Yes, we must be talking about different things alright. But you were commenting on a statement I made as if my statement was false. That statement was true, i.e, that Asobo included some automatic flap retraction and flap deployment inhibition logic to allow realistic behavior in the selection and use of CONF 1 and CONF 1+F. The configuration are different regardless of whether Asobo chose in the default airplane not to distinguish them as being aerodynamically different by way of the lift and drag scalars they used in the FLAPS section. In fact, their decision to do that turned out to be a good idea because their auto-flap retraction logic does not work right and causes the F portion to retract to -1 radian (-57.3 degrees) deflection angle. If they had assigned the correct proportion of lift to the flap, ti would have caused the airplane to stall immediately and go into an unrecoverable dive. (Who knows, maybe that was the reason behind their decision to not assign the correct proportion of lift and drag to the flaps.)
By the way, it isn't the slat, i.e., CONF 1, that is the "fake," indication in the default airplane. It is the "F" portion that is "fake." If you look at the flight_model.cfg file and the lift and drag scalars used in the FLAPS sections, you will see that Asobo assigns nearly all of the lift and drag to the slats rather than the flaps. So the F (flaps) portion adds nothing to the 1 (slats) lift and drag.