I'ts full of errors. A great initiative, but it's just the first step. The program still needs many corrections. The proportion of different magnitude stars is wrong. The textures in solid surfaces are wrong, and so are in the fluids. The nebulosity inside nebulas is wrong, and so are bright and color. All the images are unreal, not because we don't know the real data, but because simulation is failing in many aspects. Too bad... Anyway, it's a colossal work, and it would be a much bigger work to make it more realistic. Maybe a team could make it, but not a single person.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-zLA3Kr....003.jpg
The amount of bright stars is disproportionately big. In a universe with low anisotropy, almost homogeneous, it's expected that in any region the observer is, the star distribution would be aproximately uniform. If the luminosity distribution just follows the H-R diagram, or if it was uniform, too, the result would be similar, but having a bigger variance in the H-R case and a soft assimetry, with a dense tail in the inferior extremity (note: I don't really know what he's talking about). That makes the quantity of less bright stars bigger than the brighter stars, considering any bright level, and any observer location (generic locations, but there might be very rare points where this rule doesn't apply). In the picture it's grossly incorrect. There's much uniformity in the stars bright, and we can notice a bright star predominance. I didn't quantitatively analyze the color proportion, but it's possible to be wrong too, with blue and other hot stars excess. There's nowhere in the universe (or maybe very few places) where the sky would have this aspect.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-NL5gIP....007.jpg
Unles you are in the center of a galaxy or a big globular cluster, there wouldn't be so many bright stars next to a planetary-sized disc. Let's postulate the planet have the angular size of the Moon, or even 10 times bigger. The quantity of bright stars around would be very small, maybe 4 or 5 in a 5 degrees field. And it they were low-bright stars, again the planet would appear intensely shining or exloding in white. Try to look at the moon in the sky and the amount of near bright stars. This presentation is totally unreal. There are very few regions in space with this star density, and even so, there would be the different bright level proportion problem, which is wrong, too.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-L24iss....817.jpg
This one looks like a representation of Triton's Surface.
Neptune is okay because the image is real. We don't have near pictures of Triton, but we can represent it as a fractal. The surface is exessively euclidian, we can clearly realize it's artificial. Look at this fractal:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-Plv6Gx....8_b.jpg
In a first sight, it looks like a real world, with texture, tonalities and shadow gradient. But it's not correctly coloured yet. That's the way to have appropriate representations of real objects (give or take), so it won't look like a cartoon.

There are some artistic representations in the book "Cosmos" which are very good, but they were handmade and wouldn't work in this case. The program needs equations with formation laws to multifractal generation. The more equations it have at disposal, the bigger will be the scenarios variery it can create, aht the closer to real planets the aspect will be. Continents and clouds are fractal too, but in the program images they are euclidian.