Yes but you're actually good with details xD

Your map doesnt got any details yet chasester, it only has a detailed geometry (wich fucks up the wtr)...

How Is detail geom not details ?_?
Think Before You Think

Respectfully,
chasester

Detailed geometry is little different from detailed textures. They both take a toll of video performance.
The geometry helps the textures and light environment stand out. There is nothing wrong with having a half million polys in todays games. :P

Most engines break 1 billion polys per map nowadays anyway, and the texture resolution is at least fourfold of what is shown in sauer. ( I don't see what is to complain about )

( A machine that can run Crysis decently can be built for less than a thousand dollars. )

But you've forgot to tell that texturing itself stands stronger alone, than if geometry would stand alone (without textures, youll get a plain map, without geometry, you just get some blocky themed map, wich is less bad when done properly).
Even tough they both need each other, they shouldnt be called details when you look at them separate...

Textures are geometry hacks:

In an ideal world (like the realworld) geometry is key and textures only are used as plain colors. Ex; A sidewalk: if you could make every single rock in the payment it would be far more realistic. And the texturing would be simple rock textures such as flint, sandstone, etc. But because this much detail is over kill because you could not tell the difference it is easier to hack a texture over top it. Add some bump mapping, and bang it looks like a side walk. From a distance textures work but if there are enlarged they look like crap (well you know not realistic any way). Using a texture to establish geometry such as a relief sculpture is ok if it is on the top of the ceiling 10-20 feet away but this becomes very unrealistic when you are staring at it 2-10ish feet. Textures should be used to replace geom (or models) when the texture will not be regularly be viewed up close.

Bump Map is not the answer to all the worlds problems
chasester

But bumpmaps solves already a lot of geometry problems on some engines like Cube Engine 2 couldnt solve by geometry (even if it would be solvable, its not efficienct compared to bumpmapping).
When you are standing close to pure rounded geometry (for as far as Cube Engine 2 can "round") with just a plain texture, it looks more crappy as when only a high resolution texture has been used with bump-, spec-, glow and parallaxmap (because it only would be limited to its own pixelsize and your own configuration settings, wich is much easier to change compared to geometry. For making the geometry looks just the same as the texture would do, youll have to mod the sourcecode badly).

P.S.
Bump-mapping itself isnt solving all geometry problems, but combined with parallax-mapping and other mapping options inside Cube Engine 2 it gets quite far :)!

Chasester (21:13), the first half I agree with. Wouldn't it be a dream to model, say, a gothic cathedral, out of an infinite number of virtual sand grains and just add strategically placed light sources to make it all visible? Moore's law takes us ever closer to that ideal. By the way, even some of nature's most amazing colours are caused by pure geometry (on wavelenght scale).

Textures and geometry both start looking bad at close-up as soon as the resolution fails to match the desired shapes. No difference there. But textures are rendered cheaper per pixel, so we use textures wherever possible. A simple photo gives a perfectly .. ehh .. photorealistic effect!
The trouble with textures is that the wonderfull effect breaks down when you look at them from an angle. Beyond some angle geometry will have to take over. It strongly depends on the subject what angle is acceptable.

I am saying this because I'm in the middle of retexturing 'Basement' with own material. The photo hunt is great fun and an effective way to drag oneself away from the computer screen and into the sun.