Yeah? Well, I wasn't.
Being rude like that and then writing "no offence" at the end is not going to take you far in life my friend.
Been there, done that bought the t-shirt. Any fool can call out smart-ass comments, and feel good for two seconds afterwards. All I was trying to do was contribute, yet you give me a reaming, cos I'm like the guys at school that you need help from.
I certainly wasn't TRYING TO HELP for my own sake man..
Oh well, nevermind.
The fact that you've claimed to be just kidding duly noted and accepted. No hard feelings at this end buddy.
By all means, send me nasty PMs, just keep the board positive and constructive. That's what it's here for no?
But back to the issue at hand.
Now, i've not looked into this much at all, but perhaps you could cheat and use a noise function in place of the cloud texture, you may even find it possible to reduce the resolution of all the maps except the colour, without too much impact on the final rendered image.
Or of course, if you didn't plan on getting too close, you'd need nothing like the 8k*8k resolution used. If you've not seen it already, Alex Alvarez over at Gnomon has written an article on texture resolution and how to determine what res you should use for any particular shot.
Say that the planet was going to touch the sides of the screen on an 1024x1024 monitor, Half of the planet will be using up just under 3/4 of the screen (0.707)
So, 1.514 Megapixels will cover the planet and work out to 1 texel per pixel in the center of the planet and more texels per pixels at the edges of the planet.
To put it another way - at that screen res and that size finished image, there's going to be very little if any perceptable difference between an 8k*8k map, and a 1260x1260 map. But your computer will sure notice the difference.
Dunno how much ram you've got, but 1.5 megapixels per map has gotta be easier than 64 megapixels per map, I suppose.
I might just have delve a little deeper into this.. Thanx for the bump.