What exactly does this prove lmao.

Using UV sphere might be the easiest option, but unfortunately in this case is not the best one. Firstly the outline is visibly angular – it doesn’t have to be a perfect circle, but at least should be smooth.

Finally, when considering the UV sphere for a planetary model, the inability to depict atmospheric halos becomes a limitation. Since mesh only allows surface drawing, an additional model is required for the halo, complicating the setup.

Opting for an actual spherical mesh to represent the planet is primarily for the ease of texture mapping. In the case of a skybox, however, there’s no need for a complex 3D mesh – it will be observed from a distance and from one position. A basic disk will work just as good.

Lol, I wasted five years of my life going to uni for game/simulation engineering.

While computers can be useful in mapping and predicting real life systems.

Most of it is like the movie sets. No one cares how you get something working, as long as it looks believable. Thats no different here.

Are you seriously expecting someone to have full rendered 3d setup and a simulated physics, just for a skybox?

If anything, you guys are proving spherical earth.

Texture Mapping: UV coordinates have to be defined as a function of position on a sphere. This includes scaling and TBN calculation

The surface equation maps a 2D position on a disc plane to a corresponding 3D position on a spherical surface. In simpler terms – it is a function that draws a ball.

This is why no map is the same, there is no way to perfectly map a 3d texture onto a 2d plane. Each solution has its own problems.

I even give you guys the benefit of the doubt, for all we know, we live in some kinda dimension of existence, which looks flat down here, but could curve away the farther you get from it.

But this is just silly.