Sorry, Herra, and I don't mean to be annoying or anything, but I don't think anybody really wants to go and check that all their planets are lit up the right way. In FS, whatever looks cool, is cool.
I agree with the last sentiment, but it's just that my mind is built so that it keeps shouting at me when I see physically inconsistent stuff, which makes it several degrees less cool than it could be
. It does look cool, it's just that with relatively small planning of the background, it could be better.
I'm not talking about completely accurate placements, just the general location of the star, planet and the player... Usually you can't make accurate comparisions in-mission anyway, since the planet and the sun are usually not on the same field of view... but when they are, the planet should appear as a crescent. Accuracy be damned for all I care, but it should at least look consistent.
Hmm... perhaps part of the problem is that the planet background images are usually static and only feature one phase of the planet, which effectively limits the amount of believable positions the planet can be placed in on the background. With four phases of the planet available, one could use way more positions for the planet - full planet, 3/4, ½ and 1/4 lit modes would already widen the selection notably. Perhaps 1/8th lit crescent could be usable as well, for situations like the one in the screenshot I picked on....
Perhaps I (or someone else) should make a set of planets in several phases so they could be used more freely on different relative positions to the sun.