You're too kind ^^

Texturing: I think the textures look nice and fit very well together, otherwise I wouldn't have used them. I don't know which other maps you are talking about because the only major map I uploaded was CalmEvening, which is made of sandstone and wood. If you refer to cmvalley: The church is the further development of the church in cmvalley, thus it has the same texture theme as cmvalley. Concerning "other cm-maps", as far as I know the only church on cm maps was this one.
I started making the church in 2010 and then always had in mind to make it a beautiful detailed church, so everything I made on other maps was supposed to may end up in the church or on cphills, that's why you may have seen that theme often when I edit, I didn't have any other building that I could make stuff for. Still I really like those two stone textures.

Geometry: Skytexturing stuff is something I consider for gameplay but not for artistic maps.

Detailing: I don't really know how to answer that. I made the map "to present the church", the church is not a detail of the map, it's the building that it's all about. "Take the church for example, even ph-capture has one" What the hell, I didn't make that landscape and then told to myself "oh, a church would fit nice here on the mountain", I first had the church and then decided how to make the landscape around it. ( and the bridge, tower, etc.) The church in ph-capture plays a whole other role, it's one of many buildings and only a sidenote on that huge map, while on CpHills it's all focusing on it. To downgrade the CpChurch with the help of ph-capture (a rarely played gameplay map) and particularly the church in it I cannot take seriously.
Did you ask your developer what kind of maps he was refering to? I obviously tried to "model" everything I can with cubes and didn't want to use textures for details because textures are flat and cheap from an artistic point of view. "The map isn't offering more than noisy details" That's fine, that's what I wanted. (of course combined in a good looking way)

Lighting: Absurd allegation here. I try to hide the overall shape? I really like the overall shape, why should I hide it? I thought that it is a disadvantage of the nighttime that you do not clearly see the overall shape of the map and the church. The lighting is not focused particularly on the details, I lighted all around the church, focusing on the columns because it looks nice, when columns are lighted in the dark. (spent some time here to adjust the width of the lights) Inside the church I simply gave each candle a light, just like in real life and did not pay attention to any details. The only thing I did to adjust the lighting of details are a few lights near the big arches in the church, because those could not be seen clearly in the candle's lights only. Concerning "your" developer again: yes, that "can" be and "can" look ugly but that's not the case here.

Overall: I am the only creator, the blades are deleted, everyone is committed to his opinion.

Just as I said (and you stated yourself), the details are being overused in your maps. You keep copying them and overuse them without coming up with something new. I've seen that bridge in cmfantasy already. Come up with something original instead of recycling stuff.

My developer is your developer, as it's eihrul who stated that.

You clearly aren't getting the point of those statements. It's about the balance within the map that matters and the map is the whole map, not just a church or a bridge or anything else.
So if it's all about the church, don't add a whole forest around it while doing that improperly compared to the church.

It seems like you weren't getting my point from the church on ph-capture, as it's about the church not it's gameplay. Besides, the map is definitely not a rarely played gameplay map, as it get's played quiet often on capture servers.

Highlighting stuff isn't bad to do so, but just make sure other stuff isn't just pitch black and therefore, hidden.

I have a screenshot just under this statement which explains what I mean.
Only the candles are actually lighted. The rest of it is just unlighted.

Suicizer, how can you say that the details in that map are overused and copied. I spent hours and even days creating unique candleholders for every corner of the church, made my thoughts on how to add details to the windows, each side of the outside is unique, the clock took forever, the two rounded flower windows I had to adjust many times, not mentioning the organ, the landscape the arches, the caves and the roof.

Haven't you noticed that the bridge I made in cmfantasy with the big circles has the same theme as the arches in the church, having the same big circles. I already said, I started the church in 2010 and everything I have made since then I considered to may be used in a "church map", that's why they have the same texture theme and design. Same counts for the lighthouse you can see on my youtube channel, it has the same texture theme and later I decided to use its windows in the church too. Also, cmfantasy is not published here. How can you consider maps that are not published? Those are maps you have seen, that were part of the development but I did not publish them, I am not uploading one map after another with the same texture theme.
"Recyling stuff"? I took the bridge from cmfantasy and then spent hours to add those four towers around it. (which are basically from cmfantasy too, I built them together with the bridge) Developing my own stuff more and more is not recycling, that's artistic development.
The forest around the church looks totally fine.
The candles are the only lightsource, that's why it is quite dark in the cave and you have to watch out for your steps. If you are not able to accept that idea, it's your problem.

Then what about adding more light-sources than just some candles? It's still not a very original idea to add candles as only light-source (and yet you're not getting the lighting statement of eihrul. Such a shame).

