Quote from: namida on August 11, 2026, 09:16:22 AMhttps://demozoo.org/productions/224224/

This seems to be what [Lemming Curd Porto Caval Shunt]'s a reference to.

And in finding this and sharing it here, I've probably instantly moved it one or two tiers up the iceberg.

That's the Paradox of something being at the bottom of a list.

For example, someone might list 'Most -> Least Interesting Songs'. The song at the bottom of the list suddenly becomes more interesting than those above it, because it automatically begs the question of why it's the least interesting, which is a point of interest!

The same thing applies to 'Most -> Least Known Facts'. Whatever is at the bottom will become more known simply by its position in the list.

Quote from: namida on October 13, 2026, 08:38:37 PMThat being said - if for whatever reason one did want to make an HR-focused style, I don't see any problem with creating HR graphics then downscaling them to create the LR versions.

Yes, this could be an acceptable solution.

Quote from: namida on October 13, 2026, 08:38:37 PMI don't think we need yet another version of the official styles just to achieve that, rather than making these the HR versions of the existing ones.

It's not as simple as that.

At the very least: not all of the Mac gfx are the same shape as their low-res counterparts. This is something we'd need to tackle if we were going to make these images the basis of a hi-res set.

Then, there are some pieces that just... don't look as good (IMO). An example being this one, in Pillar (which is also a different shape):

      
L->R: Mac version, Windows 95 version, Amiga version (200% Nearest)

IMO, the best version from the above is probably the Amiga one, but - of course - it isn't actually a hi-res image.

If we wanted to make a proper project of this, take our time and get it right (we should!), we could do something like this, which solves the shape issue and (IMO) looks better:


Top of Amiga version composited with bottom of Mac version

Other pieces we could just use as-is from the Mac version, of course. There are likely to be only a small handful of pieces from each style that will need manual TLC - but they will need it.

Quote from: namida on October 12, 2026, 11:28:01 PM

Quote from: WillLem on October 12, 2026, 11:11:56 PMmaybe we could support hi-res-only styles in CE. If a level uses them, temporarily switch to hi-res whilst that level is playing.

This would break 12.14 compatibility.

How? Unless I'm mistaken, the compatibility direction is that all 12.14 content must be playable in CE, not the other way around.

If I'm not mistaken, there's no reason we couldn't support hi-res only styles if people agree it's a good move. That would mean we could simply supply these gfx as "mac_dirt, mac_crystal, mac_fire, etc..." and keep them as independent styles (which I would prefer tbh).

Quote from: UltimateLemmings on October 13, 2026, 12:12:40 AMIf you need help sorting the graphics in a format better suited to NL I am happy to assist.

That would be very helpful!

Maybe a few of us can take a style each and go ahead and prep all the graphics. That would certainly be better than one person doing all the work by themselves.

I'd like to nominate Crystal as my chosen style if I'm involved (dibs!)

Quote from: Proxima on October 13, 2026, 12:28:58 AM

Quote from: namida on October 12, 2026, 11:28:01 PMBut, could they be used ... for supplied, rather than upscaled, high-res graphics for the default styles?

That was the idea when Will and I started doing exactly that a couple of years ago, with a copy of the Mac graphics sourced from, I believe, ccexplore. We got through most of the pillar style, and I still have those graphics on my installation of NL.

The only issue (as far as I remember) is that many of the Mac gfx aren't the same shape as the Amiga/DOS gfx. The low-res ones would provide physics anyway, but it could look very odd if the hi-res counterparts don't match.

Another issue is that some of the Mac gfx don't look as good as the Windows '95 upscaled versions IMHO. Others look perfectly fine with NL upscaling, and others still look great simply resized with 2x Nearest Neighbour.

I'd probably suggest that, if we were to take on this project properly, we should take each piece and choose whichever looks best out of the following:

1) 2x Nearest Neighbour resize
2) Windows '95 version
3) NL's hi-res upscaled version
4) Mac version

I wouldn't be too concerned about asset clash here either: I have a handy tool that can perform color swaps in multiple images simultaneously, so we could easily normalize the color scheme for all pieces regardless of their origin.

That's my two cents. I anticipate disagreement, so - if we're just blindly using all the Mac gfx - we should at the very least ensure that all of the pieces are the same shape as their Amiga/DOS counterparts.

Or, we could just go ahead and add these as independent mac_* styles and support hi-res-only style sets in CE.

Or, we could add them as independent styles and then resize them by 50% for the low-res versions if people don't want hi-res-only styles to be supported.

---

NOTE: As a hi-res user, I feel particularly strongly about what happens here. Watching this space.

Wow, yeah...

Looking at the folders, it would take a while to get those sorted into proper styles. Also, the images are all hi-res so wouldn't be supported in NeoLemmix or CE without low-res counterparts. We could of course use the existing gfx, but what would be the point? - this is a style that's meant to be seen in hi-res.

