I was really hoping
AirRabbit would explain the comment I quoted, never mind.
As you say, Austin Meyer is not very diplomatic, more like one of those infomercial salesmen.
That style would not go down well this side of the pond.
What Austin Meyer is implying is that his X-Plane is better than any Level D ZFT simulator, which also use lookup tables and which might not consider something or other. Each of his blade elements will probably have a few lookup tables in it's model. You've got to have the data somewhere.
MSFS is well know for more or less ignoring sideslip. Also the lack of many terms means some dynamics are completely missing. The problem is not the so called lookup method, which to the layman sounds inherently unrealistic. It sounds like you take the flight condition, look it up in a table and come out directly with the resulting preformance. In fact all a lookup table is doing is providing a quick and convenient way to model what might be a non-linear, multi-dimensional function.
I did buy a copy of X-Plane once, but soon got fed up with it's user interface, lack of compatibility between versions, constant stream of updates and patches, and the fact that simulation of everything outside the aircraft was extremely basic. Maybe it's better now, but the overall package was disappointing.
What is, or is there, any real difference between the full motion B-727 sim used in 1970 compared to a Level-D sim of today?
Today's Level D simulator has digital sound and vibration simulation which closely match the original aircraft. The visual system, while not up to PC game standards, will be full colour, high capacity, textured, wide angle, with cross-cockpit viewing. The aero model will accurately represent the original aircraft in every degree. Digital flight control loading for highly accurate control feel and response.
A 1970 Boeing 727 FFS would have a basic analogue sound system, buffet cues in all the right places but not closely matching the original in frequencies and amplitudes. If it had a visual at all it would probably be the TV camera and model board type. The aero model would be limited, probably tweaked to achieve certain responses and compromised in other areas. Analogue control loading with good static forces but poor dynamic response.
For basic training purposes, not a great deal of difference then. In terms of overall fidelity and immersion though a huge improvement. All brought about by the FAA's National Simulator Program which successfully standardised and upgraded the expected performance of simulators in the USA, a lead followed worldwide.