For that map I don't care what eihrul says about lighting, there's a small landing stage for boats with wooden stairs going up, everything hidden in a cave. The people that built it added a few candles to have at least a little light at night there. They only work there at daytime, that's why those very few candles at night are enough. It is a dark place, I want it as a dark place, you are not supposed to see ppl there you may shoot.

As you don't care what eihrul says (neither seems like what I state), then I have nothing more to say. I gave my reasons why I judged like that and hope other's will understand. Keep being ignorant and you won't get as far as you would like to.

There's a difference between being ignorant and not caring about what other's say when you have your own project. I got as far as I wanted to and don't want any further.

If this were my map, I'd have started ignoring his comments after the second one. There is a point where they stop becoming useful and he seems to try to force his opinion.

Hello restcoser, thx for your detailed answer.
The stone like side of the churches are no immersion breaker for me, I was thinking of small holders for the candles made of stone.

A long curvy tunnel is only a long curvy tunnel, why should I add details when there wouldn't be details in real life.
I once had doors that were actually open so you could walk through, also windows. I then decided that I rather want to have a more detailed door because I like creating those. I could delete the noclip of the doors, then your immersion wouldn't break but you couldn't get in.

Nearly all textures in the map are vscaled, the window textures are offset, a lot of wood is vcolored, the stone arches are vrotated. I don't know why you dislike the textures because I like them.

The coints in the tower were supposed to be random little plates, there is room for improvement at that spot.

I always wanted to add sound, not only waterfall sound but also classic music playing in the church and wind in the tower, but I was too lazy so far, also because I have never done it before and after working for years on the same map motivation decreases a bit.

A very nice and comprehensible description of how the different layers need to work together. Whenever I work on the map again, I'll try to respect your words.

You do realize he actually is meaning the very same as I do?

Yes, Suicizer, our poiints are very similar. I have just not angered him with a very low rating and have tried to state some examples, that makes my post that good, that he can just agree to some points. Your post has the right points tho justify your rating, you just don't have weighted examples to support them.

I see a few differences between your comments, still the way he expresses himself is much more comprehensible, acceptable and less snotty.

The fact stands the map only has certain details which makes the map nice, that's all. So don't blame me for giving a low rating when it has nothing more to offer.

P.S.
I'm not willing to go into detail on such a big maps as I could write a book about what could be better (I started to make screenshots yesterday, but stopped after the 26th). I'm pretty sure he can find out on his own with some general help.

To cooper I have to say, I appreciate the work you have done with the textures, but it needs to get at the same level as the geometry. And laziness is no reason for lacking quality. When drawing a picture, do you stop when you need to draw the last bit? No, you go over it again, finalizing everything.
Get the layers into balance, show the very best you can with texturing.
One thing you could try is make a map which is poor in geometry and then make it look good with textures, it's a tough challenge, but it can raise your artistical skills.
Same goes for lighting. Make a map with poor geometry, just one textures and then take some lights and make it look good. Hard again, but not impossible. And when you have trained all these individual aspects look at your map again and find out for example that letters are much easier to do with textures and look better with textures than with geometry.

ctf-suite
There ya go, a perfect example of a good atmosphere yet as less details and geometry as possible.

Yup, nice map as an example. Just that nieb has done it and not cooper. Also I'm talking not that much about a gameplay-ready-map but more about an exercise to do that can improve mapping skills.

You're right, lazyness is a bad reason for lacking quality.
I enjoyed doing the complex geometry and I am happy that I personally can consider the church finished. (No matter what, Suicizer recognized it as a church)
I don't have the time, nor the motivation to train any texturing or lighting skills for a little pc-game, actually I have never been interested in that, that's why I never made a playable map, what I liked most was creating geometry. Maybe I should have posted the church only, marked as unfinished to get higher ratings? I wonder what rating Suicizer gave for the votiv church.

It is Creative Common, if you feel like improving cphills, feel free.

Yep and that's the reason why I gave such a low rating. When to notify it as artistic, make sure it looks the very best, not just good or even "well". I said it a lot of times already. the artistic label isn't meant as a dumping place for projects that aren't focussed on gameplay. As you shouldn't judge on clipping, flow or gameplay, you should judge way harder on the points which are left.

I guess it would be time for a new PC for you :P

Not a PC please, a bigger Mac.

By the way, this map is definitely slow foot.

A bigger Linux i should say. :D
Yeah, the map seems to have certainly some performance problems(especially at the bridge when looking at the church), 3 fps is still laggy, even for this map. ;)

I picked another site to download. For a reason I don't know, quadropolis won't accept a direct upload of cphills.zip

Thank you!

I picked another site to download. For a reason I don't know, quadropolis won't accept a direct upload of cphills.zip - cooper

its because your zip file is too large ;)