different
High altitude stalls give a mild low frequency buffet that is not as unpleasant as the stall buffet at low to mid altitude and configured for landing.
Now that is very interesting because one B737 Classic full flight Level D simulator I have observed, has entirely different stall warning characteristics to that you have described. This simulator is about 25 years old and has passed regular fidelity checks by the regulator. As the stall approaches at 37,000 ft and well before stick shaker actuation the buffet in this simulator is very marked indeed and is absolutely un-mistakeable.
On the other hand, when configured in the landing configuration and approaching the stall below 1000 feet on an ILS, there is no pre-stall buffet at all - only the stick shaker shortly before the stall.
The FCTM states a stall warning should be readily identifiable by the pilot, either by initial buffet indication or an artificial indication (stick shaker).
In our operation this landing configuration approach to the stall is designed to replicate as realistically as possible the Turkish Airlines crash on final to Amsterdam where the captain's radio altimeter gave erroneous readings which in turn caused both autothrottles to close to idle without pilot input. In that accident, the crew failed to take corrective action until too late to be effective..
.
the difference between the actual aircraft to the simulator is the continued period of a load experienced at the seat, and the intensity of the buffet that can be encountered. In most cases the real aircraft will leave you in no doubt as to the fact you have stalled the aircraft at the lower levels.
Your point is well taken. But how does one explain that in the case of at least one simulator (737) there is no initial pre-stall buffet warning in the landing configuration (hence the stick shaker requirement). Would buffet be apparent in a more up to date simulator? How should the simulator instructor explain this apparent anomaly to the candidate he is training for a type rating? Is it all about fidelity of "old" simulators getting worse with age?
During annual or scheduled fidelity checks it is apparent that although clean approaches to stall at 15,000 feet may be a fidelity test regulatory requirement in some States, this writer has yet to see a fidelity test on the approach to stall in the landing configuration at sea level. After all it would be extremely unlikely to have a airline fidelity test pilot current on various stall configurations in the actual aircraft. It simply would never happen for all the obvious reasons.
It does make one wonder the how reliable are some simulator stall recovery fidelity checks that in theory require the testing officer to be knowledgeable and current yet he may never have stalled the real aircraft.