Quote from: WillLem on April 01, 2026, 10:42:34 PMAh, perhaps there's a misunderstanding here; the proposal is indeed that we update the V4.0 New Formats NL version of ROTL. Did you think we meant something else? We should clarify this before moving any further ahead with anything. See the this post for exactly what's being proposed.

Indeed, the confusion is all mine: I got it the other way around! For some very strange reason, I kept thinking the two 120-level packs was based on the v2.0 RotL pack and then Lemmings Assemble is based on v4.0 if you think it's still best to collaborate our efforts together. My mistake. Not only that, that one's only 210 levels (not counting the secret levels, and even counting them it comes a bit short of 240 anyway ) and hence it wouldn't be the even 120 split for the two mini-packs. That's what happens when I spent so much on getting an update posted for eric's SuperLemmini RotL conversions working tirelessly over the last several days that I was just flustered with how many issues in them bothered me that warranted an update IMO and hence I get mixed up about things

Yes, splitting the current v4.0 RotL pack into two packs of 120 levels each and then as a result Lemmings Assemble is its own thing independent of any of the RotL packs (save for any levels that get used from the Outtakes and overflow/extra pool) available makes complete sense to me now. People who want to contribute to Lemmings Assemble by making levels for it now makes sense Before with my mix-up, I was thinking, what's the purpose of people making levels for it then if you're basing it on v4.0 if you decide that's how it should be after doing the two packs of 120 levels each first, them being based (incorrectly, as I now see my mix-up and mistake) on v2.0?

In any case, now that my update for the SuperLemmini conversions are posted, unless there are issues that I missed that need fixing, that's that for them and they won't be brought up again as they're at least archived here on the Forums Now I can completely turn my focus on doing a long overdue update for the v4.0 RotL (2022 version) pack which is where my contributions should be in regards to this project!  

Quote from: WillLem on April 01, 2026, 10:42:34 PMAgreed, but things do need to move or nothing will get done. I'm happy for the general pace to be slower than it would be if I was working on it alone, but I'll also probably push for regular, tangible progress wherever possible. It's probably a good idea to set small goals that we can tick off once they're achieved, and try not to go back over stuff we've already decided on.

Yes, I got that. What I'm getting at here is that it's all right if nothing gets done with this, as it's not the end of the world or anything if so. However, as I already mentioned a few times before, I agree about not leaving the 2022 RotL pack the way it currently is. I've been meaning to update the pack, I just haven't gotten around to doing much work towards that yet or thought too much of it with everything else I have going on with my life outside of Lemmings or other priorities I have

Quote from: WillLem on April 02, 2026, 02:48:15 AMI suggest that we fix any backroutes that we know of this time around, and then sign the pack off as final. That is, IMO we shouldn't go back and fix it later, even if something else is found. The older levels will then exist as snapshots, and we can move forward with the newer ones.

Well, I don't think it'll be possible to fix all backroutes with only one update, even if I'm quite careful about nearly everything I do. Here, I would suggest giving it maybe 3 versions, similar to how you detailed me your approach to backroute fixing your levels, especially for those of yours you really like. I believe it went something like you give yourself 3 attempts, but if it's still backroutable after those 3 editions, you just don't bother fixing it up anymore. I think that's a good approach, even if I myself haven't made much use of it or given myself any kind of hard limit number on backroute fixes yet! Guess I'm one of those who prefers to release as many updates as is necessary until my level is finally fully backroute-proof. However, as I don't have any levels in the 2022 RotL version and that I'm fixing up other people's levels, I'll very likely relax this point when backroute fixing them, especially as a lot of them we don't know what's the intended solution anyway.

