Most people rarely look up in games so alot of high detail will be missed.

solutions:

1. spawn in some annoying flying bad guys with low hit points

2. shootable buttons near ceiling to open doors

3. game mechanic that rewards taking photos of rare objects or creatures, requiring people to look around more

4. cutscene that takes control away from the player and shows your preferred backdrop while "plot" happens in front of it

5. a tantalizing secret item that you can see easily but can't tell how to climb up to without looking around 

I'd go with the same trim style on the upper roof. It looks unfinished to me now, with the trim on the lower.

I'm not sure if the floor texturing was just unfinished in the first shot, but I kind of liked the look of that better. In that first shot it almost looks like decking...some sort of rough-hewn planks or something. Much more interesting than that square-cut stone in the new shots. 

Get a job making drinks on the beach instead. 

I mean sock you are basically livemapping. It is awesome. 

.. just posted it to show the progress f CDA sequel :)

http://lambert.jeanphilippe.free.fr/Divers/GTH03.JPG
http://lambert.jeanphilippe.free.fr/Divers/GTH04.JPG

Top of the destroyed castle is yet finished, I hope to start next area soon :) 

That map is definite hotness! Can't wait to play it... 

go go go!!! 

zomggg i need inspiration ~:\ havent mapped for weeks... not a single brushe!

look very cool JPL, keep the good work! 

I hope any light dwells on buttom of these dark caverns. 

Can't tell, are you using minlight? 

Yes, minligth = 20, and sunlight = 110... light compilation has -nominlight option in order to obtain some complete pitched black area with antilight...
What's the problem ? Do you have problem with your screen setting ? 

Minlight and those textures don't mix too well. 

I made a try without minlight, and it is completely black-ish darkness-ish in some area where there are no light sources... hence my decision to use minlight... just a matter of taste afterall... though... :P 

the floors look washed out, the shadow areas don't. 

I'd try a browner color instead of the white trims to lose some of the cartoony feel. 

Are you using 16 bit or did you change the gamma or brightness a lot? The colours look awful (not the map, but the screenshot). 

... does not reflect the map ingame guys ! Please remind this... Actually gamma is set to 0.55... (default value I think)... I just reworkd brightness and contrast by increasing the values respectively by 40 and 30% before posting... as I do all the time :/ 

Gamma 1 is the default. 0.55 is like HELLO LET ME EMULATE A NUCLEAR BLAST RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR RETINA! ;p

Set your monitor to sRGB if you can and calibrate further if needed: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html 

Well, it means that the map is darker than it is seen ingame... hmmmm seems that I have to check that now... but I fear that the main problem will then be to provide screenshots with something visible... bad... 

Actually gamma value is directly linked to the brightness set in the Quake setup menu.... So if gamma is set to 1, it is very dark... then if gamma decreases, it is brighter...
Also depending on your screen (CRT or flat), the rendering is different... it then explain why it is impossible to satisfy everybody with shots: better is to wait for the release, and play the map ;) 

looks awesome.
http://necros.quaddicted.com/temp/GTH04_crt.JPG <-- for you guys who think it's too dark.

a suggestion: i'm not really a fan of the 'small bright pinpricks of light spaced far apart' style of lighting. i like it when that is mixed in with larger, longer reaching lights.

if you can run in fitzquake, turn on r_lightmap 1. ideally, you should never have any surface with uniform light on it. it should always been ramping up or down.
obviously, this is only an ideal and it's impossible to actually do that. still, i feel it's something to strive for anyway. 

I've noticed that in your maps, you tend to use almost entirely short-distance & high-intensity lights. Have you thought about having longer 'wait' or 'delay'? 

minlight is a lot less necessary if you use delay 2 or 3 (1/x and 1/x^2 falloff formulae, respectively).

Input those functions into a graphing calculator program, and you can see what the light intensity falloff looks like. There is a tight core of high intensity light, and then a long tail of slowly dimming light. Just a couple of those lights can just about light a whole room.

In fact, the light will be fullbright at the center (see the graphed function, which goes asymptotic as it approaches zero), unless you use aguire's delay 4 fix that doesn't allow the light intensity to exceed the value of the "light" key on the light. 

just a correction to avoid confusion,

1/x = delay 1
1/x^2 = delay 2
and aguirRe's capped version = delay 5

i think jpl is using delay 2 lights, but the wait setting is set way up (like 2.5 or 3+) 

my post was both obfuscated *and* incorrect!