Yes, this thread is what I deem the most worthy way of concluding this year and starting out the next, thanks everyone participating.
Helm, hopefully without hijacking this thread too much, I want to give some more explanation of my thought process, why I really did what I did, although it's not immediately relevant to you now, but I think it's interesting, because in a way it's like reliving the early start-up progress of computer graphics / pixel art all over again; that's what makes this "new frontier" kind of exciting to me, it's all the same limitations and problems and aesthetics in the next dimension.
In what is populary referred to as voxel art in the form of cube meshes, resolution is as much a problem as it was for pixels on early computers back in the day. A higher resolution exponentially increases processing and memory requirements in pixel art, and for voxels it's sooo much worse even, at power3, making it extremely demanding even for today's best computers.
So what people do in things like Minecraft is making it extremely low-fy, and trying to make it more readable with higher res textures flat on them. In a way this is the worst kind of mix-and-match resolution. And then there is the idea of, hey why not give different classes of items a different resolution uniform, like the terrain is really rough, and the characters a bit less rough. This is a bit better, but still quite some hodge-podge.
So what I do is an actual natively mixed resolution on the fly for everything. BUT the trick is, the ace card, the joke of it, that it is not really meant to encourage mix and match resolution on the resulting art work! In fact what I really intended it to be used like is to give all the world a uniform fine resolution unlike any other such project to date.
What you do when modeling cubes in Blackbox is *surfacing* it ;p. The layers of lower resolutions turn out to be hidden within the core of the model, or away from sight on a walled side not meant to be seen, like a facade in film and theater. They are just a logical requirement for constructing the model, or modifying it later, but they are not meant to define visible model aesthetics, rather as a purely logical definition of volume, and to save so much performance and memory that it makes a higher surface resolution and frame-based animation and large distances possible on today's computers.
They achieve this through dynamic level of detail, that means the engine itself decides in a given scene, how much detail of each object is shown. When you put your face down on the ground tile, you see every stick and stone in ten thousand fine cubes of surface "texture", but when you look at that tile from a mile away it's only that small hand full big cubes of its core, but you don't really mind/notice, because it's so far away, the perspective makes it so small as a couple real pixels. As you get closer, it fades back in layer on layer of cube-resolution. Important in my implementation is, that the engine understands that the bigger cubes can at any time be transformed/split into smaller, to make all assets dynamically modifiable/destroyable, as if it was all a single uniform resolution at highest; that means that resolution-information is not actually lost, it just knows how to abstract things for the right occasions, to get the best of both worlds.
In normal pixel art there is no "hidden pixels" as such; but if computers were less powerful than today, and we still wanted to do Doom-like sprite-based 3d, then the equivalent to my technique would be what's called mip-mapping, that means creating each sprite in multiple pixel resolutions for the engine to pick as required. And even though the construction of pixelart does not depend on hidden-low-res pixel either, it is really interesting that the technique we currently discuss actually does rely on exactly that... the mip-maps would be a natural by-product of how you create art anyway. So if this were the technical reality, it would naturally be the preferred way of creating pixelart.
So that's my little story, and the interesting historical point in time we're at, where in case of this technology, all our super modern hardware just turned into a C64 again, in terms of what is ever so required and what meager it can deliver, and how we have to work around all that by being smart, coder and artist hand in hand, rather than brute processing force of how any pixel art is delivered today as an afterthought by anyone who so much as sneezes. By that notion we might even say, voxelart of today is spiritually closer to pixelart back in the day, than modern pixel art itself, which, as has been noted before, in its lush fidelity is more and more difficult to differentiate from art made of pixels. But I don't mean that as valuation, I love it all, I mean that more in the modes of thought process of an artist in the process of creating. You know how you often put yourself under artificial restrictions to relive it and spark your creativity in certain ways? Well, these limitations are actual reality again for the next 10-20 years... maybe the last time any limitation is not artificial.
In entering discussion here, I was interested both in your advice, I am ever so doubtful of my devices, and if what I do has any value for you too, and if there are any funny quirks and interesting abuses and "syn-aesthetic" styles in it for pixelart as of now. It is always good to increase the total wealth of what pixel art can mean, in its pride.