---

Anyway, I appreciate you wanting me to get involved and thinking that I'll (along with everyone else who will be doing some part in it) be valuable in contributing to the project! When we do eventually get to Lemmings Assemble much later down the road, again I'll consider contributing some levels of mine and/or making levels for it, though not a guarantee for the latter. Also, to be clear, I definitely am getting involved, as I mentioned that I been meaning to update the 2022 RotL pack for quite some time now. This would definitely be a good opportunity for me to do so while things are fresh again. Admittedly, it's thanks to @hrb264 that I've been revisiting RotL again for the past several weeks, when she had been posting her progress on solving the levels of the pack and that she got held up on JAILBREAK and I decided to take a look to see if it's solvable in SuperLemmini in order to help her out with the level roadblock!

One thing, and that is I would suggest letting the poll run its course first before we commit to our duties. I highly doubt it'll reverse in the next several days to overturn the green light to go ahead with it, but let's see first. I haven't voted yet, but I'm definitely one of the "yeses" for sure!

Because there was a bit of confusion with some people over what was being proposed for the project, I had a brilliant idea last night, and that is I suggest making separate in-development topics for each of the 3 packs you had in mind. I believe Proxima had the idea of making a separate topic from this one for level selection, and I agree. It should be possible to split them here, and if so, let me know how you want them to be split when I'm making the topics Otherwise, we can simply make new topics for them without splitting any posts here, but I do think we'll be able to split the posts. This topic has gotten plenty of posts already and hence things could very quickly get out of hand again, so I think we should split them when we get the chance!  

To be totally frank, I was trying to build a realistic passageway to increase the immersiveness in the level. Giving a feeling of "3D" in Z axis. But then the idea of "hiding" the lemmings struck me and I tried to remember any level where I couldn't see my lemmings... I couldn't (obviously). Then I thought how exciting and perhaps nerve-racking it would be during the passage: "Will they fall somewhere? Is there a trap? Are they lost? Did they die? Is this a bug?" and then "OMG THEY WALKED BEHIND!"

While trying to figure out how to implement this, I actually wanted the player to still be able to see their lemmings walk in all fairness to the player. That's why I initially aimed for ~90% opacity. So yes, I was never really going for full concealment, more of a "veil" effect (Like the hanging moss).

Your concern about hiding lemmings from the player is completely fair, and I think opacity itself might be the natural answer to it. If the foreground decoration is drawn to rlEffects but respects the alpha of the source PNG, the level designer controls visibility directly: a 90% opacity tunnel still lets the player track their lemmings, a 100% opaque one is a deliberate and obvious artistic choice rather than a hidden 'gotcha'. The community's concern tends to be with *deceptive* hiding (concealed traps, invisible steel). A visually prominent arch that lemmings clearly walk behind feels categorically different.

On your concern about existing lemming effects (countdowns, balloon pop, etc.) potentially rendering beneath the foreground object: for this use case that's actually acceptable or even preferable. A timebomb countdown visible through a tunnel arch would look fine and is arguably better than it being hidden.

So the implementation I'd humbly suggest, if I may and if you do wish to pursue this:

- Allow DOM_DECORATION gadgets with a FOREGROUND flag to draw to rlEffects (exactly as you outlined; no new layer needed, the existing layer does the job).
- Honour the source PNG's alpha channel as-is during that draw, rather than forcing full opacity. This keeps the designer in control of how "veiled" the effect feels.
- Additionally, when a lemming's position is covered by a FOREGROUND-flagged decoration, you can have the engine draw a simple outline or silhouette of that lemming to rlEffects as well, ater the decoration is composited. Since both would write to the same layer and decorations are drawn before lemmings in the pipeline, the outline would naturally sit on top of the foreground asset. I believe the infrastructure for this already exists in the codebase as the CombineFixedColor is already used for similar fixed-color overlay passes and the lemming's bounding rect is readily available at draw time.

This approach sidesteps the "hidden lemmings" concern entirely without needing a cursor-hover mechanic. The outline guarantees the player always knows where their lemmings are, regardless of how opaque the foreground asset is. It also means no special documentation warnings like "Designer beware" are needed as the game handles visibility automatically...

