But it's MP, so I don't care. 

for high spec machines

Meaning "I can't be arsed to optimize properly" I assume? 

DaZ: It's nearly all Doom 3 textures, I created a lot of decals myself though

nitin: It'll run a little bit slower than the multiplayer maps shipped with the game

than: I used a few model from the original game and created all the rest in Doom3Ed myself

Lunaran: Why not wait with such comment until the map is released? The map file is included and you can then check yourself what else to optimize. 

Kickass! I'm so going to stea... borrow your idea of decal usage.

That barrel trap is pretty neat idea btw. 

Why not wait with such comment until the map is released?

Because I'm commenting on what you said. Simply stating "this is a map for high end systems" is a copout, and it reflects the attitude of the mapper to go gonzo with looks without taking the responsibility of ensuring the map runs acceptably on the same spectrum of machines that the original game does.

Also, since I don't have a high end machine, maybe I won't be checking? 

you just deflated his e-penis a little bit 

it's designed for high-end vaginas 

I somehow can't believe that map would be slower than the ID originals, atleast not when compared to some SP maps. Hell, i got less than 10FPS in combat at times. Looks it could be portaled up quite nicely, which helps a lot. 

try cubemaps on lights or swinging hang lamps? 

croud is demanding SP version!

('Large' and 'high spec' sounds scary tho :))
btw, are there any d3 servers for large player load (more than 4 per map) running 

Lunaran: Well, then don't check it.

Friciton: id mp maps run with about 40 to 65 fps on my machine, mine does with about 30 to 65. 

Who cares if the map is aimed at machines higher than Doom3's recommended spec? I know I certainly wasn't gunning for a Pentium 75 when I made my Quake maps :P

Anyway, T_Creutzenberg is a pro and I'm sure this map will rock. 

Yeah, well, Quake wasn't released six months ago.

I'm not debating that the shots look nice - you've done an excellent job and I hope that when I finally have Doom3 maps to show off they look that nice. But saying "this map is for high end machines" says to me that you're either seeing slowdowns in-game and don't want to take the time to do anything about it, or you're covering for doing so in the future.

It's obvious nobody wants to make the mental leap of actually listening to me so I'll quit posting. 

that's not necessarily true.
if the original vision of the map was something that called for larger spaces and more "stuff" (let's use a general term here ;) ) than the original id maps, then no matter how much it is optimized it will still run slower than the id maps. it's just that optimized it might get 35fps as opposed to 25fps unoptimized, so you're argument isn't rock solid anyway. 

if the map is designed for large player counts, then it must be designed to be played using mods which allow them, since the max standard player count is just 4 (unless a patch has changed that.) Obviously there must be an audience with pcs to run the map with lots of players.

I don't really see reason to criticise on the grounds that the map is designed for high-end machines anyway. Doom 3 doesn't really run acceptably on the p4 2.2ghz 512mb gf4 system I use at work - even in low detail 640*480. I consider this machine to be a decent enough games machine, but id obviously doesn't. 

by "optimization" I meant all the different mapping practices that fall under the realm of ensuring good performance, including designing and building from the ground up with an eye on such. 

You know people have been putting that in their readmes since the days of Quake. Some people just like to build high-poly stuff, and there probably isn't too much he can do to comprimise r_speeds without the looks taking a serious hit.

Nehahra, for example, might have caused a slowdown for some on lower end machines, but would it be prudent to accuse them of laziness just to cater to the minority of people?

Unless Creutzenberg means that we need an X850 512MB to play the map, it's not really fair to say that he isn't doing his job as a mapper, just because the r_speeds are a little higher than normal.

fake edit: I see Kinn basically said the same thing in far fewer lines. He will receive a gold star for the day. 

I was about to make the same statements Lun made. Thanks Lun for being a witch instead of me! 

People have been doing it a long time--czg himself with czg07--and if someone wants to map that way, let him.

However, having said that, poor optimizations (if they exist) and making something that is only playable by a small portion of the potential audience should be the foremost concern of all designers. 

... how's the optimization on sm82 going? 

Mentioning the fact, that a map requires bit more beefy computer than usually tends to make mappers go silly.

I wonder if there is any "I MAKE MY MAPS TO RUN SMOOTHLY ON A SHOEBOX, WHICH IS ALSO MY COMPUTER" factor in it. 

Shoeboxes suck... go map ;) 

Well, your crazy Australian question has misled me and instead of actually answering your question I've typed this otherwise unreasonable response. 

You five posts ago: Nehahra, for example, might have caused a slowdown for some on lower end machines, but would it be prudent to accuse them of laziness just to cater to the minority of people?

Me five posts before that: Yeah, well, Quake wasn't released six months ago.  

good point friction

btw gf4 was obsolete even at the time of doom3 release (if not before)

increasing load on the PC is fine if its justified by the enhanced visuals (or features)

Lun must be calmed down