The problem with your example Umberto, is that all the information you have used for your defense is based on 2D panels, not the VC that 90% of us use today. 2D panels do not scale to zoom settings, VC's do.
If you read that explanation carefully, it discussed several things: BOTH the harmonization between 2d and VC views, which is one thing, but also discusses what is the most correct zoom view in relationship to what gives the most correct perception of speed/height, and this is the same, whether you use 2D or VC. The two goes together, but you should start with a correct 3d image first, which is achieved at around 0.75 zoom.
I am 100% behind the fact that 0.75 presents the most realistic view
That's was a given...
but is impractical to use within the Virtual Cockpit environment. In reality when I fly, I can simple make a quick eye glance down to get necessary instrument information when taking off or landing, something not possible within the VC without panning down the view, something I never do as it's a sure way to crash on short final.
First, there's common agreement that in order to *really* use the VC, you should use an head tracking device, which allows you to peek instruments and then switch to scenery immediately and very easily. Zooming out to an unrealistic wide zoom setting will alter your perception of 3d, particularly on final approach.
For the majority of us depending on the aircraft this can vary between 0.30 and 0.50, on this Thibault is correct. One simply can not conduct a proper approach with a 0.75 zoom setting within the VC, too much vital information is not available.
As I've said, the proper way to fly in VC, is to use a realistic zoom level, and an head tracking device, not using the wrong zoom level to make up for it. If you really fly 100% in VC, you should use a tracking device anyway, to access button/and switches on the VC.
The LOD limitation does not make the products "useless", but does make them more difficult during certain visibility conditions and night operations. I have already once gone off the taxiway at KLAX because I lost the centre line and taxiway edge lights at night. I can assure you, this has never happened to me in real life.
But that's not the point. The point is you are making relates to final approach phases, the issue we are discussing relates to the ground lines, which comes into play only when taxiing.
When it comes to taxiway/runway markings and lights, would it not be meeting those of us users of VC's half way by providing the LOD option "on" or "off" for markings and lights during the install process? The default use of LOD for all else within the airports is fine by me as is.
No, it can't be an switchable option, because LODs are hard coded in the models at compile time, and we can't control them in real-time so, in order to change that option, it will have to change for anyone, forcing the performance loss to everybody, even those that fly with the correct zoom setting.
As I've said, the scenery is designed to be always visible at 0.70 but, IN MOST OF THE PLACES, it CAN be seen at much wider settings, like 0.50 and even 0.40, we ONLY tried to be *sure* it never disappear at 0.70, but that doesn't mean you can't use it on wider settings, it's just that we haven't tested it like that.
And, since this is something related to the PIXEL size of the object, it ALSO depend on the resolution you are using, those running at lower res like 1280x720 or so, will probably see it worse than those with 1900x1200.
