So.. a bit of a weird release. Built for PC originally, then structured strictly towards a Ps4 release in the last 6 months. And on launch, the ps4 and PC versions are pretty much the same. From the forced (full-screen, per pixel) instagram filter that effectively doubles the graphics card requirement. To scheduling/threading problems that cause slow-downs on even the highest specced rig. To auto-pilot functions that no sane person could possibly have suggested. Along with blatant gameplay functionality shown in demos as close to release as April having been cut out (type: creature AI interference, planetary movement). And all the way back to genuine oversights that simple playtesting should have spotted easily.

Fortunately, the scheduling problems have been fixed in the patches a week after release (together with adding compatibility with processors that don't have SSE3, but otherwise are more than powerful to run the game). The instagram-filter can be removed with an unofficial mod (essentially doubling the framerate). And I have at least some hopes that the autopilots and flight-assists will be "toned down" (read: turned off) in future patches on the PC. And that we might see at least some of the disappearing functions in future releases - if nowhere else, then in an experimental branch.

(Or if that's not possible, through unofficial mods through semi-official mod tools - I respect that Sony is involved in this, but if HG wants to protect their own customer base, they will branch the PC version from the PS4 version either officially or unofficially. And then come prepared with their next game with proper legal agreements that prevent the same issues from emerging again, while being flatly open with how this disaster of a release happened - this is the only way I will buy another HG game in the future).

Outside of that, I'll suggest that feedback on the game should maybe be grouped into four categories:

1. Performance related issues.
(in the shape of "here are my specs", then general descriptions about the area the slowdowns happen, if they're possible to reproduce - does it consistently happen if you look towards a specific section of a building, do storms and weather effects have something to do with it, etc. Example: "flare effect when hitting a knowledge stone tends to consistently drop the framerate severely". "Floors on platforms spawned inside geometry shows graphics distortion when viewed at straight angles".)

2. Issues affecting gameplay, game-play function consistency.
(in the shape of "this is what happens". Vs. "this is what I expect should happen". I.e., "laser beam cooldown mods clearly affect the speed of the cooldown after overheat, while the normal cooldown is always zero. Expected behaviour: cooling mods affecting rate of cooldown during normal cooldown as well as when overheat happens". I know this is edgy already - cutting out the cooldown is clearly pathed in on purpose, but there are other examples that are less obviously intended. Other examples could be: "Additional sentinels spawn very close when alerted by other sentinels, or when pilfering rare resources, even in caves. Expected: alerted sentinels spawn nearby, but not as close as to obviously have been spawned out of thin air. Sentinels should not spawn next to you inside a cave, only to then lose track of you, etc").

3. Issues not directly affecting gameplay or immediate control.
(things like: "animals stroll over rocks by warping up high and then dumping down on the other side, if legs are long enough". Or "frequency of waypoints remaining on the map is very large if you forget to hit the location the waypoint is "visited"").

4. Feature requests.
(this is probably the largest category. And imo, should be the place where people group their thoughts about what should be in the game, small or large, implementable or not. Example: "faction interplay seems very rare and very random, with no way to genuinely support or oppose each faction, as you're limited to essentially helping or not helping the race that inhabits/owns the current system. In the end making it very difficult to fall in disfavor with either of the races for any reason, except very early in the game. Should be possible to assist factions and fall in disfavor with the other, as well as having general dominance indicators perhaps affecting which race holds nearby systems in the galaxy. So that you might launch missions to unfriendly systems to raid. Or assist a specific race in a neutral system, before jumping by light guidance to a system your allies control".)


-------

1. Performance things:
(i7u/mobile dual core+ht, nvidia 840m optimus)
-framerate drops connected to the forced full-screen filters. Seems affected by the number of complex surfaces visible in the viewport, not by density or number of objects. Allow filters in various parts of the rendering engine to be turned on or off based on preference. Note: very serious if intermittent performance problems on graphics cards that need to schedule context-shifts internally on the graphics cards, such as practically all nvidia cards, come from this extra filter-path.
-fps-blips/threading locks when disconnecting from online services.
-the "eventually you get 5fps" problem. Does not cause hangs, and can disappear randomly. Also seen on higher specced systems. Possibly a background task/thread problem?
-detail-mapping slows down in certain situations - possible optimisation route to prioritize surface tiles rather than underground caves or surface buildings? Seems possibly related to when large numbers of alien structures are nearby - is not present when graphics threads are optimally busy (from gpu-traffic graphs).

