In a potential futile attempt to extract something useful out of this thread, let me take a guess where the complaint is. While the latest betas have definitely eliminated some mouse clicks and smoothed the overall process of creating simulations, there is still an aspect that some might find bothersome/cumbersome/unintuitive.
Right now, a flight simulation consists of two separate entities: the motor configuration and the simulation, and this (I think) is the crux of the complaint. There is a one->many relationship between the two. Although the mouse clicks have been streamlined, there is still a two-step process to first create a motor configuration, then simulate using that configuration. Motor configurations include deployment options. The simulations have a separate set of editable parameters.
This is a very flexible arrangement, but splits all the information for a particular flight sim in two separate tabs. If I want to change a particular sim, I may have to bounce to a different tab to change the motor config.
An alternative, more direct approach would be to include motor configuration and deployment information as part of each sim. This is probably analogous to the way Rocksim does it, if I recall correctly. Create a new sim, select motors, set sim parameters, and go. Editing any parameter of a sim would all be in one place. This approach might sacrifice a bit of flexibility, and/or make it a little harder to share motor configs among multiple sims (I would need to think about a good way to do it). But it would probably be more straightforward. It would also lend itself to something more like a wizard UI to set up a sim.
I hope folks will let me know if I'm hitting (or missing) the mark here.
It took me a bit of play before I felt comfortable with the one-to-many relationships between rocket -> flight configuration -> simulations. So I could see many people finding it either confusing or not worth the hassle---"I just wanna pick a motor and sim it, let's gooo!!"
But the current structure is a reasonable compromise between usability and flexibility. I would hate to see it reduced to a simpler structure effectively denormalizing configurations and simulations. I think usability can be improved without making that sacrifice. Separately, the flexibility and power can also be increased without radical paradigm changes. It's going to take me a bit of time today to type out some thoughts, but I will do so. It's actually been on my to-do list already to pose a couple of these ideas based on some rocket design work I've been doing lately.
In any event, I really wanted to break (hopefully) productive discussion of this topic out from the originating thread, so here we are...