Probably not. I got tired of letting my computer run overnight to simulate and then realize something went wrong in the morning. And it kind of took the joy a bit out of actually being able to play FM.
The results all just fall in line with every other experiment thus far.
I tried adjusting the FMSuperScout program that's available to include a singular score to rate every player on. But having played several seasons with those methods now it seems to have an adverse effect.
A4 said: oh interesting, but do you think it was a mistake tho? I play maybe 80% of the matches using quick result, most people probably do the same would be interesting to see QME breakdown Expand
Since you're trying to figure out which attributes perform better than others in the match engine, it's a mistake on his part.
You are able to simulate a lot more matches this way, since the QME uses a lot less processing power required. Which is probably why he used this method, without actually realizing the consequences.
Instant Result doesn't use QME from what I'm aware of. QME is only used for simulation of 'background' matches, and the level of detail you can adjust yourself in the Detail Level menu. If you set it to None, it will use QME for all of these matches.
A4 said: There are some weird results in this video, I don't know the guy and how trusted his test is but it's way different than pretty much all the actual results I saw
Expand
Didn't see this until now.
But I'm 100% sure he has all matches simulated with QME (Quick Match Engine) instead of the actual ME (Match Engine).
This will produce a lot more random effects, with CA playing the biggest role. So stats like passing, etc. get more important.
I did the same mistake over 200k matches before realizing.
It's possible that my method of randomized player attribute generation was insufficient to check for a knee in attribute efficiency. It's proving to be much harder to code, but not impossible I believe. But first I will need to wait out the data gathering for a day or two.
Panneton0 said: Does your simulation engine has any way of randomizing positional proficiency? (like having your ST being somewhere between ineffective and natural ST)
We have an early view of how it has an impact, but your simulation engine seems very efficient so we might be able to properly (finally!) isolate that.
Amazing work buddy. Expand
Proficiencies are a 15-byte block on the player record (GK, SW, DL, DC, DR, DM, ML, MC, MR, AML, AMC, AMR, ST, WBL, WBR) and I used it to force every club into one formation. (Since the FM26 top tactic table is all the same formation)
The engine does model this explicitly: there's a MATCH_OOP_SCORING_PROVIDER containing OOP_ATTRIBUTE and PITCH_PROXIMITY_SCORE. So the question is magnitude, and worthy of further testing. There are no named entries for in position, so that means that is the baseline or default for ME, and raises the question how important a seperate OOP formation is.
Proficiency only matters via which slot the AI managers actually uses players in. Randomise it without pinning the formation and you measure the penalty plus the AI manager's reaction to a squad of weird random position players. So for efficiency sake, that's why I pinned down the formation first.
Panneton0 said: Also, positionning having such a bad influence on results points toward a problem with the ME. It might try to "position" players in a way it thinks helps, but it makes them play worst. That way, players who are out-of-position are often in an actual better spot than their "better" counterparts. Interesting result to be further investigated. Expand I'd hold off on the ME conclusion just yet, this is again worthy of some more testing. In my test CA is pinned at 150, so every coefficient is opportunity cost, not absolute effect. -9.6 means "CA spent there isn't spent on Pace, and that trade costs ~10 pts/season". It didn't not show that raising Positioning on an unchanged player hurts him. Since I'm not testing on potential, rather current ability in the ME.
Your hypothesis is testable though: let CA float, raise Positioning alone, add nothing back. If it's still negative you're onto something. I'll try run it and report back.
Worth noting Positioning costs 0.71 CA/point, near the top of the cost table. Corners is only -2.6 raw but costs 0.12/point, so it's -22 per CA point vs Positioning's -13. Some of the apparent harm is just an expensive attribute, and if that's at the cost of other less worthy attributes, I doubt it matters a lot for ME outcome calculations.
Yes, that seems to be my conclusion on it as well. With this method of reading out data through the code however it's just easier to get a bigger data set. This data set was from an about 8-hour overnight session, but since the output was pretty much in line with the rest of the findings published before, I didn't even bother to let it run for more to be honest.
One thing that my research contradicts though is that I didnt't seem to find any 'knee' for attributes. Where a certain attribute would perform much better than just 1 point lower. I've read some other threads and research that suggest for several attributes a 8 minimum, or you get much less results. Not saying that's not valid, but that type of result didn't really show up for me.