The cursor-hover silhouette you mentioned could still be a nice additional polish if it's not too costly, but I think the outline alone would be sufficient.

THANK YOU for taking the time to look into this and for the detailed breakdown of the layer stack. That alone was incredibly helpful for understanding why my earlier attempts weren't working.
And sincerely thank you for keeping "The" nostalgia alive and keep improving it up to this day. I was stunned with disbelief when I discovered your fork (and NeoLemmix to be totally frank).
I wish you a great day!

Currently, the only thing that's drawn to a higher layer than the lemmings themselves is the lemming "effects" (such as the Timebomber countdown, portal warp, balloon pop, freezing/unfreezing overlays, etc)

The layers are structured like this, from soonest -> latest in draw order:

  TRenderLayer = (rlBackground,
                  rlDecorations,
                  rlGadgetsLow,
                  rlShadowsLow,
                  rlTerrain,
                  rlLemmingsLow,
                  rlOnTerrainGadgets,
                  rlOneWayArrows,
                  rlGadgetsHigh,
                  rlTriggers,
                  rlShadowsHigh,
                  rlObjectHelpers,
                  rlParticles,
                  rlLemmingsHigh, <--- vast majority of lemming states are drawn here
                  rlEffects); <--- effects are drawn here

To achieve what you're suggesting, we could allow paint gadgets to be drawn to the "Effects" layer, but there are 2 potential issues with this, both of which add what I would consider to be undue complexity:

1) Existing lemming effects may still be drawn above the paint gadget. There may be a way to ensure that this doesn't happen, but it isn't a gimme.

2) Perhaps more importantly, we'd be introducing a way to potentially hide lemmings from the player. The community in general is already fairly prickly when it comes to hiding things like traps, exits and steel. Even speaking as someone who doesn't mind the odd hidden object now and again, hiding the lemmings is definitely a step too far. I do realise that this isn't what you're suggesting, and I can imagine that the effect you've described could look very cool. But, to avoid controversy, we'd have to implement some way to "reveal" the lemming when the cursor is over them, which adds further complexity to the feature. The more complex the feature, the more prone it is to bugs and the more justification it needs.

Then again, with all that said, I do like the idea you've suggested and I'd be interested to see if it could be made to work. If it isn't too problematic to set up, I personally wouldn't mind allowing paint objects to be drawn to the Effects layer. The only thing I'll rule out for definite is adding another rendering layer just to support this very niche feature. The rendering is already stretched pretty far as it is in SuperLemmix (given the 32-bit platform), so anything we can do to reduce the load is desirable.

Let me look into it and see what's possible.

Quote from: roltemurto on April 02, 2026, 03:49:02 AMI took a while for me to realize that you moved this under a separate topic, I thought I hallucinated reporting it  . Sorry about that.

Haha! Apologies, it's just easier to keep track of these things when they have separate topics.

Quote from: roltemurto on April 02, 2026, 03:49:02 AMI'm deleting the file now to see what new errors it'll fill up with.

Thanks for posting the full Error logs, some of those will no doubt be from before the previous "ToUpperInvariant" fix.

It would be helpful if you could clear the logs, then generate the settings error, and post just what comes up from that error.

From what you posted above, it seems to be a null reference exception when attempting to read settings. However, this doesn't tell us why the error occurred. Your settings file is clearly there, and the Editor is now locale-aware (although, there may be more that needs to be done in this regard).

So, let's see what comes up in the log from only the settings error. And, something to check in the meantime: is your settings file being saved to the "settings" folder in your SLX directory when it gets regenerated?

If nothing useful comes up in the log, I'll expand the error reporting to try and pinpoint exactly what's causing the null reference. But, let's completely exhaust the existing system first.

I took a while for me to realize that you moved this under a separate topic, I thought I hallucinated reporting it  . Sorry about that.

