[larsdangly]

It is pretty clear from the extended discussion of images and illusions on p. 138-139 that Steve wasn't trying to present a water-tight exclusive list of everything they could and couldn't be and do. So it is understandable, and probably a good thing, that every table will have its own interpretation. But if you don't let wizards see through an illusion's eyes in at least some circumstances you are removing a capability that is specifically noted on p. 139. So, that's more like a house rule than an interpretation.

The question in my mind is, if you are going to play RAW (wizards can 'see' and use perception related talents through an illusion's eyes), then what conditions apply? None are specified, so the loosest interpretation is that wherever the illusion is, you (the caster) are perceiving things from its perspective. I don't think there is a logical argument that lets you say clearly how this should or shouldn't be limited by distance, whether or not you've already seen what the illusion is setting, whether you can see the illusion at that moment, etc. It's a magic spell, and letting it provide remote sensory information isn't wildly out of line with the powers of other magic spells with similar difficulty and cost. So why not? But of course if you want to restrict the playing field for wizards for some reason the GM always has the right to make a narrower table ruling. Personally, I have a 'live and let live' approach to this sort of thing. If a player comes up with a creative use for a spell that doesn't violate something clear in the rules, I'd rather give the the reins and see where they go with it rather than shut it down.