Earth with and without the atmospheric extinction. If the yellow and red tinting were a thin line along the horizon, I'd be okay with this, but here, it doesn't seem like this is correct unless the atmosphere is really dusty.

Quote (smjjames)
Earth with and without the atmospheric extinction. If the yellow and red tinting were a thin line along the horizon, I'd be okay with this, but here, it doesn't seem like this is correct unless the atmosphere is really dusty.

You're not right. For example, which is the color of the Moon? You may say it's orange near the horizon and yellow at high altitudes, and you'd be right. But near the zenith it becomes almost grey. From space it is grey too. So the atmospheric extinction is very noticeable on Earth. I'm not saying on a planet with 10 atm pressure, there the extinction must be extremely high. SE uses Eric Bruneton's atmosphere model, which is highly accurate. The Earth's atmosphere model in SE uses the default parameters, as in his article. So the Earth atmosphere model should be considered as "precise". "Improving" as you say, means refusing realism in favor of the subjective aspect of how stars should look like from a planet surface

I've implement comets

Bonus

Bonus

Something I'm curious about is why is your Milkyway so much cooler?

Holy crap, really? That is really great! Does the planet type, orientation, spin, star type, and atmosphere affect the magnetic field and colors yet? (for example green aurorae is from mollecular oxygen in the atmosphere)

Also, will they be animated?