In fact, I would suggest that of all the elements of FSTDs, the visual has shown the most improvement.
I fully agree. Yet in a complex scenario like the one Slast describes, even more realism can and will be technically achieved, computer graphics continue to improve at a pace that makes such improvements very affordable, as ZFT also pointed out.
Unfortunately many TDMs still design their FSTDs for engineers to operate not instructors and quite often a pseudo type rating is required just to operate the damn devices!!
You can (probably rightly) blame the manufacturers for making "the damn things" complicated to operate, but there is also a reluctance to purchase non-tangible goods like knowledge transfer and training of trainers. It's easier to justify the purchase of tangible whizzbangs, than to pay for non-tangible goods like services to help instructors make the best use of them. Some "purchasing department" person who is measured on cost-cutting will ask the supplier for more detailed line items on a bill, and suggest to cut non-tangible items.
Anyway my concern is whether we are really training pilots to make the ACTUAL decision needed at DH, i.e. judge "position and rate of change of position relative to desired flight path". Or is the training regime acclimatising them to a rather benign situation which leads to over-confidence
this is still a relevant question.