Insofar as your description goes, it sounds more or less accurate to me, but I think it's the wrong way to think about NL.
Think about your equity in the hand (this applies to both limit and no limit) - it's basically a combination of your pot equity (i.e., your pot odds that your hand will be good at showdown), your fold equity (i.e., if you bet can you win the pot without going to showdown), and implied odds (i.e., how much money can we get paid that's not already in the pot - this is generally a function of Villain believing he has the best hand at showdown when he doesn't, so is usually a function of hitting a draw against a made hand). So your equity at any given point in the hand is pot odds + fold equity + implied odds.
In limit, future betting is measured in big bets. While important and substantial, it doesn't compare to future betting in NL, which is generally measured in pot size bets. So future bets comprise the majority of the pot at showdown in NL, since betting from one street to the next has a compounding effect.
So, let's say we're holding Td9d (100bb effective stacks) and call a 3xbb open raise in position, pot is 7.5bb's at the flop, which is Ad8d2c. PFR cbets 6bb's - at this point in time, we need to evaluate how we're going to play the turn and river based on our overall equity in the pot. Let's say we call, the pot is going to be 19.5bb's on the turn, and Villain's next bet (assuming he's holding a hand he likes) is going to be in the range of 14-18bb's - we're definitely going to be in a pickle if we called the flop and didn't hit the turn, and we're going to have to forfeit the 9bb's we've invested in the pot by calling the flop or pony up to 23-27 bb's. Leverage (the threat of bets on future streets) is much more effective in NL than in limit because of the compounding effect bets have on the pot size.
Let's say that we did decide to float the flop, though, and picked up some equity on the turn - the problem is that if the flush hits and Villain isn't holding a diamond, it's going to be hard to get paid off, so implied odds decrease. Let's say instead that the turn is the Jh, giving us a combo draw - this definitely improves our pot equity, but we're still drawing - but implied odds go up if we hit the straight rather than the flush, and now we should also be thinking about potential fold equity (obv villain and situation dependent - some Villain's will not fold AK/AQ to a raise here, some will), cuz now we have a strong semi-bluffing hand that mathematically will be priced in to call a shove with if we raise the turn (obv we're happy to take down the pot w the raise). Or, if he calls the turn raise, he's going to have to call virtually any river card even if it's obv that our draw hit, simply cuz his stack size dictates it.
Of course, we can also simply call the turn bet and rely on pot odds plus implied odds. The problem will be if Villain doesn't want to cooperate by paying off enough to justify the call on the turn that didn't have anywhere near the correct pot odds, which will likely be the case if the flush hits (though the straight should be pretty disguised and more likely to get paid off).
I know you're asking a straightforward question and that I keep trying to change the discussion, apologies if that's annoying, but there's a paradigm shift here that I think is very important.
Hopefully someone good at math will confirm your thinking on implied odds relative to calling.