Really interesting comparison!
From looking at it, I thought E:D’s planets looked pretty good close-up, but on approach very much lacked any kind of “impressive” vibe. (Are they true to size, or scaled down?) In particular, I like the snowy look to the ground when near the surface, but the popping of terrain during descent etc, it begins to look like it somehow lacks resolution - like it’s sort of… soft.
And I’m sorry, but Star Citizen’s are horrible. (Yes, of course WIP, but so is Battlescape). More impressive in size and better looking than E:D’s from a distance, but as you get closer it’s just not very nice. The ice planet has a very repetitive surface, and you can hardly see anything on the rocky world. The surface looks good once you get to it, but what’s the point if the whole approach looks rubbish? Not to mention that framerate!
And lastly, we come to Infinity:Battlescape. I won’t be so much of a fanboy as to say "themz the bestest!"
However, from the approach down to high-altitude, I do genuinely think I:B’s planets are the most impressive, both in scale, performance and appearance. Lighting is gorgeous and terrain is interesting.
Where the planets still lack is ground-level details. E:D and SC look better at low altitude/surface (generalisation alert). I:B suffers from some areas being very flat and smooth, with nothing to break that up. Hopefully that will improve, as I heard they have on their To Do list new ways to implement vegetation (and hopefully rocks too)!
Aresthia (the rocky world) and Gallia (the new asteroid) are probably the best for avoiding this, as they have plenty of variety of terrain.
Overall, I think I:B really does have the most impressive planetary tech, but the surfaces need some love.