Modellers are death to my brain.
I'm the sort of person who wants to know that every single control and option available to me is in the exact right spot. I'm the sort of sad, obsessive dweeb who wants to know what it sounds like with the Mids on 6 vs Mids on 7.
There's something wrong with my brain. I'm aware of that but I'm also embracing it.
So yeah, letting me set the bias, tubes, saturation options and all of that is absolute death to me. I will spend a day figuring out exactly how 1 knob impacts a particular amp, then the next day work on the next one, then the day after that, figure out how those two controls interact..........
...
It was bad.
HOWEVER:
IMHO, I don't think the "issues" in regards to sound quality relates to amp modelling anymore.
I think the deficencies come from IRs.
Whenever I've had to work with IRs, I'll admit that the sound is great, but getting an IR guitar sound to sit perfectly in a mix always required double the work of what a straight up 57-on-a-cab recording does. I would hesitantly accept that you can achieve the same end result using IRs, but the mix engineer will have to work twice as hard to get it to happen.
If you put a blindfold on me, I absolutely admit that I would be fooled by an IR more times than I'd like to admit. But I also bet that the engineer had to do much more careful automation, EQing and possibly even compression in order for it to do the thing it's pretending to be.
So is there a worthwhile difference in amp modelling between the AFX 2, AFX3, Neural DSP or any of the others?
Probably not.
Can you get them to sound amazing with an IR instead of a real cab?
Hell yeah!
Can you get them to sit right in a mix?
Yes-ish, albeit with a lot more of a headache.