TL;DR: I randomised all 60 attributes of every player in a 20-club league every 75 seconds and let the game holiday through ~16,000 full-engine matches. Pace and Acceleration are worth ~3x anything else. Everything technical measured at or below zero. According to these resutls no attribute has a threshold, they pay linearly 1-20. Once you divide by what a point costs in CA, the best buys are Work Rate, Jumping Reach and the hidden personality attributes, which are (mostly) free.
Method FM's engine is C++ with MSVC RTTI, so every object carries its class name behind the vtable pointer, so you can find every player and scoreline by name instead of hunting offsets. Loop: write a random attribute vector into every squad, sleep 75s while the game holidays, read back and harvest scorelines, repeat every 75s to take into account promoted teams.
Warning that cost me 120,000 matches Match Detail Level decides which simulator runs. On None everything resolves through the Quick Match Engine and effects come out 10x too small in the wrong order. Set the competition to All Competitive Matches. The quick path has its own QME_STAT_MANAGER sitting beside Poisson and Normal distribution objects, so it samples statistics rather than simulating football.
Dataset 15,951 full-engine matches. 47 visible + 5 hidden + 8 personality attributes randomised. CA and PA pinned at 150, morale pinned at 15. Attributes are stored 1-100 and displayed /5; personality attributes sit on a different record at plain 1-20.
Reading the numbers CA is pinned, so ability is a fixed budget and every weight answers "given fixed ability, where is it best spent?" Positioning at -9.6 does not mean Positioning harms you, rather it means CA spent there is not spent on Pace, and that trade costs about 10 points a season.
Validation Fitted on 5,011 matches, tested on 5,011 never used for fitting. Correlation with actual goal difference: Measured weights 0.392; Pace+Acceleration only 0.365; per-position 0.329; CA only 0.318; everything except the speed pair -0.043 Favourable quarter of the test set averages +1.79 goal difference, unfavourable -0.73. A two-segment fit searching every knee from 6 to 16 found no thresholds anywhere.
Global weights, CA cost and value Format: attribute, points per season, (CA cost of one point, points per CA point). CA cost measured separately by ramping a single attribute on an isolated player, R2=0.93. Hidden and personality attributes cost no CA at all. Ratios for near-free attributes are huge because the denominator is tiny, and read those as "free", not as literal multiples. Work Rate is the standout: nearly as valuable as Pace per point of ability, at a third of the cost. Decisions is the worst buy in the game, while the second most expensive attribute and negative. Pressure is worth 14.9 points a season and costs nothing.
Positional weights (0-20 within each group) Acceleration outranks Pace for CB and FB and the order flips further forward which seems plausible. The positional tables predicted worse out of sample than the pooled one (0.329 vs 0.392).
For goalkeepers, read the top two or three only. Reflexes and Agility separate cleanly; below that it is noise, and Handling ranking under Corners is not a finding. One keeper per match against ten outfielders means that column has about a tenth of the statistical power.
TL;DR: I’m doing a "Win UCL & Retire" legacy challenge in FM26. After winning the UCL with Milan in life #1, my second manager is "stuck" at ENPPI in Egypt. Despite winning the CAF Champions League, the board refuses all coaching badge requests (3 years running), and no other clubs will hire me despite my high reputation.
Hi everyone,
I’m currently running a specific Legacy Challenge in FM26. The rules are: start unemployed with no badges/experience, win the Champions League as fast as possible, then retire and start a brand-new manager in the same save. It’s a great way to see the world and play with unique regens once the real-world players are gone.
In my first life, I went from the Greek 2nd division to Turkey, then eventually to AC Milan, where I won the UCL in my third season there.
The Current Situation: I’ve now started my second career as a Greek manager. I took the best job available at the time: ENPPI in Egypt. It’s been a massive success on the pitch—we won the league immediately and the CAF Champions League in my second season, bringing a lot of wealth and stature to the club.
The Problem: I’ve hit a total developmental wall. Despite the continental success: The Badge Block: For three straight seasons, I have requested to study for coaching badges at every opportunity. The board says "No" every single time. I’ve tried every dialogue path, but they won't budge. The Job Market: No other clubs are offering me deals. I even "save-scummed" a test where I resigned to see the landscape; zero clubs were interested in hiring me, leaving me effectively "unhireable." The Stats: Using Genie Scout, I can see my Reputation is Home 3125 / Current 7086 / World 2750. However, because I started with no experience/badges and the board won't let me study, my actual coaching attributes are still terrible.
It feels like I’m in a Reputation Trap. My rep (7086) is high because of the trophies, but because my badges are non-existent, European or high-reputation clubs won't even trigger an interview. Meanwhile, ENPPI seems to be gatekeeping my badges.