2.Gameplay-things:
-sentinels spawning too close. Expected: spawns nearby, called from elsewhere.
-difficult to judge when sentinels lose sight of the explorer (entering "cave" is a catch-all, turns sight on/off by, say, blowing a hole in the ground and sitting down. Until then, homing lock until indeterminable distance). Expected: running away and breaking los makes sentinels search.
-sentinels inspecting: there will often be another sentinel turning up immediately after the first one is destroyed, no matter how low the sentinel frequency is. Suspect foul play.
-hostiles pursuing through space. Need an indicator of approximately how far you need to run to escape. Breaking from orbit to a planet usually breaks pursuit from pirates outright. Mechanics should maybe allow half the tail to pursue through orbit.
-boost during space-flight - very difficult to judge speed between "nearby freighter", "inhibited from pulse-jump", and so on. Same effect and same speed on the dials, but not actually the same travel-speed. Expected: boost draws you faster than normal thrusters (optionally: tooltips could be more clear about the upgrades for pulse-drive?)
-mining beam niggles. Cooling mods should have a purpose. Should maybe be connected to different mining mechanics (i.e., draw higher amounts of resources with better upgrades - against adjusting the actual resources needed for basic upgrades. It seems like a "critical resource", heridium, is collected at incredibly high rates, and that this has been specially put in to ease the early game. Other resources are not adjusted for mining rates, and certain costs for mid-game upgrades seem extremely tedious to obtain in comparison).
-auto-pilots in space. Flight-path adjustment in space while engaging pirates. Very difficult to see when or why it turns up, often simply straightens out the flight-path or prevents you from turning at a specific angle. Triggers during the phase where you gain target-aquisition on the photon cannon. Seems less frequent when using the beam. Difficult to reproduce. Expected: proximity alert to large ships on hud (like subtle ouchies on the screen under or on the side, no flight assist).
-auto-pilots on planet. An auto-pilot physically prevents you from flying near the ground. Why? Expected/suggestion: enable automatic height-adjustment during boost. Disable it when flying without boost. Have the ship hover slightly above ground when traveling at low speeds, searching for a landing site, preventing you from burying your nose in the rock. If you genuinely believe that allowing this significantly hampers the "enjoyment" of the game for one of your target groups, make it possible to enable or disable the babying with a switch.

3. non-gameplay things.
-typos in tooltips. Jetpack booster Tau description: "ascent to higher locations". Toxin suppressor theta reads "Tau" in the description, same as the other "Tau", except for the resource requirements. Has correct description in exosuit view.
-if entering a "battle" area, ships eventually disengage and, presumably by random/closest exit spot, tries to return to the space-station, they get stuck in the entrance. Possibly only an issue if you are nearby the space-station when it happens?
-constructing a sigma rebreather, deconstructing it, and then reconstructing it in a different slot seems to duplicate the rebreather icons (three icons when the systems are being drained). Building a second rebreather makes the correct number of hud-icons turn up. Couldn't duplicate it later.
-progress on the Atlas quest. Accepting help from Atlas at the beginning of the game will prevent "space anomalies" from showing up until you visit an Atlas sanctuary and refuse assistance there. Visiting the monolith leading to this segment cannot be denied, and it's possible to be left with an Atlas marker several systems back, with no easy access to upgraded warp-reactors, etc.

Mm, the "oh, this looks promising - but the storms on a permafrost planet are probably a bit cold, so let me just grab my sweater and shake out the radioactive dust from the last explor... and aaarrghh I hit the unlock for the canopy by accident again! Freaking cold, let me back in demon ship from hell!" feature?

Not a huge fan either.

----------

4. Suggestion things:
-planetary movement: I know the copernican model of the universe surely still upsets some people in the year of our Lord 2016. In the same way that Giordano Bruno would without any doubt have been burned at the stake over and over again if he lived in certain specific parts of the world (such as the northern landmass specifically favored by the omnipotent being in the sky). But planetary systems rotating, that suns with their own exosystems rotate around each other, and that collections of stars in galaxies circle other such collections. That the universe is in constant motion. This is the foundation of any depiction of how a limitless universe might conceivably exist.

Not to put a too fine point on it, I feel that this game is not respecting my almost religious belief in the boundless universe sufficiently enough. And is instead specifically preaching the now presumably more common belief that the universe is static, with the earth in the middle, and that the sky is a blanket with holes in them so that the stars we see really are glimpses into heaven.

