Good idea for a coffee discussion but a number of problems -
(a) typical sim is a big PC in drag on steroids. The software perambulations are either
(i) within defined boundary conditions derived from FT or wind tunnel work and should have some correlation with reality. Otherwise -
(ii) playing in the box can only be based on guesswork extrapolation. Probably not too bad for controlled flight within a small delta from the certificated envelope but generally GIGO when it comes to post stall departure regimes. Just what training value might be obtained is moot. I, for one, wouldn't waste time in the box on such activities as there are many far more useful playtime uses of benefit to the guys and gals in the front seats.
(b) certification stall practices have varied over the years so one cannot reliably extrapolate one's experience on a light GA trainer to big iron without a lot of homework and access to well-placed folks in the game.
(c) one might hope that the OEM will have done some beyond-certification requirements post stall departure investigation but don't expect it to be described explicitly in the pilot documents. Furthermore, in the civil arena, cost is a major driver and playtime FT can be very costly.
Best to have pilots who can recognise an impending stall environment and remove the aircraft from the situation before things get even remotely exciting ... and, at the risk of being controversial, perhaps it might be a good idea for pilots to do a bit more hand flying (on raw data in 0/0 conditions) and useful playtime work in their sim sessions ?