Lemmings re-make

[Leviathan]

I've created a new roman set level which took me a hell lot of time to design...even more than FANL...

http://it.travisbsd.org/lemmings/lemmingswelt/index.php?cmd=get&file=levelpacks/BASHBEND.dat

If you know the trick it's very easy (aside from some precision) and if you don't see the trick I guess it's impossible

I guess there are no backroutes given the strict ammount of skills...but who knows

[tseug]

I certainly don't see any backroutes. In my opinion the solution is rather obvious, but still fun to watch.

[Proxima]

I have no problem with it. Just check that there's still enough space to make it easy for the miner from the right to get low enough -- that bit's not meant to require precision.

Well, perhaps you can make a copy of your Cheapo version, erase some of the bottom-most terrain to match the LemEdit version, add the larger steel plates, and try it out and see.  It's certainly not pixel-precise, but clearly you are a bit more constrained in regards to where to start mining.  You'll have to tell me what "easy" means for you.

I did, and there was no problem.

Well, it'd be tedious since I'd have to hollow out the rings with numerous eraser pieces, but it's doable and actually kinda neat to be able to recreate them in LemEdit.  So you don't have to get rid of those rings unless you really want to.  You decide.

I'll have a go at redoing the level soon and tell you if I get anywhere. I imagine there's no hurry, since you can do "Behind Bars" and the remaining MIDIs first anyway.

[ccexplore]

I did some more calculations, thinking and testing.  Unfortunately, if I modify Levithan's scheme a little (for example, making the first blocker as well as the second blocker participate in steel failures), turns out it's possible to penetrate up to 24 pixels down from the surface.  And turns out that is just barely enough to allow a basher bashing underneath to connect with the penetration.  (The basher cannot start bashing any higher or the steel area will stop the bashing.  Starting lower and the basher tunnel won't connect with the penetration.)

So even the 25-pixel steel plate is apparently not quite enough.  On the other hand, I really don't want to enlarge the steel areas any further.

So instead I'm considering the possibility of hacking the game to remove the steel failure glitch.  Since it's already necessary to hack the game for more mundane things like disabling the implicit level repeat mechanism (aka "oddtable"), there's no reason not to hack further.  I doubt anyone here misses that glitch anyway, and we stipulated no glitches required for the remakes.  This simply enforces one aspect of the rule.

I don't know yet how doable it is, but I'll definitely look into it.

[Leviathan]

It might be possible,however using this glitch as a backroute seems more difficult to pull off than the original solution so the question is: will it be worth it spending time to hack the game and maybe even alter the original game's mechanics?

I have another question: it seems in some versions of lemmings 1 the safe fall distance is different...in one version the lemmings from the exit would splat in Mayhem 1 (the version I had when I was little) and in the other version (the one I have now) they don't splat.
Both those versions are PC-DOS.

So I'm really confused about the safe fall distances...

I believe in Genesis the safe distance is the lowest of all versions (possibly the same as the first version of lemmings I mentioned) and the highest for CustLem1 (possibly the same as the second version I mentiond).

[ccexplore]

It might be possible,however using this glitch as a backroute seems more difficult to pull off than the original solution so the question is: will it be worth it spending time to hack the game and maybe even alter the original game's mechanics?

By eliminating certain glitches for good, it saves time down the road, as you no longer need to work around the same glitches in other levels.  And not having to alter the level to deal with glitches means less compromises to the desired visual appearance.

I have another question: it seems in some versions of lemmings 1 the safe fall distance is different...in one version the lemmings from the exit would splat in Mayhem 1 (the version I had when I was little) and in the other version (the one I have now) they don't splat.

That was discovered some time ago.  A more dramatic effect of the fall distance can be seen in the "We All Fall Down" levels.  In the version with the higher safe fall distance, those levels can be passed without doing anything.

It's believed that the original version of Lemmings 1 has the smaller safe fall distance.  It is alleged that at some point during ONML development, they decided to increase the fall distance slightly in order to deal with a certain level.  Around the same time, Psygnosis published an official "solution book" written by Mark Tsai.  That solution book includes a version of Lemmings 1 that I think is modified to present some preview of ONML levels or the like when you complete Mayhem or something.  That version apparently inherited the increased fall distance (most likely by accident, as the increased fall distance ruins "We All Fall Down").  That might be the version you have.

Interestingly, the ONML you can get from abandonia.com has the smaller safe fall distance, so it's not clear whether they reverted back to the original fall distance when ONML is finally published, or instead the version you get from abandonia.com is somehow hacked or otherwise not the true original copy of ONML.  I tend to think the former, because the Amiga version of ONML I downloaded somewhere also has the smaller safe fall distance.  But I can't vouch for the authenticity of the PC/DOS and Amiga versions I have on my computer.

So I'm really confused about the safe fall distances...

I can't blame you here.  But, given that the higher fall distance ruins "We All Fall Down", I think we can agree that at least for Lemmings 1, it's meant for the smaller fall distance.  Moreover, it's found that all ONML levels are solvable with the smaller fall distance.

Unfortunately, CustLemm came with the higher fall distance, and far too many CustLemm levels have been created before the fall distance difference is discovered.  This is mainly why I decided to use the higher fall distance for our Lemmings remake.  The decision is not final however.

I believe in Genesis the safe distance is the lowest of all versions (possibly the same as the first version of lemmings I mentioned) and the highest for CustLem1 (possibly the same as the second version I mentiond).

