It’d probably be cheaper and easier to define one up vector, and just use a transformation matrix to align the whole coordinate system with that vector. I think there’s a pre-built node that can do this. Can’t remember it’s name for sure off the top of my head - transform fixed basis or something like that? Anyway, you can put in your coordinate system and an arbitrary facing normal vector, and that becomes the new up vector.
The camera vector would be your UVs, in this case since it’s a skybox the camera vector is a good choice. Atmosphere sun light vector would be your “Up” vector. Replace it with whatever your desired vector is. The sun vector just makes for easy testing because you can see the rotation align with the sun. The Transform to Fixed Frame just makes the coordinate system relative to the Z vector. Center should be left empty for this case.
Seeing as you are adding the vectors to get the rotations I doubt using the same absolute position would be ok as one has already taking in transformed data. Using the already transformed vector position by the earlier rotation seems to give more stable results.
Not a 100% sure the transform is correct as it causes some slight nausea so some parameter might still be off.
This does not give you exact speed controls of the rotations but one axis takes on the for of a fraction of the rotation speed. (seems one of the more sane options)
I’m not sure, because I’ve read a lot of things these days, but it could be that someone advice me that it is better to rotate the material instead of the mesh. The thing is that if I rotate the mesh it does its work.
Thank you for your time and for all of your solutions.
What I need to do is tilt the skybox and then start rotating it. To give an example, it is like the Earth, which has its axis of rotation tilted by 23.5 degrees and rotates at that tilt. This is why I need to rotate the texture (or material) around two axis.