The first one, is to show that im not impressed with the skybox yet
It just looks like when you get a nice picture and convert it to lower quality.
Im not saying, they are very bad. They are on the right track. The small stars in the background, have a nice look.
But if you look at the first image in fullscreen, you can see what i mean. Its like (if any of you ever tryed it) when windows is set to 16 or 256 colers.
I dunno if its my resolution 1680x1050, but i did change the settings in the nvidia control panel to AT 16x and AA to 16Q, for the screenshots.
Do you perhaps mean that ambient light is too bright in relation to direct light? Ambient light seems to have been set up to fit the backgrounds, which are rather bright. But as far as I can see there is very few to reflect ambient light in empty space. So all surfaces that aren't directly lit should be very dark, unless a ship-mounted spotlight lights them.
Just compare the backgrounds of SoaSE and the following picture of the ISS: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/assembly/hires/sts104-332-027.jpg
The backgrounds from SoaSE are inspired by pictures with an excessive period of exposure. Surely pitch black is boring, but perhaps Ironclad could fiddle around with brightness to see wether other settings give a different and less cartoony impression. Freelancer did quite well. Space looked like an empty cold void, but not boring.
Compare this screenshot of the new colony ship with the one above.
The more blackish background makes it look better.
But this is my opinion