So I wish to suggest that my minority view of the copernican model should be better represented in the game, for the sake of plurality of viewpoints.
-planet distances. As it is, the pulse upgrades are completely pointless, since all planets exist in the near sphere of the space-station. After a good 100 planet systems I've not come across one planet that took more than 30 seconds to boost to.
-planet variation. It's very, very low. Even on the most extreme planets, the actual variation/extremes in geography is strikingly small. The largest hilltops and genuinely uneven geometry I saw has been on small moons placed relatively near a system's sun, or unusually far away from the center of the system. These planets are simply too rare..
-frozen lakes? I suppose it's technically possible to find a heavywater-lake or a nitrogen lake that can have 90 minus-degrees temperature. Or that a certain composition of fluid can avoid boiling or catching on fire at 300 degrees surface temperature. But if the planet has a hot core, the water should be warmer. Optionally, frozen flat lakes. "Permafrost" on the planet description and running water+fog seems curious. Not improbable, just difficult to see if this is intended
-trading, "check stock transfer", etc. There should maybe be a possibility of trading goods based on the information you gather from different systems. And investing in stock, traders, etc. Carrying the resources should not be the primary way of earning units, imo. In the same way, specific items that may be more or less common in one systems should be proportionally more or less costly in other systems, rewarding you if you wish to hoard resources. Traders on space-stations could have origins, and this could be tied to race, home-system and ship-type, etc. Might also be an idea to have trading posts on individual planets make sense. That there would actually be trade-routes. Chatter with traders could hint to this, identifying where they come from and connecting that with what goods they're selling.
-animation system for the creatures and the ship: seems to me there's an opportunity here to make ships tilt foward and backwards to land on an angle, and for creatures to turn depending on geometry (like they can when walking straight). No idea how much impossible restructuring and implementation this would cause, though :)
-a story-thread to introduce players to the black holes mechanic, why the "space anomaly" is there, etc.
-better structured language learning - themes and activity on the monoliths could be more related to the words you're learning, possibly to the history of the planet - themes like these could carry over to limit/orient the quests available.
-more difficult math, and more often. Please.
-flight-controls. A way to release the guidance thruster and turn more quickly, before engaging the guidance thrusters again. Like how the pirate ships fly.
-targeting controls in space - a more reasonable way to choose and engage targets. It's not necessary, imo, with a manual targeting function if the 3d orb radar was easier to read. In the same way, a guidance on the photon beam shots makes sense to a degree. But having an indicator on the hud on where you should be firing the fixed cannons might make more sense. The beam could have shorter range but be guided, for example. Creating this synergy when playing that won't make you chase the tail of the target constantly (i.e., if you draw alongside, you can use the beam while waiting for the ship to stop turning, or reduce speed, etc. Make a good, well-aimed photon cannon burst pay off, instead of just letting the player fire until the shots home in - still quick and easy battles, but more rewarding).
-risk/reward - hazardous planets should maybe make it very important to come prepared, if you want to get away with the goods? But should also be these self-contained puzzles. I.e., finding the right shielding based on the hazard on the planet. Impression so far is that the only hazard on any planets to speak of is water (before you get the rebreathers, and want to reach some point of interest down in a lake), and sentinels. Have maybe visited one planet (weather: incendiary dust) that had very few other dangers than the weather. Where I genuinely ran for shelter, etc. So with frequency of blueprints, upgrades for things you don't really need yet, etc., this probably tends to make you skip hazardous planets, and then go to the ones you already have protection for. Or soldier through one by jumping the ship three meters ahead at a time, etc.

EDITl: formatting seems not to be my strong suit (forget about GOG in this, too) - so sorry, but it is still readable.

Mm, well. Not to get into another huge rant. But that reddit post (that the author deleted after people started referring to it in their "Murray lied" stuff) pointed out with specific examples that we're often not talking about "imagined features that never were even loosely implied". We're talking about functions that were shown in live gameplay-demos as close to release as April. And that then were patched out in the last stage of Q&A.

There's also actual changelogs from the Ps4 beta saying that for example planetary movement was "toned down" because it "confused some people". Meaning there's nothing imaginary about planetary movement being removed late in the final testing. For reasons that I'm have a very hard time even imagining. So it's not that Murray lied about those functions being in the game. Or that "fans" have imagined them being in the game. It's the other way around - I can't imagine why or how the process to remove the functions happened.