My ErrorLog.txt file is above 10MBs ... Repeating multiple same errors "multiple" times. So I used Notepad++'s "remove duplicate lines feature. Here are the original unique lines from that file;

System.ArgumentException: Parametre geçerli değil.
   konum: System.Drawing.Bitmap..ctor(String filename)
   konum: SLXEditor.Utility.CreateBitmapFromFile(String filePath)
   konum: SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.Image(String imageKey)
System.Exception: 'System.Exception' türünde özel durum oluşturuldu.
   konum: SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.CreateNewTerrainInfo(String filePath)
   konum: SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.ImageInfo(String imageName)
   konum: SLXEditor.ImageLibrary.AddNewImage(String imageKey)
System.NullReferenceException: Nesne başvurusu bir nesnenin örneğine ayarlanmadı.
   konum: SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.ReadLevelInfoFromForm(Boolean allowWriteBack)
   konum: SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.textbox_Leave(Object sender, EventArgs e)
   konum: SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.chk_Lvl_AutoStart_Leave(Object sender, EventArgs e)
   konum: System.Windows.Forms.CheckBox.OnCheckedChanged(EventArgs e)
   konum: System.Windows.Forms.CheckBox.set_CheckState(CheckState value)
   konum: System.Windows.Forms.CheckBox.set_Checked(Boolean value)
   konum: SLXEditor.Settings.ReadSettingsFromFile()
   konum: SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.CreateCompositeImage(String filePath, List`1 anims, LoadStyleAnimData primaryAnim, Int32& marginLeft, Int32& marginTop, Int32& marginRight, Int32& marginBottom, Boolean forceOriginalSize)
   konum: SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.CreateNewObjectInfo(String filePath)
   konum: SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.CommitLevelChanges()
   konum: System.Drawing.Bitmap..ctor(Int32 width, Int32 height, PixelFormat format)
   konum: System.Drawing.Bitmap..ctor(Int32 width, Int32 height)
System.DivideByZeroException: Sıfırla bölme girişiminde bulunuldu.

And here's the translated version;

System.ArgumentException: Parameter is not valid.
   at System.Drawing.Bitmap..ctor(String filename)
   at SLXEditor.Utility.CreateBitmapFromFile(String filePath)
   at SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.Image(String imageKey)
System.Exception: Exception of type 'System.Exception' was thrown.
   at SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.CreateNewTerrainInfo(String filePath)
   at SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.ImageInfo(String imageName)
   at SLXEditor.ImageLibrary.AddNewImage(String imageKey)
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
   at SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.ReadLevelInfoFromForm(Boolean allowWriteBack)
   at SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.textbox_Leave(Object sender, EventArgs e)
   at SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.chk_Lvl_AutoStart_Leave(Object sender, EventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.CheckBox.OnCheckedChanged(EventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.CheckBox.set_CheckState(CheckState value)
   at System.Windows.Forms.CheckBox.set_Checked(Boolean value)
   at SLXEditor.Settings.ReadSettingsFromFile()
   at SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.CreateCompositeImage(String filePath, List`1 anims, LoadStyleAnimData primaryAnim, Int32& marginLeft, Int32& marginTop, Int32& marginRight, Int32& marginBottom, Boolean forceOriginalSize)
   at SLXEditor.LoadStylesFromFile.CreateNewObjectInfo(String filePath)
   at SLXEditor.SLXEditForm.CommitLevelChanges()
   at System.Drawing.Bitmap..ctor(Int32 width, Int32 height, PixelFormat format)
   at System.Drawing.Bitmap..ctor(Int32 width, Int32 height)
System.DivideByZeroException: Attempted to divide by zero.
I'm not sure why is it throwing too many errors and produced 184146 lines of errors between 20260330140005 - 20260402061859 but I'm deleting the file now to see what new errors it'll fill up with.

Quote from: David on November 18, 2020, 08:57:49 PM"NO_EFFECT" images may be in the foreground or background while "BACKGROUND" images are always in the background (sometimes, I like to quibble ! )

How do I force foreground for and object or terrain so that lemmings walk behind it?

