@roulis
I have to say that I share DW's puzzlement when trying to understand your point. From previous postings:
A simulator stays a simulator today, since they always have commands which don't exist on the plane and use metalanguage
In the simulator a hidden mistake ...... may modify the behaviour of the simulated system (plane, inertial system, aso) without you know it, and you have a bad surprise when you do the same action on the plane, despite your aerodynamic algorithm is OK.
Finally, which was the math model ?
You seem to be saying that you believe there could have been a mistake in programming the simulator [Dozy has been commenting however on errors in the flight EFCS units]
However, I cannot relate to the simulator having "commands" which don't exist on the aeroplane. The simulators at Toulouse are linked to the "Iron Bird" which uses actual flight standard hardware (and its associated software) so the processing of pilot commands is identical on the aircraft and in the simulator. The only difference is that the simulator uses a mathematical model of the aerodynamics and processes the pilot commands in conjunction with that model to produce the aircraft motions which are fed back into the flight standard EFCS units rather than those emanating directly from aircraft response.To quote from the Airbus FAST article on the iron bird:
From the flight deck, the Iron Bird can be flown like a standard aircraft, with a computer generating the aerodynamic model and such environmental conditions as air density, air temperature, airspeed and Mach number.
Since you seem to be accepting that the likelyhood of error in the aerodynamic representation is small, the only source of difference between simulator and actual aircraft that fits your argument is, so far as I can see, the solution of the six degree of freedom equations of motion. Such an error would surely not be confined to the particular case we have been discussing, and in any case the correspondence between the actual flight records and the simulated version of the last few seconds of flight (page 13 of Annexe X of the BEA report) says that no significant error existed.
Also of course the method of solution of these equations has been been around a long time in various simulators so there is no innovation there.
Could you perhaps be a little more specific regarding the reasons why you think the simulator results to be suspect?