2a) My basic questions were:
- Assume all terrain pieces have type 4 pixels (or type 3 in case of steel). May we then reproduce the L1 levels by changing the definition of type 4 into the one of type 2, globally once-and-for-all and for all terrain pieces at the same time (possibly by a command in the .lvl file)?
- Does it give enough options to level designer, if they have to choose between using only type 2 or only type 4 pixels?
If I'm understanding you correctly, the options would be roughly the same as the current steel options - perhaps not at a technical level, but to the end user?
And they would not have to choose - the way I see this is that an individual piece in a level can specify (possibly with the level as a whole also specifying a default) to either "use mask" in which case all areas are as the mask specifies (which could be a mixture of multiple types), or otherwise to specifically change all solid pixels to a certain type (perhaps with some limitations - mainly, using it to allow one-way walls on pieces that don't outright specify this).
To compare to current NeoLemmix, hopefully this clears it up:
Type 1: This would be equivalent to a pixel of a normal terrain piece with the "One Way" flag enabled.
Type 2: This would be equivalent to a pixel of a normal terrain piece with "Simple Autosteel" enabled.
Type 3: This would be equivalent to a pixel of a steel terrain piece (or a pixel covered by a steel area).
Type 4: This would be equivalent to a pixel of a normal terrain piece with "Simple Autosteel"
disabled - or in other words, the "normal" scenario.
Type 5: This one shouldn't need explanation.
3a) Apart from typos in my previous argument, here is it again: Do we need terrain pieces, that have both type 2 and 4 pixels? If no, then why not let the level designer decide on this as an option in the editor (assuming we want to encourage the use of type 2 pixels), and remove the distinction in the mask file?
Regarding type 1 pixels, please see point 10).
I don't see them ever being used together in a terrain piece, but it's easier to allow it than to not allow it. Pieces I could see Type 2 being used in would be, for example, the moss pieces in the Dirt set (that are often overlaid on top of steel as decoration, but are not intended to remove the steel). Since there might be valid uses where the steel should be cancelled - or perhaps usage of other pieces in such a way that steel should not be cancelled (grass on top of the steel, maybe?), this is why an option will also exist in the level format; but this option would be more limited, it would be either "use the properties (which may be mixed) from the mask" or "change all solid pixels to <insert any type here>".
5a) The original argument suffered greatly from my misunderstanding of type 4 pixels. So the question is now: Do we want to encourage or discourage the use of type 2 pixels? I am very much in favour of strongly discouraging the use of type 2 pixels.
If we want to discourage using type 2 pixels, then should we even allow their use are a regular editor option? I would say: No.
The correct L1 levels could still be created via a master editor kept secret by namida, that has options to use type 2 pixels.
(This argument is off-topic for the general discussion and was made to respond to namida's sentence "discussion may be needed as to what conventions should be encouraged in this regard.")
The editor would need to at least preserve the setting if it finds it in a loaded level. And when we get to that point, it would almost be more work to hide the option. Discouraging use doesn't have to mean hiding it. I also don't like the idea of a "secret" editor version (and besides, open source would mean anyone could simply modify the editor to add / unlock the option). More likely would be, at most, some kind of "secret" key combination to unlock it - but I probably just wouldn't hide it at all.
9) Shouldn't be type 4 be the default fall-back option, if it is the way NeoLemmix treats almost all terrain pieces and type 1 is only for VGASPECs?
The main logic is - aside from non-solid (which is a transparent pixel), all the main functions are shades of gray; and all possible shades are covered. Thus, colored pixels become Type 1. However, this can certianly be changed.
10) So type 1 behaves exactly like type 4, except that the one-way option is automatically enabled? If yes, then why is the following procedure impossible: Create your VGASPEC using type 4 pixels, load it into the editor and enable one-way by hand. Then, as the one-way-areas can have arbitrary sizes now in V2.00, select precisely the required pixels for the one-way area.
Firstly - a VGASPEC may well have both one-way areas and steel. Of course, this could still be done manually with steel areas (or by specifying the steel, but not the one-way pixels, on the mask). However - suppose the one-way area you want to create has rough edges with other terrain. Do you really want to sit there manually placing however many one-way areas it takes to neatly cover that, rather than just quickly marking it in the mask (with edges as rough as you like) and placing one large one-way wall over it?
So it's not that you
can't do what you describe - it's just a lot less convenient. (One possible alternative is to make the "vgaspec" level out of multiple pieces, with some representing the one-way areas specifically, but this doesn't seem to offer any advantage over using the mask).