minitest_embed.svg < 50 KB, initial resolution 1200×300 px, but can scale to anything when importing to Gimp/Photoshop or changing width height in the .svg. SH3D does not import the .svg directly so the image needs to be converted to .png/.jpg before use.

Photoshop can read and generate 3D models, and of course scale 3D models up or down, but textures ( photographic images) can not be up-scaled by any program without loosing quality, whether it's in [font=courier new].svg [/font] format or any other format. The way I understand it, using the [font=courier new].svg [/font] format has advantages only when using scaleable vector graphics.

.svg displays with any browser and edits with a text editor / Inkscape / the Gimp / OpenOffice etc. maybe even Photoshop

The [font=courier new].svg[/font] format is not read by Photoshop, so I use Adobe Illustrator to scale and convert it to [font=courier new].tiff[/font] or [font=courier new].psd [/font] whenever I get a file in that format, since I only work with photographic images.
Personally I struggle with using Gimp, but I put that down to having used Photoshop for nearly two thirds of my life, and me being frustrated when none of my "normal" shortcuts are working.

at the end of the day, it is just question of combining elements on a sky texture

Yes – but we have different reasons for placing these objects exactly where they end up being placed [;)]

I still don't see how [font=courier new].svg[/font] makes it easier to edit.

Cec