Well, yes that is my thought as well. But does this not pose a problem of deciding what is reasonably accurate if two methods of analysis do not agree? (within a reasonable amount).
I wouldn’t mind if at least the normalised data would show similar trends, but this doesnt happen either.
For example if you normalise the SimC data for venthyr at 6450 (1.00), and use a value of 5900 for night fae then the relative value for NF is 0.914.
Using the base gear from AMR as an example (not the same gear as above):
Ven 4,719
NF 5,160
With AMR the NF value is 1.09 for a similar set of gear (normalising should take out the differences seen between fight length etc.). Normalised data between the two simulations seems pretty extreme in conclusions. In terms of trusting which simulation provides an accurate representation of output - without a 3rd simulation method, can either be trusted?