Has anyone else encountered this Badge Lock in FM26? Is there a specific trick to forcing a stubborn board to say yes, or is my manager’s profile essentially broken because my success in Africa outpaced any qualifications?
Squirrel_Player's python code's valuation for important attribute, and attributes per position is flawed. While I'm sure it's good for a quick look at potential transfer targets, FM scout's calculation method (and people's own ratings such as MDW22 and ykykyky) offer a much better solution in every regard.
Similar to the in-game information given for each position, attributes are split up in Key and Preferable - and non-necessary attributes. These are then given a weight, not sure about the exact number, but let's say 5x for Key and 3x for Preferable, which makes those attributes more important in the overall calculation.
However this approach is entirely flawed, as it completely disregards important attributes (regardless of position/role/duty) entirely. So specialized players, with high dribbling, pace, acceleration will score high as a Winger in the program, but in reality because of low other attributes which are no included in the calculation for Winger position (for instance Work Rate) will perform badly in-game.
This is also the same calculation method squirrel_plays uses in his python code by the way. The program also takes into account player's position I believe, and attributes a negative weight if a player is not a Natural in the position you want to play him as. However this isn't entirely confirmed.
It's also good to know that FM Plus and FMLineUpTool are essentially the same program, except FM Plus incorporates more fuctionality taken from the FM Scout program, like automatically loading in players instead of saving players to .csv or .html file and loading them into the program seperately. I believe the creator, Davy Depuydt, struck a deal with FM Scout to split revenue in return for these parts of the fuctionality. As for a lot of people FM LineUp Tool and now FM Plus is preferred to FM Scout because of it's simplicity.
All-in-all, the calculating methods behind FM Plus are flawed. I would always prefer to work with FM Scout over FM Plus or FM LineUp Tool. However, if you're looking for just quick plug-and-play style scouting and transfer suggestions rather than a deep dive into attributes, FM Plus is a good alternative to FM Scout.
From my personal experience FM LineUp Tool was actually a better program than FM Plus, especially for older versions of the game. However it seems they've already removed the download for this program and replaced it with FM Plus'. If anyone has the program still stored on their machine, please share here!
As I've already said on a different post, I am sceptical of ykykyky's ratings for each role. However I concur that we should try to put more effort into finding the most relevant attributes for each role, as you've done here.
I'm confident the team at SI rarely changes existing simulation algorithms and just tries to add more 'situations' every year. However this opinion is based on nothing, other than the relevant attributes from the attribute testing table don't seem to shift that much every year.
I do have to say I am a bit confused by your last graph with the final results, in particular with the Goals Allowed difference/Goals Scored difference. What testing did you do to get these differences?
Is it possible to reduce the attacking and defensive template into weights, for each attribute with these findings?
I've always been a bit sceptical about ykykyky's ratings because their findings were only based on that single ZaZ tactic. The attribute testing, being done by this website, is obviously also based on a single tactic though.
We've also seen on other tests that attributes, and subsequently good players, do have a bigger impact on a match compared to any tactic though. So in theory these findings should be somewhat universal, regardless of tactic.
There are also some attributes that I believe have low-to-zero impact on the result of any game, as they're only used to determine player's pro- or regression throughout their careers such as Determination and Natural Fitness.
In my personal experience, I've used both ykykyky and Mark's ratings file for Genie Scout. I tend to lean towards Mark's ratings because they seem to consistently identify high-performing players for my team. It's all about finding what works best for your style of play, but it's great to have multiple resources like these at our disposal.
Kudos to you, AlexH for taking the initiative on this project! It's evident that you've put hard work into this and I'm sure many in the community will be thrilled with this valuable addition, and your efforts are truly appreciated.
That being said; Squirrel_Plays and Davy_Depuyt, the brain behind the FM LineUp Tool and now the FMPlus series, have the same working method that I find problematic.
They both operate under the assumption that the information provided by Sports Interactive (SI) within the game is entirely accurate. Per position attributes are divided into three categories: Required, Preferred, and Irrelevant. Required attributes carry the most weight, preferred attributes a bit less, and irrelevant attributes are ignored in their calculations.
However, if you've been keeping up with this forum and its tests and results, you might be aware that SI's information is often misleading. You can read more about it here:link.
The issue here is that attributes like "Finishing," which has been repeatedly shown to be of much less importance for most players, even strikers, are suddenly given significant weight in their calculations for various positions. This obviously skews the final results.