In the same way, some of the gameplay additions, like the anti-ground autopilot, has been added very late, and it causes these curious problems like.. being booted into space on jet-launch. Etc. It's just not been tested well, and makes very little sense. Of course, since I have been part of early testing games several times on Sony productions, I can't say I haven't seen worse examples, because I really have.. But those functions can be sorted out.

So yes, there has been hype. To the point where articles imagined things from concept art. Which.. is curious, but not unexpected with the way click-based media works, after the amount of attention NMS has gotten.

But.. that doesn't change how many functions have been basically patched out right before release. And that's what the reddit post differentiated so well from various functions that have never been shown in live game-demos earlier. Or, to put it a different way, it showed, like was the author's intent, that the "Murray lied about everything" narrative in game-media is a simplification. To the point where it's quite wrong.

And that it happened in a very obvious and transparent fashion, such as: 1. Kotaku imagined functions and overhyped the game without any help from HG. 2. Kotaku then rag on the game for not having their imagined functions in the game. 3. And Kotaku pretend their view represents all the complaints about the game.

-------

Anyway - like your trade suggestions. I'd go for some simplifications, but maybe something like that you could map a resource rich planet, and get discounts when trading for those resources with a certain faction later? I.e., get certificate, increase rank in system depending on deposits, reduce cost when trading at universal trading spots. Optionally, grab resources you need in the short term.

The story-telling aspect: the writing that is there is, imo, pretty good. And I think finding glimpses of the background plot is actually meted out well. It's just the style of the story-telling they have chosen. Inside that, you could maybe imagine ways to make it more engaging, though. And have narrative turning up if some criteria on the planet happen. The danger of doing that is that you end up with the same rescue story turning up over and over again at different planets in various systems. But more of the Atlas/Nada type stories that unfold over time, or the existence of the synthetigeks, etc., that could work.

Imo.

I actually love the writing (what there is). They may only be snippets but they are very imaginative and make sense, they are even quite thoughtful. Far better some games which have lines and lines of talk and are still rubbish.

@Nipsen:

I had been as far away from the hype about NMS as I could probably be.
The only reason for me to purchase had been the announcement of Nvidia that NMS will have "Ansel", work with Ansel, whatever.
But, NMS came, some updates, too - no trace of Ansel so far (Nvidia said the same for W3, same result, Murray could learn a thing or two from Nvidia).

Anyway, when NMS finally had been installed (no bugs for me), I looked at the thing and tried to find out what did and what did not work for me.
Only later on I found some of my thoughts reflected in this reddit article.

Is my view "important" for anybody except me? Surely not, been into RPG from the days of the C64, and so the minimal approach is not entirely new for me.
Being lied to - another matter entirely.

Well, you'll find me on my planet "Lots of vortex cubes" in a minute ...

Interesting thread, I will try to add some feedback of my own.

I am one of those lucky people who never had performance/stability issues with this game, even on day 1, without recent patches/fixes. Therefore, there is nothing for me to add in 1st category.
Because most things below fall both in 2nd and 4th categories, I put them together.

GRAPHICAL SETTINGS
Full support for PC monitors, including UHD, 4:3 and 5:4 resolutions.

HUD
In addition to current “off” and “on” (dynamic) modes, there should be option “always on”.

Button to disable HUD “on the fly” (for screenshots), or “HUDless screenshot” function.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS
Be able to use torch (light source) at any time. Inside dark caves and in certain weather conditions the time of the day/night cycle is irrelevant. Waiting until night to explore the cave (because you cannot light the torch during daytime) is not a fun game mechanics.

MAIN CONTROLS
Ability to use additional mouse buttons (also called “side buttons”, they are quite widespread on modern devices). For example, set “weapon reload” function to MB5.

IN-COCPIT VIEW
Mouse freelook, with hold-down key (RMB or MMB as default binding).

Less sluggish in-cockpit view controls, with larger turn angles. I actually like limitation of freelook when flying on booster; it looks like high G-load effect. However, maximum angles are too low, I think 75-80 degrees in normal flight and 30-45 with booster will be better.

Enable freelook in landed ship.
Also option to disable automatic camera zoom and target tracking in combat (which currently overrides player’s input).

SHIP CONTROL
Visual mouse position indicator.

Ability to use mouse wheel for throttle control.

Ability to use analog input for roll and throttle. If rebindable analog axes are not an option, use one stick for pitch/yaw and second for roll and throttle (with free look via hold-down button).