Which brings me to an idea: maybe we could support hi-res-only styles in CE. If a level uses them, temporarily switch to hi-res whilst that level is playing.

I'm currently looking at implementing a low/hi-res on-the-fly debug switch anyway, so... this could be even more of a reason to go ahead with it.

Quote from: namida on October 12, 2026, 08:39:44 AMI think the main focus of his post is the ripped Mac graphics he's offering for use...

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I've updated the title.

Quote from: lemmkeev20we need a tutorial or something to how to finish the folders

What are you struggling with?

Quote from: Simon on October 11, 2026, 09:15:05 AMMakes me wonder how you're going to load from file a previously-rotated forcefield.

Load it untransformed. The point of this fix is to have these objects behave consistently between levels; previous levels that used transformed force-fields are no longer supported, then (but there are most likely 0 such levels anyway).

Moved this post from the Community Edition release topic.

Perhaps Ultimate Lemmings should have its own board? I haven't had a chance to fully test it yet, but from what I've seen so far it looks incredible.

Quote from: Simon on October 10, 2026, 01:01:09 AMDraw-1 Klondike is essentially Klondike with a bouquet instead of a stock: All cards in the stock are available at all times.

Draw Three is on the to-do list, and will be available optionally for those who want an additional challenge.

Quote from: Simon on October 10, 2026, 01:01:09 AMDo you deduct score for flipping the wastepile to make a new stock?

Points are never deducted from score already awarded (I always disliked this in Windows Solitaire).

The way the scoring currently works is that a given amount (n) is awarded for progressing the game in some way (sending a card home, moving a card from stock to table, etc), and (n) is then increased by a multiplier. If a player flips the stock pile, undos a move*, or moves from home back to table, the multiplier is decreased.

But, the score always increases throughout the game, and a bonus is awarded for number of moves and time taken.

*Undo also reverts the score since it's possible to keep redoing the same move over and over again. But that doesn't count as deducting score, it just prevents point farming.

Quote from: Simon on October 10, 2026, 01:01:09 AMAre you considering to offer unlimited undo?

Undo is unlimited; you can undo all the way to the beginning of the game.

Quote from: Simon on October 10, 2026, 01:01:09 AMAt the very right of the most recent screenshot, the suit of the jack of diamonds is hard to tell apart from the 10 of clubs. It looks like a same-suit packing. I think that the blue and the green look too similar.

Bear in mind that the cards are highlighted with a yellow overlay in that screenshot, which does make green and blue harder to distinguish from each other. When un-highlighted, the green and blue look much less similar.

Quote from: Simon on October 10, 2026, 01:01:09 AMAre you considering different games (not only different deals, but games with different rules)?

Spider and Pyramid are on the to-do list! Others can be considered as well, depending on complexity.

Quote from: Simon on October 10, 2026, 01:01:09 AMHappy to try Russian Bank (a.k.a. Zankpatience, a 2-player competitive Canfield-like) under these 4-color rules with you in February 2027. Again, hard to say if it becomes too easy.

I look foward to it!

Klondike definitely becomes easier (or at least, more games become solvable) with a 4-color deck. Of the other games I'll likely add, Spider should be exactly the same, and Pyramid is suit-independent anyway. Russian Bank isn't one I'm familiar with.

It would be good to find some other 1-player card games for which having a 4-color deck will affect gameplay.

Force-fields can no longer be rotated, flipped or inverted in either RL Editor or RetroLemmini itself.

Fixed in RLPlayer commit dc52107, with Editor support in RLEditor commit c7717e5.

Agreed, there's now a dedicated button for this.

Implemented in NLEditor commit 0d0d426.

We now have helpful overlays which highlight the target card in either red or green to show whether or not the move is valid.

Good for beginners, and to help accustom players to the 4-color setup. This will be toggleable in settings for those who'd prefer not to have in-game hints:


Valid move: Jack of Diamonds -> Queen of Hearts


Invalid move: Jack of Diamonds -> 2 of Hearts

Agreed. I'll fix this for the next update.

From ericderkovits on Discord:

Quote from: ericderkovitsI noticed the force fields can be rotated, inverted or flipped in the editor, thus making the force fields NOT work correctly. (ie flipping a left force field only flips the graphic but not the way it works, so a flipped left force graphic faces right but still acts as a left force field (Wrong), as the .ini file still says it acts whichever direction (left or right) even when the graphic is flipped.

I think force fields should NOT be allowed to be rotated, inverted or flipped just like the OWW's

Yeah I was thinking of making the shade of green a little darker for the clubs.

Background-wise, there's no reason we couldn't have optional backgrounds. I can provide a few different ones, and offer a custom option as well.

Optimized the rendering so the game runs smooth as butter now. Still needs work to make it feel like a professional game, but it's definitely on its way!

Added a move counter, score (yet to be implemented) and a timer. Also added the ability to Undo last move and reset the current game:



More to come!