Do you believe what you say, or are you playing "devil's advocate"? because if you believe in Digi's then I'm wasting my time, to each thier own 
What do mean "believe" in them? I'm not arguing that an acoustic grand piano isn't better note I said "True" as the first word to what you said. I didn't disagree with your comment
I'd say you're wasting your time telling folk asking about digitals at a certain price to get an acoustic, especially in the exasperated "I'm going to die" way that you did. I'd ignore your advice because I'm skint, not because it's wrong - I'm sure I'm not alone.
In the "I've got $5000 and I'm looking to spend $10000" thread, I think you were right to point it out [but it doesn't matter what I think is right or wrong anyway - keep sayiing it, it is true, but I don't think you need to get frustrated that folk are looking at digitals]
Just as I'd be wasting my time telling someone looking at a CLP115 or P60 or casio to try a Promega 3. You have tried one? If not, please do - I'd be interested in what you think as someone who teaches and plays classical piano - how close are they? As I've said, it's supposed to model a lot of the resonance and dynamics that many other digitals, irrespective of the quality of the sound or the quality of the instrument in general, don't do.
To not buy one of the popular makes, you've really got to make an effort [or take a risk buying unseen, if you've even heard of it], and if you know next to nothing about pianos, digital or acoustic, that's not likely to happen.
A lot of the time I see praise for a particular make [on the internet in general, not here] it's generally not someone playing classical, it's often someone who has owned a plethora of synths and keyboards and rarely plays an acoustic. They rave about the rhoads / clav sounds as much as the piano and they rave about the way it sounds in a mix etc.
So, although valid opinions, they don't tell you much about how good the digital is for playing classical music. [There are those opinions, but in general, they are like you - folk who have a Yamaha, and say it doesn't do this and that, but they have an acoustic anyway or perhaps they don't think that any digital piano has it to look for it in the first place. Or perhaps they are looking for something that's not there but, to me is less important, yet is often improved - the quality of the sound of the individual notes.
I certainly wasn't aware that any digital piano attempted physical modelling even though I was aware that was an approach - I do note that many put the buzzword "sympathetic reasonance" in their literature though]
As someone put it elsewhere - a mediocre piano sound modelled well would be better than a good piano sound modelled badly or not at all. We know that it's not going to be a grand piano, but if something has the touch, dynamics and nuances modelled well you can learn to create those sounds on it and thus, in principle, walk to an acoustic and make them too [modulo the differences that exist between acoustics as well]
But yeah, if you look at the extreme - use the organ preset on a digital, then you're unlikely to develop any dynamic touch at all, so I see what your point is.
An upright does the things you'll say digitals don't, but it still sounds like an upright though, but to me that's where a digital should aim.
If the promega does what it says [I've not had a play yet], I'd then argue that it'd be a good race against an upright.
But each to their own, there's no argument from me that the preferred instrument of people playing classical piano is a grand piano and the compromise is more often an acoustic upright than a digital - and as you say, folk with digitals that play classical, tend to have both or just an acoustic. But not with a low budget.
Topic: Casio or Yamaha?