With “landing” and “exit ship” set to different buttons, do not automatically leave ship on landing (auto-leave if set to same button).

FLIGHT MECHANICS
Ability to set throttle to zero. Currently it is possible to have zero speed in space by alternating between forward and backward thrust, but it is a pain in backside. Simple way to set throttle to neutral position would be great.

Less strict autopilot, especially at low altitude.
Even better solution would be an option to disable it completely.

Strafe thrusters (horizontal/vertical), or at least user controlled VTOL capabilities.
Combined with ability to hover (zero thrust) it will allow for manual (or semi-manual, from zero speed and low altitude) landing and take-off. Thus preventing ship destruction by autopilot (landing inside the caves or near large objects with following ramming on take-off).

[i]It may appear that flight controls are simplified to appeal for some part of game’s audience. But in fact it makes things worse: instead of fighting against enemies and occasionally losing ship due to player’s mistakes, we currently presented with fighting against our own autopilot and possibility to lose the ship at any moment (every landing/take-off is a gamble, with possibility to land inside cave or constantly ram a mountain until your ship is destroyed).
Enemies that attack you from below, while you cannot shoot back (due to autopilot preventing you from pitching down at low altitude). Inability to control landing and take-off (sometimes leading to ship destruction, because autopilot decides to kill you). And much more.[/i]

Why is it called an "Instagram Filter"?

Also had no performance issues, game worked great from day 1.
However, on the technical side, it would be great to offer more options for people with fast rigs. I feel my PC could probably handle a bit more viewing distance, to reduce nearby pop-ups, especially while flying low over planets.
Especially after the latest patch, I feel that pop-ups have even gotten worse and now happen extremely close by (to the point where it is really tough manually watching out for points of interest while flying because they will only pop into existence when I am almost on top of them.

As for possible improvements, the sky is the limit here. I made a post about suggestions a couple of days ago, here it is:

https://www.gog.com/forum/no_mans_sky/suggestions_for_poaaible_updatesdlcs_for_no_mans_sky

One question about planetary rotation (as I've seen this earlier in this thread and also elsewhere:
Who says planets don't rotate? From what I can tell, they do. They may not rotate around the sun properly (but who cares, for an earth like planet that should take a year anyway) but they do rotate around their own axis definitely from all I can tell (you can see the other planets in the system rise and fall and a location specific location on a planet will shift from the lit side to the dark side over time with a proper corresponding day/night cycle). So I am not sure what people mean when they say that planets don't rotate properly.

Well if planets don`t rotate, they certainly act like they do. Just look at the shadow of anything on a planet like a tree, and you`ll see its shadow moving, indicating a rotating planet.

Forgot one thing in my list of things:

you save by leaving your ship and/or by using the means of an outpost/alien installation.

But - there is this thing called "real life", and sometimes it strikes badly.

Meaning: you are in this cave that you happened to enlarge using your grenade, returning to your ship means a 10 minutes run >>> and suddenly your presense is in high demand (for real): this situation calls for the normal "save" button!
Must be some impossible feat to put that into a game?

Well, what happens is that you can land on a planet, put up a tent and wait until half a cycle has completed. And then go up in the atmosphere again. And somehow you're still facing all the other planets the same direction as before.

You could explain that by saying, well, the cluster of the planets are rotating around the sun in exactly the same speed (with the ones further in moving and rotating slower in exactly the right amount to always face you from the same direction). And this practically improbable phenomenon occurs in every single star-system in the galaxy. So this makes sense, right? Right?

But then you wouldn't have day and night on the planets, since the sun would face the same exact spot on the surface constantly.

And the way they solved that is by apparently adjusting the position of the sun on the fly when you get down on the planet - or that they've added a new sun that flies 2km up in the sky and is pushed across the sky by a great dung-beetle, or something like that. And that then disappears and scurries with the sun under the heaven-blanket with the holes in it, to bring it back to it's original position when you fly into space. Where it then is stuck, fixed in nothing.

Meanwhile, all the other planets, including the one you're on, don't actually rotate. At all. They're completely fixed, or the non-parallel movement is so minuscule that the starcluster background is basically moving in a sort of nervous four-pixel circle back and forth.

