I don't know if FSX is flexible enough to support a cockpit like that. It could also be X-Plane or Flightgear; both available on Windows.

You do realise that there's a big difference between simulating the sensations vs the motions of the aircraft? The motion platform does not roll with the plane because in a coordinated turn there is no sideways acceleration in the pilot's coordinate frame, just a small increase in "gravity". The smooth way airliners are flown, the only axis that is of much use is the pitch.

I suspect that "major" might actually mean small manufacturers of GA aircraft in his vicinity which don't have their own simulators. The software on this simulator is probably much more flexible than a professional simulator, allowing you to fly anything albeit with an inaccurate cockpit.

Completely. Go to airliners.net and search for 737 cockpit. You'll see sheep skin covers on all.
e.g. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Copa-Airlines-Colombia/Boeing-737-7V3/2288558/&sid=501f1a8b3c010f0b25433bb222ebff2b

I take it you either failed to read or comprehend the presentation then. Unless I'm misunderstanding, slide 18 makes it pretty clear.

Do you know the difference between wheel and engine values? Don't bother with the estimated engine values that dynos provide; they're bullshit.

You're really exaggerating. That's what airport accident histories look like; crashes on take-off and landing. You say "these type of incidents" as if pilots have been screwing up easy visual approaches numerous times, but I see nothing in the wikipedia list to suggest that.

No, not at all. There are Category IIIb approaches in the US, which is an autoland and rollout.

Depends whether they're at idle. During a normal approach with full flaps out, they respond very quickly.

Look up bandwidth-gain product and microwave electronics. Perhaps sometimes it's just better to not assume you know better than the researchers?

Presumably you know the difference between heading and track then, and can tell me which device gives which. And then you'll realise that you actually wouldn't have noticed anything.

"Shielded". You say that as if directional antennas are an on or off thing. GPS signals are very weak and in this case the false signal is within throwing distance of the antenna. 60 dB would be a great (unobtainable even?) ratio between above and underneath, and yet mere 1 W signal would overwhelm the real one at that ratio.

How about high speed and high gain amplifiers? Not everything revolves around digital logic.

I'm not familiar with the aircraft incident that you seem to be claiming has relevance. How do you make the FMS trust only the GPS info when it also has INS and navaid position info?

Phones chargers don't follow the USB spec for power. My phone and tablet chargers are 1 and 2 A respectively.