the other side of argument is that by using fantasy tracks, the devs can ensure the tracks provide good racing
Many "race enthusiasts" do not comprehend the underlying form of a particular circuit. They will not be thinking of the difficulties and intracacies of track design. They may not understand safety, the use of ripple strips, bollards, pit location and access etc. They may not realise that the track has been designed (or not) with the topography of the surrounding area in mind. They may not realise that their favourite circuit is impossible to overtake on. They may not appreciate the changing surface and varied textures of the tarmac and how this effects the racing.
Some avid race enthusiasts I have met are only at the track to hear the roar of the engines, drink beer, wishing for someone to please crash in a burning fireball right in front of them, drink some more beer, cheer for their favourite brand of car or driver and generally soak up the atmosphere that one gets at race meetings before settling in to drink some more beer.
So being a race enthusiast doesn't qualify one as having any authority or clear comprehension of the circuit, it's layout and construction, it's usefullness for exciting racing and such. If our budding race enthusiast does have some understanding of a circuit's underlying form perhaps he may appreciate any circuit he tries or studies?
It wouldn't matter if LFS had a Monaco track area, I won't be racing along thinking "oh wow! I'm at Monaco!" because I am not at Monaco. I might as well be racing at South City as far as immersion into a street circuit goes (and I would welcome another street circuit in LFS). Sure, I'd like to try the FOX at Monaco but any tight street circuit will do. LFS is such a great simulator that track simulation is not very important to me. Track design, however, is. Eric's tracks each have a distinct character. The corners and sections he creates are very much like many sections on real tracks. The setting and topography are original. Some tracks are narrower than others, some have long straights others not. Elevation changes, something many tracks lack in real life (to the disspointment of many race drivers) feature throughout LFS tracks. A lot of thought needs to go into track design and that is what we find with LFS. There are small improvements that could be made here and there, as in real life, but what we have is variation and diversity.
It is true that some real tracks have a unique atmosphere generated by location, or history/ nostalgia, and I can only assume that this type of atmosphere is what people crave when they desire real tracks in LFS. Putting aside for a moment that a person may just want to try their nerve tackling Eau Rouge, or thunder through the Bustop or hammer down Conrod Straight, the circuits in question are often favourites for romantic reasons. Modern Manaco, for example, is completely unsuitable for racing of modern F1 cars, yet the race continues to be held every year. There is virtually no overtaking, often the majority of the field doesn't finish the race and safety is an ongoing concern for drivers and spectators alike.
As a driver I will always favour a track that is exciting, challenging, safe and offers opportunities to overtake. As a spectator I want the same outcomes. Real or not, some tracks are well designed and some are not. Since Eric designs great LFS tracks I won't be needing any real ones. If they come, they come. Until then I'm completely satisfied with track development so far in LFS. I'm so satisfied that any addition of real tracks to LFS doesn't induce any feelings of longing or excitement in me at all. The future already looks exciting.
In response to the topic title I say that LFS is moving forward just fine without real tracks and any lack of real tracks will not dilute the appeal of this simulator nor slow its progress.