To be frank, I feel film simulation is such a waste of money. That's partly just personal preference, or gut instinct about the creative value of simulating a film you might never have used. And I do wonder how far developers (especially those expensive Lightroom presets) are just fleecing the gullible.
But it's mixed with other doubts that I think are less controversial if you think about the task. Just what is a typical [insert film stock here] look? Can you really define it or bottle this typical look? Really?
If you've ever done B&W in the darkroom you'll know that the same film actually looks very different depending on your processing techniques. Let's put aside how a coloured lens filter would change how the colours are represented as greyscale tones. Consider the developer chemistry - the same film developed in Agfa Rodinal would have very different grain pattern from the same film developed in Ilford Perceptol, for example. On thinking of Rodinal, it produced different grain depending how how dilute it was, and how you agitated the developing tank - eg continuously, x seconds per minute. Then consider the final output, the print. The same negative would look very different depending on which paper you used, which contrast you chose, which developer you used. If these simulations stated something like "PanF in Perceptol 1+20.... printed on Record Rapid grade 3 developed in Neutol WA" - one might be less scathing, but if a software developer is dipping its hand into someone's pocket for a film simulation, doesn't the customer deserve to know that your "FilmX look" is really not as much as it claims?
Providing you don't invest too much belief in the film simulation's veracity, Silver Efex Pro is a fine program for that task. And free too.