As it stands, I believe that FM Genie Scout still provides the most accurate results because it allows you to customize the weight of each attribute for different positions in the settings. By effectively adjusting these weights, you can prioritize attributes like Pace and Acceleration, which in reality have a more significant impact on a player's performance.
Originally inspired by the FM LineUp Tool, and subsequently Squirrel_Plays' Youtube videos I am working on very simple tool, just for private use, as it's far from a finished product to release.
The issue with these type of programs is that they're only able to take into account current attributes, and don't pay attention to possible future development of players. So FM Genie Scout is still King for me.
Probably not.
I got tired of letting my computer run overnight to simulate and then realize something went wrong in the morning. And it kind of took the joy a bit out of actually being able to play FM.
The results all just fall in line with every other experiment thus far.
I tried adjusting the FMSuperScout program that's available to include a singular score to rate every player on. But having played several seasons with those methods now it seems to have an adverse effect.
I play maybe 80% of the matches using quick result, most people probably do the same
would be interesting to see QME breakdown
Since you're trying to figure out which attributes perform better than others in the match engine, it's a mistake on his part.
You are able to simulate a lot more matches this way, since the QME uses a lot less processing power required. Which is probably why he used this method, without actually realizing the consequences.
Instant Result doesn't use QME from what I'm aware of.
QME is only used for simulation of 'background' matches, and the level of detail you can adjust yourself in the Detail Level menu.
If you set it to None, it will use QME for all of these matches.
Didn't see this until now.
But I'm 100% sure he has all matches simulated with QME (Quick Match Engine) instead of the actual ME (Match Engine).
This will produce a lot more random effects, with CA playing the biggest role. So stats like passing, etc. get more important.
I did the same mistake over 200k matches before realizing.
It's proving to be much harder to code, but not impossible I believe.
But first I will need to wait out the data gathering for a day or two.
We have an early view of how it has an impact, but your simulation engine seems very efficient so we might be able to properly (finally!) isolate that.
Amazing work buddy.
Proficiencies are a 15-byte block on the player record (GK, SW, DL, DC, DR, DM, ML, MC, MR, AML, AMC, AMR, ST, WBL, WBR) and I used it to force every club into one formation. (Since the FM26 top tactic table is all the same formation)
The engine does model this explicitly: there's a MATCH_OOP_SCORING_PROVIDER containing OOP_ATTRIBUTE and PITCH_PROXIMITY_SCORE. So the question is magnitude, and worthy of further testing.
There are no named entries for in position, so that means that is the baseline or default for ME, and raises the question how important a seperate OOP formation is.
Proficiency only matters via which slot the AI managers actually uses players in.
Randomise it without pinning the formation and you measure the penalty plus the AI manager's reaction to a squad of weird random position players.
So for efficiency sake, that's why I pinned down the formation first.
Panneton0 said: Also, positionning having such a bad influence on results points toward a problem with the ME. It might try to "position" players in a way it thinks helps, but it makes them play worst. That way, players who are out-of-position are often in an actual better spot than their "better" counterparts. Interesting result to be further investigated.
I'd hold off on the ME conclusion just yet, this is again worthy of some more testing.
In my test CA is pinned at 150, so every coefficient is opportunity cost, not absolute effect.
-9.6 means "CA spent there isn't spent on Pace, and that trade costs ~10 pts/season".
It didn't not show that raising Positioning on an unchanged player hurts him.
Since I'm not testing on potential, rather current ability in the ME.
Your hypothesis is testable though: let CA float, raise Positioning alone, add nothing back.
If it's still negative you're onto something.
I'll try run it and report back.
Worth noting Positioning costs 0.71 CA/point, near the top of the cost table.
Corners is only -2.6 raw but costs 0.12/point, so it's -22 per CA point vs Positioning's -13.
Some of the apparent harm is just an expensive attribute, and if that's at the cost of other less worthy attributes, I doubt it matters a lot for ME outcome calculations.
Yes, that seems to be my conclusion on it as well.
With this method of reading out data through the code however it's just easier to get a bigger data set.
This data set was from an about 8-hour overnight session, but since the output was pretty much in line with the rest of the findings published before, I didn't even bother to let it run for more to be honest.
One thing that my research contradicts though is that I didnt't seem to find any 'knee' for attributes.
Where a certain attribute would perform much better than just 1 point lower.
I've read some other threads and research that suggest for several attributes a 8 minimum, or you get much less results.
