and nFozzy has been the preference of most who create / mod / update VPX tables lately.
nFozzy is more than just adjusting some VPX settings. You copy / paste new physics code, and it requires the entire table to be adjusted and tuned for it. You add new replacements for rubbers, slings, drop targets, etc that allow for more control of how the ball reacts / scatter bounce, etc to work with the new physics code.
FizX physics on FP uses similar code and techniques as nFozzy physics. This is not the old days old just changing the physics xml (which is what "this" topic was about) or using a hacked FP exe, or the older "Dynamic Physics". You need to do similar to updating a VPX table for nFozzy physics. You need to update the entire table / replace rubber / drop targets / slings, add new physics code, etc.
While testing FizX and adding it to Sonic, I had multiple VP creators test it. They each saw how much of a difference it was and loved how it played. Many people were surprised by it. You ask multiple VP table creators how a table "should" play, and they all will give you a different opinion.
Playing "like" VPX is not a false statement. (it was more a correction on how out of date the older Dynamic Physics guide info was). The changes in flippers / slings / rubbers etc are much closer to nFozzy and at least on par with a standard VPX table. This is not just me saying this, as many others feel the same way. "How" that plays is up to whoever adds / tunes the physics, and how they update the table. What I prefer won't be the same as what others want... so I don't consider how I tune a table as the DeFacto standard for "absolute realism" compared to real table... which I don't own any.
I have always maintained that VPX still plays better and that FP's jankiness can still creep in there at times with how the ball acts. I said before... I know you better and I don't try to convert.... only inform.
If you are here to defend how virtual tables should play compared to a real table.... then do so on the VPX topics with those guys... as I'm sure they would be more interested in debating that. They certainly do enough of that with each other and don't always agree either... and you would get a better debate there then on a FP topic.
I have no interest in some lame VPX vs FP physics war. So if that is where this is going... don't bother trying to defend the honor of VPX. No one needs to (it's great and I love it).... and I don't need to defend FizX on FP, as 1000's of others are loving it as well.