The Bohr model of the atom is essentially that the nucleus is a ball and the electrons are balls orbiting the nucleus in a rigid orbit.
This allowed for chemists to find a model of chemical bonding where the electrons in the outer orbits could be exchanged. And it works pretty well as seen in the Lewis structures:
However, electron orbitals were found to be less rigid and instead be fuzzy fields which, instead of being discrete/rigid orbits, look more like:
However, in chemistry education like organic chemistry you still learn about chemical reactions using essentially diagrams that are modified lewis structures that take into account information about electron orbitals:
What I'm wondering is, if the Bohr model is used essentially throughout college education in the form of these diagrams, it seems like it must be a pretty accurate model, even though it turns out atoms are more fuzzy structures than discrete billiard balls. So I'm wondering what the inaccuracies are, and if there is a better way to understand them than the Bohr model. If you build a computer simulation of atoms with the Bohr model, I'm wondering if it would be "accurate" in the sense of modeling atomic phenomena, or is it not a good model to perform simulations on. If not, I'm wondering what an alternative model is that is better for simulation. Essentially, how good the Bohr model is as a diagram, as a tool for learning, and as a tool for simulation.