I am trying to create sort of a tunnel with %90 opacity so you can barely see the lemmings walk behind. I want it to physically be pass-through but visually on top of everything.

OR think of a scenario of a dungeon where some of the moss textures appear in front of the lemmings which is also something I like to achieve.
I tried decoration and one way flags as effect but I can't seem to achieve this. "No overwrite" nor "Draw Last" options don't help.  I even edited the level file giving the $gadget "foreground" flag but that also didn't work.

I've been searching the internet, these forums and old documentations for reference but so far no luck.

How does one go about creating a foreground terrain/object/decoration which is occluding but pass-through?

In reply to some of Mobius' earlier comments. Given that he's been maintaining ROTL for many years, his word on the subject and experience working with this particular bunch of levels is invaluable and should be treated as such.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMI already have a folder of levels, some finished, some not that could possibly work here.

Great stuff, we can certainly add these to the pool if you want to share them. We will most likely need backups and replacements, as well as contributions to Assemble.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMI do have a week off presently that I will have some time to re-familiarize myself with ROTL and maybe offer some feedback and thoughts on ROTL in general. I do have some idea of the age of most of the levels.

Any wisdom you can contribute regarding the ROTL levels will be much appreciated, especially with regards to ordering and chronology. I imagine we'll aim to structure the packs at least somewhat by age, but also taking the 2022 ordering into account.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMset a goal for WAY fewer levels than ROTL had/has. Trust me that was too much work Like around 100 or fewer levels would probably be best.

We're thinking 120 per pack at a maximum, but I'd be open to reducing this total to 100 if it does feel like there are too many levels even with 120. Currently, given Proxima's stats and the availability of levels in general, it might be a struggle to get it down to even 120. I'm hoping you might be able to help with that if you have any ideas as to what might be able to be dropped at this stage.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMI'd also recommend starting something totally new that has little or nothing to do with ROTL [other than being like a sequel as it seems you already may have in mind].

I know what you mean here. In fact, I originally did come up with the idea of Assemble as a separate pack intended to continue the general idea of ROTL as a 'community collab' only in spirit. But, there seems to be a general consensus (yourself included) that ROTL has gotten a bit out of hand and gone beyond its original scope somewhat, so I figured we could make a trilogy of it and restructure the original pack to be smaller.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMMy addition of newer levels seems a bad idea in hindsight.

I won't hear of it! It's totally natural to want to add more levels to a project like this, and you did the right thing in carrying it on. I'd say the only thing that probably should have happened sooner is a sequel pack, but I imagine that the idea simply mustn't have been suggested, or maybe there was pressure to include people's levels in the existing pack? Whatever the reason, we have an opportunity to sort that out now so let's go for it.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMwhen dealing with ROTL you're dealing with levels by people who aren't here to answer "is this a backroute or not" ... it would be far better and easier today to make a pack based on people that are here and can address questions and issues with there levels in real time.

Agreed, and we'll of course do that with the new levels. With the older levels, there comes a point where a level is what it is, and probably shouldn't be backroute fixed any further, even if the intended solution is known and the level has been previously fixed.

With that said, we have kaywhyn and Proxima on this project who are both excellent solvers and great at finding alternative solutions, backroutes, etc. We also have your specific knowledge of individual levels, which can and should be taken into account. I suggest that we fix any backroutes that we know of this time around, and then sign the pack off as final. That is, IMO we shouldn't go back and fix it later, even if something else is found. The older levels will then exist as snapshots, and we can move forward with the newer ones.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMAlso it would be nice to utilize the new skills and features of modern games [which the old levels obviously don't have].

This is a tricky one, and will likely come up more when we come to work on the new levels. My current thoughts are that the collab packs should feel like spiritual successors to Lemmings and Oh No! More Lemmings - OG styles, classic 8 skills, etc. We all make levels in those styles, and it's good to have a collection of the best the Forum has to offer that feels like an OG Lemmings sequel.

