WTF was he playing at??

On the plus side there does seem to be a correlation between having early maps rejected and then becoming a prolific and consistently good mapper :P 

well also Shambler, as you pointed out, at some point the general quality of maps became so good that even someone's first map was worth reviewing 

"I'll show that fat bastard Shambler what a good Q1SP is." 

 

http://www.quaketastic.com/files/screen_shots/titan2s.jpg 

Mechtech one word... impressive! 

Nice architecture and texturing, but the lighting looks flat - maybe take some cues from sock's maps to improve it? 

yeah my episode sucked too. i thought it was pretty good at the time though haha. 

I replayed the Alkado Crisis just before this "issue" raised its head and... not that it stopped me from being in awe back in the day :) 

Are you using minlight?

Those walls are crying out for some spotlights! 

texture is very out of place. Looks nice except for that one thing really. 

@Mechtech: wow.... really nice and awesome arch texturing... hats-off.. 

haha distans I didn't even know that episode was still online anywhere, I thought I'd eradicated it from all existence!

we all start out somewhere making crap before we get decent. i guess to get pretty good it could take a good 50-100 hours, depending on the individual and how patient they are to improve.

i wonder what some of the early id levels were like, because I bet there was some early stuff in the learning phase that didn't make the cut. what did they do in the first 100 hours of level development... 

Some the the textures are from The Florentine Library by Sock. Still doing broad strokes. I want to get to the end, whatever that's going to be and fill in the monsters, lighting and skill specific stuff. I also want to find a good subtle fog setting. Any suggestions? using Fitz 

fog 0.02 

I had more then 100 and never got decent :p 

The models are nice, but they do look a bit flimsy when compared to the big rustic architecture of Quake. Got to thicken up the details a bit to prevent it from looking 'unnaturally realistic'. I think you could do some interesting things with the ceilings not typically seen in Q1 

Gotta agree with the comments about thin details looking wrong in quake.

Quake's combination of low-res textures and lightmaps, and lack of smooth light shading across polygon facets, all combine to make fiddly details look weird and wrong imo. Quake is best when painted in broad brushstrokes I reckon, although strangely the super-thin fence/bar stuff in czg's honey worked really well, so add the usual arse-talking disclaimer to my generalisation there. 

maybe this is just me but there are times where thin, tiny details can look good. 

but it does happen.

Usually these are minor details anyway. 

thinness can look good in quake.

In that screenshot, i'm not sure i can pinpoint the problem. One issue is probably that the thin bits aren't anchored to the rest of the scene in any way. Are they touching the floor? The pillars? I can't tell. Adding a thicker vertical post at each end of the fence and having that touch the ground in a believable way might help. Or adding some sort of metal bracket where they touch the pillar could work too.

One thing that helps make things look solid in quake is shadows, and when objects get small enough, they don't cast shadows anymore. This makes it harder for them to be believably in the scene. That's why a wider or thicker brush where the thin bit meets the wall or floor can help. 

http://celephais.net/levels/rubicon2/images/rubicon2_02.jpg

These aren't as thin as your brushes, but the principle is the same. I added a chunkier bracket thing where the thin poles meet the wall. The bracket is fat enough to cast a shadow. 

http://i.imgur.com/JddmbTR.jpg 

Adjusted some light compile settings

http://www.quaketastic.com/files/screen_shots/titan2s2.jpg

http://www.quaketastic.com/files/screen_shots/titan2s3.jpg 

Looks rad. Not too sold on the terracotta pillars though.