Not saying that's not valid, but that type of result didn't really show up for me.
Pace and Acceleration are worth ~3x anything else.
Everything technical measured at or below zero.
According to these resutls no attribute has a threshold, they pay linearly 1-20.
Once you divide by what a point costs in CA, the best buys are Work Rate, Jumping Reach and the hidden personality attributes, which are (mostly) free.
Method
FM's engine is C++ with MSVC RTTI, so every object carries its class name behind the vtable pointer, so you can find every player and scoreline by name instead of hunting offsets.
Loop: write a random attribute vector into every squad, sleep 75s while the game holidays, read back and harvest scorelines, repeat every 75s to take into account promoted teams.
Warning that cost me 120,000 matches
Match Detail Level decides which simulator runs.
On None everything resolves through the Quick Match Engine and effects come out 10x too small in the wrong order. Set the competition to All Competitive Matches.
The quick path has its own QME_STAT_MANAGER sitting beside Poisson and Normal distribution objects, so it samples statistics rather than simulating football.
Dataset
15,951 full-engine matches.
47 visible + 5 hidden + 8 personality attributes randomised.
CA and PA pinned at 150, morale pinned at 15.
Attributes are stored 1-100 and displayed /5;
personality attributes sit on a different record at plain 1-20.
Reading the numbers
CA is pinned, so ability is a fixed budget and every weight answers "given fixed ability, where is it best spent?"
Positioning at -9.6 does not mean Positioning harms you, rather it means CA spent there is not spent on Pace, and that trade costs about 10 points a season.
Validation
Fitted on 5,011 matches, tested on 5,011 never used for fitting.
Correlation with actual goal difference:
Measured weights 0.392; Pace+Acceleration only 0.365; per-position 0.329; CA only 0.318; everything except the speed pair -0.043
Favourable quarter of the test set averages +1.79 goal difference, unfavourable -0.73.
A two-segment fit searching every knee from 6 to 16 found no thresholds anywhere.
Global weights, CA cost and value
Format: attribute, points per season, (CA cost of one point, points per CA point).
CA cost measured separately by ramping a single attribute on an isolated player, R2=0.93.
Hidden and personality attributes cost no CA at all.
Ratios for near-free attributes are huge because the denominator is tiny, and read those as "free", not as literal multiples.
Work Rate is the standout: nearly as valuable as Pace per point of ability, at a third of the cost. Decisions is the worst buy in the game, while the second most expensive attribute and negative.
Pressure is worth 14.9 points a season and costs nothing.
Positional weights (0-20 within each group)
Acceleration outranks Pace for CB and FB and the order flips further forward which seems plausible.
The positional tables predicted worse out of sample than the pooled one (0.329 vs 0.392).
For goalkeepers, read the top two or three only.
Reflexes and Agility separate cleanly; below that it is noise, and Handling ranking under Corners is not a finding.
One keeper per match against ten outfielders means that column has about a tenth of the statistical power.
Shout out
to mavarobli / mavali / mark17072
@https://fm-arena.com/thread/20087-fmsuperscout-free-open-source-scouting-tool-for-fm26-with-a-meta-score-built-on-fm-arena-attribute-testing/
Hi everyone,
I’m currently running a specific Legacy Challenge in FM26. The rules are: start unemployed with no badges/experience, win the Champions League as fast as possible, then retire and start a brand-new manager in the same save. It’s a great way to see the world and play with unique regens once the real-world players are gone.
In my first life, I went from the Greek 2nd division to Turkey, then eventually to AC Milan, where I won the UCL in my third season there.
The Current Situation:
I’ve now started my second career as a Greek manager. I took the best job available at the time: ENPPI in Egypt. It’s been a massive success on the pitch—we won the league immediately and the CAF Champions League in my second season, bringing a lot of wealth and stature to the club.
The Problem:
I’ve hit a total developmental wall. Despite the continental success:
The Badge Block: For three straight seasons, I have requested to study for coaching badges at every opportunity. The board says "No" every single time. I’ve tried every dialogue path, but they won't budge.
The Job Market: No other clubs are offering me deals. I even "save-scummed" a test where I resigned to see the landscape; zero clubs were interested in hiring me, leaving me effectively "unhireable."
The Stats: Using Genie Scout, I can see my Reputation is Home 3125 / Current 7086 / World 2750. However, because I started with no experience/badges and the board won't let me study, my actual coaching attributes are still terrible.