It's also worth noting that RetroLemmini can only support the OG objects and classic 8 skills. It feels right to have the community collab be something that is compatible with both platforms (NL and RL), but then I am biased as current RL dev! Other people's opinions on this will be needed later, no doubt.

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMpart of why I got frustrated with the project was that besides the end result being too large lots of people came in saying they wanted to contribute but in the end I did most of the work

Yes, this needs to be addressed. Everyone who's contributing has taken on clear roles, these:

Proxima - Level selection and ordering, general presentation
kaywhyn - Solving and backroute-fixing, managing feedback
Me - porting to RetroLemmini, music selection and ordering, general presentation

There will be more to delegate as time goes on, and we'll all be involved in all parts of the project ultimately, but having people in charge of different things will hopefully make it so that no single person feels it's all up to them to do everything.

As far as yourself goes, you're welcome to be involved in whatever capacity you wish. We will most likely need you for a bit of everything, given your experience with the levels, but there's honestly no pressure for you to do anything in particular. You've already done enough getting us this far!

Quote from: mobius on March 28, 2026, 02:51:52 PMand there were generally only a few people coming forward with opinions that disagreed, so they ended up at an impasse.

This is also a concern, especially given how quickly Forum discussion can dry up. But, I'm confident that we should be able to tackle most decisions as long as we remain invested. A decision-making process will likely present itself as we go on, I imagine, and - if it doesn't - I have several methods and techniques to help with this that I use for my own projects, and they work to just get things done. We can use those if needed.

Quote from: mobius on March 30, 2026, 05:51:02 PMJust to quickly add; in case I didn't mention this before; every time I produced an update; my biggest concern was taking in everyone's feedback.

Thanks for the heads up on this. I'd suggest that we treat existing feedback on the original levels as final, and go with our own individual opinions when it comes to sorting these levels out. For new levels, these will likely require a fresh process of releasing levels, taking on feedback, etc. I'll try to think of the best way to go about this given the current Forum setup. We'll likely hit Discord a lot for this.

Quote from: mobius on March 30, 2026, 05:51:02 PMI fully support whatever you guys do with this. If we start a new pack (sequel or whatever) I'd recommend making a new topic for that, inviting people to post levels and go through a playtesting period, like we did with the lix community set. That was tons of fun honestly, I hope we can do that again, even if my involvement is minimal.

Glad to have your approval, that means a lot. I hope that you can be involved in the new collab pack without the pressure of having to maintain it!

---

Please vote in the poll if you haven't already done so. Thanks!

Quote from: mobius on April 02, 2026, 12:39:09 AMin case any levels by ISteve are being used; The Top Shelf; all these are ruined by instant bombers ... if the levels are adjusted then it wouldn't matter reinstituting a timed bomber.

Thanks for clarifying this, mobius.

I'm pretty sure we've opted not to include levels by Insane Steve that are duplicates from his main level pack (although this decision isn't by any means final yet), so this may not be an issue anyway, but good to know just in case this particular level is ROTL-exclusive.

---

Please vote in the poll if you haven't already done so. Thanks!

Quote from: WillLem on April 01, 2026, 11:57:13 PMOne important difference: RetroLemmini supports optional Timed Bombers. Levels which feature the Bomber skill should ideally not require the skill to be used within the first 5 seconds of the first lem spawning. Should this come up, the ported level may need a small layout tweak to ensure that the standard solution is still possible with Timed Bombers.

A few levels come to mind off the bat: at least two levels by BulletRide (not sure if any of them actually ended up in ROTL in any version however...), also possibly a level by Fleech. And in case any levels by ISteve are being used; The Top Shelf; all these are ruined by instant bombers (if not adjusted in some way), the latter example turns out to have a rather simple fix which was applied in his big pack. If the levels are adjusted then it wouldn't matter reinstituting a timed bomber.