Point is that while they may not have implemented actual planetary movement physics, they have clearly implemented some form of very believable illusion of it. ....Take a camera up a mountain some time it's clear and set it up to take a series of photos during the night, for example. And then adjust the individual pictures so the stars are aligned between each picture. And you'll see exactly how the Earth rotates.. like a bendy apple-peel stretching back and forth outwards in a spiral. This is likely how they simulated the starsystem movement, along with having individual planets rotate at for example angles and rates that relate to each other within some limit.

And that this is what has been "toned down" in the final version. Presumably because ps4 people are confused if you tell them that the Earth is tumbling around the sun in a way that gives us remarkably fortuitous yearly cycles. That Mars has a bendy elliptical orbit with such a high focal point that the maximum distance to the sun is almost twice that of the minimum. And that Mars then is anywhere from.. 30 to 55 million kilometers away, depending on which century we are in, and at what point we're interfering with it's not exactly parallel orbit. And that the reason why we're so keen on launching stuff to Mars is that once in a while we're really, really freaking close to this thing compared to the other planets that have more lazy orbits similar to the Earth.

Anyway. So in this No Man's Sky universe, all the planets are fixed in place by an invisible hand. The planets are actually disc-shaped (and God is hiding it from you by turning the planet around slightly when you look). And the sun is a "small sun" that circles the sky at opportune times to create a beautiful spectacle and give us green crops, which we thank the allmighty lord for, etc.

I'm sort of joking, but it's .. grating. That the game essentially caters to flat-Earthers. You know, I was joking about it when I said the anti-evolution brigade would have the game crippled in the Sony Q&A process. But we have had problems like that in the closed betas I was in. That we had people with very curious views - not just very idiosyncratic opinions, or something like that - but very curious complaints that might not be instantly recognizable. And because they would always have these "it looks more convenient this way" arguments, to for example remove physics, or avoid weather simulation, or having day and night cycles, etc. Because of that way of arguing, some of us joked about it at the time that they were essentially flat-earthers and creationists. And played games because they were fascinated by the idea of a perfectly created universe, rather than having any fun. You know, it fits perfectly, right, when the same people in addition have a small personal crisis when a butt is implied to be shown naked in a game, for example. Something was going on with these guys, and Sony would still treat this as "legitimate concerns" like any other.

The problem of course not being that flat-earthers have their say, but that Sony adds in "issues" based on the most ridiculous complaints people might have, and treat them as "if we fix this, then more customers will be happy! I cannot see why any of this will ever upset 99% of the rest of the player-base in any way! Besides, it's just a game, and the developer agrees it's not "core" to their vision of the game! So there!".

But a lot of these freaky concerns then resulted in being reformulated and added to the change-lists for one reason or another, that the devs then were convinced of (by Sony) that were important. So this stuff is real, and it's one major reason why I will never buy another Sony game ever again.

Except that I somehow did it anyway with NMS, it seems.

I mean, whatever your view on hubcap-Earth theory, the fact is that changes - that took well over two months (the delay came after a three month extra stint when Sony took over) were very obviously made to the game. At the last stage of the development process, by order of a very tiny little focus-group.

And these changes pushed aside much more important concerns about gameplay that really does hamper the game. Not to mention that the changes also obscure the sense of exploration very effectively. So this stuff is so dumb, on so many levels, that the entire "flat-earthers also play games!" thing starts to represent Sony as a company very quickly.

So, after semi careful reading of your posts - Sony fired you in the end?
No - just do not answer, way too personal :).

Well, I spent time in more or less one spot on a planet once. Landed on the day side and waited till night. I that time, I saw
a) A sunset
b) A "moonset"
c) another planet vanish behind the horizon

Before I landed, I saw the moon and the other planet in space. Now, when I took off again at night time, I was on the dark side of the planet in space and both, the moon and the other planet were no longer visible as they were on the other side now.

I can't speak for movement of planets around the sun (which I guess does not happen because apparently the sun is only part of the skybox in space as well anyway) but as I wrote before, that movement should be so slow, it doesn't really concern us anyway.

Now, one issue I did see was that e.g. if you see a black hole from a planet's surface, they don't seem to move, so yes, I guess that that planet you are on is stationary and they move the entire star system around you (except for the black holes and space stations which also always seem to have fixed position).

You may say, this is a deliberate slight against the Copernican model but I really doubt that was the intention. My guess is, it is some sort of technical limitation.

I any case, I really don't care as - except for some very specific circumstances you really have to look out for - the illusion works pretty much perfectly. I think there are a lot more pressing concerns to address than this.