This discussion about the merits of a simulator is somewhat similar to those seen on PPRune about the 'best helicopter'. All such comparisons without reference to operational requirement are meaningless.
What is probably required is the provision of a list of objectives that must be met; in that way it might be possible to provide a correlation between the objective and the necessary FSTD terminology and functionality.
As previously discussed in this thread, this operational requirement will be divided into those elements that are part of the Type Rating and the elements association with the operation of the helicopter in its role.
Further, the operation of the helicopter in its role will differ between operators and, although this could be harmonised with the use of Universal SOPs for the most common activities of flight management, there are likely to be differences.
The efficient use of simulation therefore depends upon the definition of such operational requirements. Whilst the OEM might be able to provide the elements that are associated with the Type Rating, unless they have access to Universal SOPs for flight management in the role (provided by the operators in harmony), their contribution might have to involve dry leasing arrangements (which would be extremely difficult for smaller operators - which needs to be considered carefully).
In any case, the provision of a list of operational objectives (from the operational requirement) is the first essential step in associating the appropriate FSTD to the task. This could result in two improvements: the first would be requirements that are objective and correlate with the competence required; the second would be a more directed approach to the use of simulation that is more appropriate to the task (and cheaper).
Mars