As are we all, I've spent enough time in real simulators swearing at myself under my breath to know that no matter how realistic the programmers make it a PC programme isn't the real thing and nor is a full on six degrees of motion simulator.
A lot of the things you talk about making a game realistic such as engine management with cowling flaps, rpm etc. are the sort of things a front line pilot would attend to automatically without thinking because of the amount of training he'll have done. As I don't have enough spare time to simulate having a second career I'll choose to take the easy option on that, the challenge I want is taking on another aircraft or a ground target, not doing the ground school for an aircraft.
I agree that sims that presents you with a challenge are more rewarding, however I think we disagree on where the challenge should be. I think it should be in manouvering the aircraft to get a kill (with the weapons operating in a realistic manner) with it performing as close as dammit to real life. I don't think the challenge should be in memorising the 140+ switches and checks you have to make to get the engine started, otherwise you may as well buy MSFS and one of the add on airliners.
As for should I be subsidised? As it's far more likley the people like me buying the game who make it financially viable, the question is should you be subsidised?