Hi Elliot,
Sorry for tardy reply, been rather busy!!
Your post makes quite depressing reading. I haven’t been involved with an FAA certification for about 13 years so I’m not in a position to comment on US specifics.
My own view is that any sim operator that isn’t directly associated with either an airline or an airframe manufacturer cannot provide the ultimate in quality as everything is a compromise across a large user base. SIMJOCK’s post is a very good example of just this problem. Cost is the only factor that is preventing his A320 from being upgraded to current standards. As long as users are prepared to accept it’s current level of fidelity, it will remain “out of date”. Although as he correctly points out, the high cost of sim upgrades may make it impractical for an older device. Of course a reduced lifespan means higher hourly lease rates and customers, especially regional and smaller airlines are not prepared (of perhaps able) to pay higher rates. Additionally, customers are not prepared to accept higher rates for an upgraded sim.
If pilots selected the sim, then maybe this wouldn't be the case, but from my experience, it's non pilots who negotiate training agreements and provided the sim is certified at the required level, whether it has for example EGPWS, TCAS 7 and so on is academic. It comes down to $ every time.
This situation is even worse when a sim manufacturer builds and operates their own sims as is the case with the US sim manufacturers/operator whom I believe you are referring to.
What I still cannot get my head around is that Senior Training Captains accept this situation. The fact that a sim is Level D approved does not mean that crews MUST accept it. If it isn’t up to the required standard, refuse to use it. Certainly my customers do refuse if there is a fault that is deemed to be unacceptable.