Yes, use a “small” skybox and keep it centered on the “camera” position. You can probably do a depth testing trick to make it look like the skybox is truly “huge” (even though it may not necessarily be so), but still be able to see the detail on the skybox faces.
I think the best way for a game that’s situated in outerspace is to not include any stars in your skybox,but instead render them by yourself using for example GL_POINTS.That has two advantages : First your stars won’t get stretched and second is that you can move them around like you want to give the player a feeling of motion.
I’m still quite new at this, so forgive me if this isn’t the best option. Why not have a single texture of your star field and create a background image in orthographic perspective before drawing the rest of the scene. Then you could could just pan the texture acrossed the poly as rotation changes. I mean, if your stars are just dots, then you’ll never be able move close enough to them to change the relative distance between the stars and you, or other stars. This way you only use a sigle poly and you wont get any distortion of your texture.
[This message has been edited by poo (edited 10-09-2003).]
First of all, I was not disabling lighting when drawing the skybox. Doing that fixed the problem of the dark, faded textures.
Second of all, my FOV was not 90 when drawing the skybox. Setting it to 90 put the textures in their proper perspective and they didn’t look pixelated anymore. I just push/pop the projection matrix to get back to my normal scene FOV.