Hi Chris, that's always been the way in SkyDemon. It's our belief that no matter what the user has chosen to hide on the main map for convenience, the virtual radar should tell them exactly what is coming up and what they're flying inside.

To me it suggests that one's route penetrates controlled airspace of some kind. We would be interested in hearing from others who would not only prefer to hide class E controlled airspace in virtual radar but could justify doing so from a safety perspective.

Excuse me but you‘re saying you fly IFR in between 1000‘ and 2500‘ AGL outside D & C airspace or a separate RMZ in Germany? Don‘t think so.
BTW: I‘m flying a lot VFR and IFR - either as an FI(A) or FE(A). Believe me: There is absolutely no need for a separate warning programwise here in German airspace.
However: since the option to hide these LOWERED „E“ airspaces has been restored and the old shaded borders are back this thread can be closed, I think.
Best, Björn

*Disclaimer: this post may contain traces of cynicism*

Björn, I am interested in your assertion that there are no IFR operations in the lower class E in Germany. Could you explain that please? It would really help our understanding of the issue. Certainly outside of Germany class E is used extensively for IFR operations, and we must of course be consistent in our behaviour across international borders.

Sure I‘d like to explain my assertion...
Except for on published routings, namely SIDs and STARs (and approaches of course) in practice you won’t see IFR traffic inside the lowered E airspace parts in Germany. The reason is quite simple: Since no radar vectoring or IFR pickups are allowed below the MVAs starting at quite high altitudes or levels here in Germany (for those interested ENR 6-13 of the MilAIP might be a good starting point) you would have to cancel IFR to fly a direct-to below MVA for instance. Take my example of the lowered EDDL „E“ airspace south of EDLD for instance. It has never been used by ATC - but the higher „E“ airspace segments are used intensively for night arrivals into EDDL down to 3000‘ MSL...
Tim, please understand that „E“ airspace here isn‘t an additional element around some IFR airports leaving the rest as „G“ like in other European countries which justifies generation of warnings - it‘s all over Germany as one huge flat airspace between 2500‘ AGL and (mostly) FL100. Only where depicted on the ICAO charts its lower limits are pulled down to 1000‘ AGL - that‘s it. So if the program generates a popup saying „you just left „E“ airspace of XY“ that‘s simply wrong when you‘re flying at altitudes where there might be IFR traffic like in the example above. That‘s why people keep asking you to disable that function-it‘s misleading and blocks parts of the screen for its popup menues but provides no safety at all.
On the other hand we do see some FAFs inside E airspace where there are no extending C or D airspaces above the CTR, primarily at regional airports like EDDE and at altitudes of mostly around 2.5-3000‘ AAL. Since arrivals are vectored to those FAFs they seem to be a hotspot for near-misses between IFR and VFR traffic. That‘s where you‘ll find IFR traffic inside „E“ airspace in Germany.
Our suggestion was to mark these FAFs on the ICAO charts for awareness. However this was rejected for reasons unknown to me... Maybe SkyDemon could show them as an option in the future?
Currently we‘re talking about things like TMZ-H around RMZ protected airfields with the stakeholders. On the other hand collision avoidance cannot be granted by separation of airflows only since that leads to condensed VFR traffic around the edges of protected airspaces leaving a higher risk to those pilots flying uncontrolled (see your fantastic heatmap of traffic flows around London for instance).
In the end the only solution will be to SEE, BE SEEN AND AVOID - and this can only be achieved by implementing an electronic collision avoidance system inter-compatible between all users inside a specific airspace - starting with a glider, also an SEP and up to airliner traffic.
We‘re testing several solutions in practical flight tests around the research airport of Aachen as we speak although Covid-19 has slowed us down significantly. And since results are not yet validated I can‘t talk about it in public.
However we‘re using SkyDemon also-and it helps a lot in reducing the collision risk by displaying other traffic through various sources like the well-known AirTraffic module and others but mostly generating spoken traffic alerts via Bluetooth! This definitely shows an effect and we will evaluate this further.
Best, Björn

Thanks Björn, that is really helpful.