How about you reread the thread instead, see that it’s about accurately reproducing existing stars, and realize that you indeed have a comprehension problem.

The sub-thread is about the minimum storage to hold a 3D model per star. Starman defined a 2-byte tetrahedron and multiplied. That's storage math, not astrophysical reproduction.

Nobody at any point said "accurately reproducing existing stars."

Procedural generation is relevant because it's the canonical example of compressing astronomical-scale data into almost nothing - which is what Braben did in 1984, on the machine I cited, which you initially corrected me on incorrectly.

You've now moved the goalposts twice: first from Elite to Elite Dangerous, now from "minimal storage per model" to "accurately reproducing existing stars."

At some point it's easier for you to just re-read the thread than to keep inventing new arguments to lose.

Go away.