This level size requirement was based on that in the past, the amount of level area displayed on the screen at any one time was 320x160. NeoLemmix was not equipped to handle less than this (while larger would be handled by scrolling).
But ever since the change to use excess screen space to display more of the level, NeoLemmix should - at least theoretically - have no problem displaying smaller levels either. Thus, this restriction is somewhat arbitrary now, and it may make more sense to remove this restriction rather than to keep it.
Thoughts?
I'd question if there's a point in making levels smaller than that. It may result in slightly smaller file sizes, but if your level is smaller than a screen it may be worth considering decoration.
But that's a level design consideration rather than a technical one.
If there's a technical advantage to removing it, then you may as well. If not, I'm not sure it's worth bothering.
There's no advantage as such, it's more there was a technical reason before but that reason no longer applies.
A smaller level, if the same number of pieces are used, will be exactly the same filesize. It doesn't make a difference there.
I would say at some point a level is too tiny to be displayed nicely on fullscreen. I would keep the minimum size. Especially the 160 height.
Since the level boundaries do interact with lemmings, I guess it's not quite exactly the same as filling it out to minimum width/height with decoration. And just because you force the author to throw in filler terrain via minimum width/height doesn't necessarily prevent it from turning out looking ugly.
So while I'm not sure that it will lead to much interesting levels that can't be done before, I do feel like the minimums could be removed. Let the level author (and players) decide if a particularly narrow or short level is worthwhile to play despite potentially not displaying as nicely fullscreen as larger levels.
ive got a few levels that'd be advantaged by a smaller minimum width
I think we should have the option to make levels smaller if we want, but I'd like the default size to remain at 320x160.
Quote from: Colorful Arty on February 13, 2017, 04:41:52 PM
I think we should have the option to make levels smaller if we want, but I'd like the default size to remain at 320x160.
Unless / until there's a strong argument otherwise, the default will remain at 320x160. This is still somewhat arbitrary, but an arbitrary default is far more acceptable than an arbitrary minimum or maximum I think.
I removed the minimum size a while ago. Default is still (and will remain) 320x160 in the editor.