There are people who will tell you unlimited is best. The reason is not because they know what they are talking about but because their system falls under certain criteria and they dont know it...
1. Photoreal scenery is the bulk of what is being displayed
2. Certain hypertransport Intel motherboards
Steve Lacey who was a FS9 dev explained part of it in his blog...
In FS9, lower resolution (but geographically larger) tiles of photographic scenery take a disproportionately long time to build compared with the higher resolution (but geographically smaller) tiles. When you cross a lower resolution tile boundary, requests for new low resolution tiles block the texture production queue and delay processing of the higher resolution tiles as, in FS9, the tiles are produced serially (first in, first out).
This goes back to the "give the fiber system more time" issue.
Using "unlimited" may work for you in most cases, but you're now hitting a trade off when sometimes, the fiber system may need a lot more time to do it's work. By starving it when the terrain system needs to build those large low resolution tiles, the processing of the high resolution tiles gets delayed until finally they're processed and they all pop in.
Theoretically speaking, pushing out the LOD radius may help on high performance systems, but I've not tested this directly to find out.
There are a few other conditions that may also make "unlimited' a better choice but it is a rare thing to find those conditions. Probably less that 30% of all users may meet the criteria and out of that 30, only a very small % ALWAYS run the sim in areas where the setting would mean a 100% advantage.
Very few see this magic-bullet setting of "unlimited" as a way of enhancing the sim performance but that is why you will see a few people post 'unlimited' as the best setting to use. They dont know why it works and usually they hang around in certain areas of the world with scenery they have added. If they were to fly in an area that did not present the right conditions they would see the downfall to that setting.
I remember there was someone a year or so back that got downright nasty with me about how unlimited was better than locked.. about 2 months later they started posting how their sim had changed and it was not as smooth as it was. My first question was "Are you flying somewhere other than you normally do?" and told him to lock the frame rate at 24. I got the same argument.
Apparently he locked the frame counter and tested the difference in the old and new flying areas. Needless to say he learned his argument of running unlimited was specific to his system and where he was flying in the world.
I always advise to start at a frame lock the card and system should be able to handle. For slower cards, 20-22 for decent cards 24-28, thats it.. no more
I kept a very overclocked 7900GTX 512 locked at 24 in FS9
There is no reason to run it any higher is the sim is smooth. If there are minor stutters or other banking micro stutters, sometimes raising the frame lock 2 or 3 above 24 can smooth it out. Sometimes you have to drop a frame or 2. Its a matter of fine tuning but I have seen a PROPERLY set up system need more than 28. If it does the sim is out of balance and somewhere along the line other issues will creep in. The person simply refuses to believe the other issues are as important as keeping the frame lock in the low to mid 30s or higher. They would rather live with the distance blurs or other problems setting a high frame lock causes than admit there is no difference between 24 and 34 frames on a sim AND system that is set up correctly.
And I find very few set a system and a sim up right to begin with