@RC45
You still haven't answered my question. When you input the parameters that you measured from your car, what exactly is lacking in the handling of the C5? You keep saying that you had to increase the camber beyond the factory envelope, yet you don't reveal the original issue when real-world parameters are used. All I'm suggesting is, it's a complex model, it will never be perfect, so maybe there's an inaccuracy with how you modeled one of the many, many other parameters that go into the model. Fudging the camber may just be offsetting an error in another part of the model .That error could be from you, or it could be from Kunos. Since you're not willing to share your data, we can't say for sure.
Regarding the camber adjustment; ok, an assumption was made by Kunos to simplify the model, so they didn't account for movement of the LCA location. It's not some monumental shortcoming, it's just an assumption that greatly simplifies the model; 99.99% of people won't be able to feel the difference. Imagine how complex the kinematics model would be if they included the camber adjustment strategy of every car in the game (inboard eccentrics, outboard rod ends, inboard shims, outboard shims, mac strut camber plates, mac strut eccentric bolts...). Now you would have to quantify (in addition to the location of each suspension point) how that asjustable point moves the rest of the suspension points in 3D space when the given mechanism is adjusted. So now the kinematics model is at least twice as complex as the simplified method (increasing their own workload and turning off many modders who don't have access to that level of data), but they've only made minuscule improvements to the accuracy of the model. The value they would be getting from that added complexity would never be worth it, so I say that simplification is totally valid.