Discounting versions like NES and GameBoy that have rather different game mechanics, there is just 2 known fall distances amongst the various versions.  Most versions should have the smaller fall distance, so the Genesis version's fall distance is in fact the same as the old PC Lemmings 1, Amiga Lemmings, SNES Lemmings, etc.  The only versions I know of with the higher fall distance is Mark Tsai's Lemmings 1 and CustLem1.  If anyone ever comes across a demo version of ONML, it might be interesting to check out which fall distance it uses.

[geoo]

If anyone ever comes across a demo version of ONML, it might be interesting to check out which fall distance it uses.

Well, I sometime downloaded a demo version of ONML because the complete versions didn't work for some reason (I got a working one now however), and at 66px the lemmings don't splat but at 67 px height, i.e. it has the higher fall distance.
Unfortunately I don't remember where I got this version from.

[JM]

I've created a new roman set level which took me a hell lot of time to design...even more than FANL...

http://it.travisbsd.org/lemmings/lemmingswelt/index.php?cmd=get&file=levelpacks/BASHBEND.dat

If you know the trick it's very easy (aside from some precision) and if you don't see the trick I guess it's impossible

I guess there are no backroutes given the strict ammount of skills...but who knows

I don't think there is any backroutes in the level. It looks really good. I like the design of the level. I could try and do more levels for this re-make thing.

[ccexplore]

I think you should just make the change to the crystals you suggested. The fact that it allows a backroute with that builder glitch doesn't matter because (1) there is a backroute with that glitch already

@Ahribar:  if the thin platform between the sphere and the metal wall is made even thinner (say, 3 pixels or less), then even if you build on thin air, you won't be turned around.

Of course, I'm not too enthused about the resulting visual change.

I'm contemplating making this another candidate for elimination by game hacking.  Namely, I'm thinking of making it so that the digger becomes a faller as soon as it breaks through, so that you get no chance to assign it another skill while it's on thin air.

But, it's likely that if I do this, it will decrease by 1 pixel the effective fall distance of a digger who broke thru.  Basically because the digger would start falling at the elevation where the bottommost row of terrain pixels were at.  The way it is right now, the digger actually starts falling one row below.  I emphasize that this only affects diggers.

I need input from other people here regarding whether they see this change as unacceptable or ok.

[Proxima]

But, it's likely that if I do this, it will decrease by 1 pixel the effective fall distance of a digger who broke thru.  Basically because the digger would start falling at the elevation where the bottommost row of terrain pixels were at.  The way it is right now, the digger actually starts falling one row below.  I emphasize that this only affects diggers.

:-/  Am I missing something, or should "decrease" there be "increase"?

(And my levels are designed with this behaviour in mind anyway -- Cheapo does the same.)

[ccexplore]

But, it's likely that if I do this, it will decrease by 1 pixel the effective fall distance of a digger who broke thru. &#A0;Basically because the digger would start falling at the elevation where the bottommost row of terrain pixels were at. &#A0;The way it is right now, the digger actually starts falling one row below. &#A0;I emphasize that this only affects diggers.

:-/ &#A0;Am I missing something, or should "decrease" there be "increase"?

Oops, yeah, I meant increase.

Very few if any levels would be affected by the change, and even if it is affected, in many cases you can just make the terrain one pixel thicker or move the landing spot one pixel up to compensate.  The change would also make the digger's fall behavior arguably a little more consistent with other skills' fall behavior.  The way it is right now, in effect the digger doesn't fall when he breaks through, but rather when he digs at thin air.  This behavior has pretty much no analogue in the other skills.

[Proxima]

So -- just to get this straight -- in the current version it's possible to have a 1px-thick ledge at the perfect height that if you dig through it, the digger will survive but the walkers behind him will not?

[ccexplore]

So -- just to get this straight -- in the current version it's possible to have a 1px-thick ledge at the perfect height that if you dig through it, the digger will survive but the walkers behind him will not?

Unfortunately, the game mechanics is more confusing than you think. &#A0;:

For walkers going off the edge of a cliff, the game actually moves the lemming from the previous position to a position one pixel horizontally and 4 pixels down, then the transition to faller starts. &#A0;But it appears that the game code doesn't account properly for that bit of "pre-fall" when keeping track of how far the lemming has fallen, so as a result, a walker can survive a slightly longer fall than a digger. &#A0;If you recall from "Lemmings Challenge", this is why for my 100% solution to Wicked 6, I made the miner a blocker on thin air. &#A0;The miner cannot survive as high a fall as the walker (blocker transitions to walker when freed) can.

What I am saying with regards to the digger is this: &#A0;currently the way it works, the digger actually starts falling at the position marked by "*":

Code: [Select]

XXXX.........XXXX
XXXX.........XXXX
........*........This is because the digger doesn't start falling when he digs through; rather, he actually starts falling after one more dig, the "digging at thin air" dig, which places him at "*" when he finally starts falling.

With my proposed change, the "*" goes up by 1, since you do turn into a faller immediately after digging through:

Code: [Select]

XXXX.........XXXX
XXXX....*....XXXX----------------------------

Of course, being the lazy guy that I can be, I do wonder now whether we should simply ignore the existence of backroutes that use glitches, instead just pretending that the game does bar those glitches. &#A0;(Although, I'd probably still hack the game to at least fix the inconsistency regarding miners facing left/right and one-way walls.)[/color]

[ccexplore]

As a reference, this is the picture depicting the starting fall position of a walker that was standing at the bottom of the digger's pit when the digger digs through (the "+" depicts where the walker was before transitioning into faller):

Code: [Select]

XXXX...+.....XXXX
XXXX.........XXXX
.................
.................
........*........[/color]

[Leviathan]

Is it possible to adjust the trigger area for the acid water trap?


Another question: is it somehow possible to add custom usable terrain to LemEdit2? Where is the file containing all the terrain piece information as well as shapes etc?