Hi, as you corretly say ( "alot of triangles in the marker and it becomes a blurred mush of lines" ), at such high distance the target (as captured by the device camera) will not be sharp and detailed enough (this is indeed why I was making the comparison with a 1-inch target at 3-feet distance, as it highlights exactly this problem).
So, indeed, it's a really challenging use case... (although you can still make quick test and verify if it is likely to be feasible or not)
Concerning your second question:
So, what Im wondering, given this type of scenario, wouldn't it make sense to create a marker that has more general features that from even a large distance away
One thing to keep in mind is that the number of features has quite an impact on the tracking rating, and thus on the ability to detect and track the target;
on the other hand, however, you don't necessarily need to have a 5-star rating to make a target detectable; so, you could create a target which has less features, i.e. more sparse features, (and which may result for instance in a "3-star rating", for example) but which looks a bit "clearer from high distance (because it will have less triangles, as you say).
In other words, it's a bt like trying to find a trade-off between having a highly rated feature-rich image vs. having a few less features which look sharper at higher distances;
I don't know to what extent such trad-off can be found, but this is maybe something that is worth at least a quick test.
I hope this helps.