The realism aspect is highly subjective I think.
Flat lies is at least highly intuitive, and most can pick it up to a standard going just with that.
Often UELs really is learning pure computer angles from the outset. Around the green it really needs improvement many would agree.
If you ever have played real golf yes FLs can be a bit too superhuman (OK very with mouse clicks and equipment attributes), but it kicks off with a good basic yeah this is intuitive. UELs just leaves you scratching your head at who could come up with that and why.......In short, for me, one captures a good degree of essential essence and the other way too many only computer angles...........
The best players who are chasing credits are good at both generally. Remember the best flat lie players quickly ramped up for UELs when they saw credits. Arguably UELs then quickly lost some of it's initial following who found they could not beat the best at UELs anymore than they ever could before.
For those that like UELs great and wish you all the best with as many tourneys as you can get. Maybe TG might give it another spin to see??
I also see why WGT took the action it did with their business hat on - Numbers playing pure and simple if I remember rightly. They either could not or were not able to efficiently correct the issues to see if they could get more interest.
I think more would go for it if they got more intuitivism in it, but ..............