It feels like I’m in a Reputation Trap. My rep (7086) is high because of the trophies, but because my badges are non-existent, European or high-reputation clubs won't even trigger an interview. Meanwhile, ENPPI seems to be gatekeeping my badges.
Has anyone else encountered this Badge Lock in FM26? Is there a specific trick to forcing a stubborn board to say yes, or is my manager’s profile essentially broken because my success in Africa outpaced any qualifications?
However this approach is entirely flawed, as it completely disregards important attributes (regardless of position/role/duty) entirely. So specialized players, with high dribbling, pace, acceleration will score high as a Winger in the program, but in reality because of low other attributes which are no included in the calculation for Winger position (for instance Work Rate) will perform badly in-game.
This is also the same calculation method squirrel_plays uses in his python code by the way.
The program also takes into account player's position I believe, and attributes a negative weight if a player is not a Natural in the position you want to play him as. However this isn't entirely confirmed.
It's also good to know that FM Plus and FMLineUpTool are essentially the same program, except FM Plus incorporates more fuctionality taken from the FM Scout program, like automatically loading in players instead of saving players to .csv or .html file and loading them into the program seperately.
I believe the creator, Davy Depuydt, struck a deal with FM Scout to split revenue in return for these parts of the fuctionality. As for a lot of people FM LineUp Tool and now FM Plus is preferred to FM Scout because of it's simplicity.
All-in-all, the calculating methods behind FM Plus are flawed.
I would always prefer to work with FM Scout over FM Plus or FM LineUp Tool.
However, if you're looking for just quick plug-and-play style scouting and transfer suggestions rather than a deep dive into attributes, FM Plus is a good alternative to FM Scout.
From my personal experience FM LineUp Tool was actually a better program than FM Plus, especially for older versions of the game. However it seems they've already removed the download for this program and replaced it with FM Plus'.
If anyone has the program still stored on their machine, please share here!
As I've already said on a different post, I am sceptical of ykykyky's ratings for each role. However I concur that we should try to put more effort into finding the most relevant attributes for each role, as you've done here.
I'm confident the team at SI rarely changes existing simulation algorithms and just tries to add more 'situations' every year. However this opinion is based on nothing, other than the relevant attributes from the attribute testing table don't seem to shift that much every year.
I do have to say I am a bit confused by your last graph with the final results, in particular with the Goals Allowed difference/Goals Scored difference. What testing did you do to get these differences?
Is it possible to reduce the attacking and defensive template into weights, for each attribute with these findings?
The attribute testing, being done by this website, is obviously also based on a single tactic though.
We've also seen on other tests that attributes, and subsequently good players, do have a bigger impact on a match compared to any tactic though. So in theory these findings should be somewhat universal, regardless of tactic.
There are also some attributes that I believe have low-to-zero impact on the result of any game, as they're only used to determine player's pro- or regression throughout their careers such as Determination and Natural Fitness.
In my personal experience, I've used both ykykyky and Mark's ratings file for Genie Scout. I tend to lean towards Mark's ratings because they seem to consistently identify high-performing players for my team. It's all about finding what works best for your style of play, but it's great to have multiple resources like these at our disposal.
Pace and Acceleration are still the most important attributes.
That being said; Squirrel_Plays and Davy_Depuyt, the brain behind the FM LineUp Tool and now the FMPlus series, have the same working method that I find problematic.
They both operate under the assumption that the information provided by Sports Interactive (SI) within the game is entirely accurate. Per position attributes are divided into three categories: Required, Preferred, and Irrelevant. Required attributes carry the most weight, preferred attributes a bit less, and irrelevant attributes are ignored in their calculations.
However, if you've been keeping up with this forum and its tests and results, you might be aware that SI's information is often misleading. You can read more about it here:link.
The issue here is that attributes like "Finishing," which has been repeatedly shown to be of much less importance for most players, even strikers, are suddenly given significant weight in their calculations for various positions. This obviously skews the final results.
As it stands, I believe that FM Genie Scout still provides the most accurate results because it allows you to customize the weight of each attribute for different positions in the settings. By effectively adjusting these weights, you can prioritize attributes like Pace and Acceleration, which in reality have a more significant impact on a player's performance.
Originally inspired by the FM LineUp Tool, and subsequently Squirrel_Plays' Youtube videos I am working on very simple tool, just for private use, as it's far from a finished product to release.
The issue with these type of programs is that they're only able to take into account current attributes, and don't pay attention to possible future development of players. So FM Genie Scout is still King for me.