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 Today at 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 Today at 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.

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 Today at 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: Proxima on April 01, 2026, 11:34:34 PMstill leaves 287
...
So the process of splitting the pack will also be a selection process -- some levels won't make the cut any more.

Easier repeats are another gimme. Any stats on the level count once these are removed?

Also, are any other levels featured in other packs, or is it just the ones from Mazu, Insane Steve and Clam?

Quote from: Proxima on April 01, 2026, 11:34:34 PMlevels will need to work on both engines, and I'm not sure exactly what set of features are available in RL.

At a very quick glance:

NL/RL shared level properties

Max level size: 3200 x 3200
Release Rate: 1-99 (locked RR supported)
Time limits (<= 99 minutes, infinite time supported)
Max lem count: 999
Normal lems only (no zombies or neutrals)
Classic 8 skillset only (<=99 thereof, infinite skills supported)

Available objects:

Fire
Water
Continuous traps (i.e. one-shot is not supported)
One-Way-Arrows (all directions are supported)
Force field left/right (essentially the Blocker effect)

One 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.

Other physics differences are likely to be insignificant, or easy to handle when porting.

Quote from: Proxima on April 01, 2026, 11:34:34 PMthe first two packs will use only the originals plus a handful of L2 styles, so it might be good to do the same in the third pack for consistency.

Strongly agreed. This project should only feature OG / L2 styles ideally. Level contributions using other sets should be remade, wherever possible.

Important note: RetroLemmini does support tileset mixing, so if a level uses mixed styles it can be ported.

Quote from: Proxima on April 01, 2026, 11:34:34 PMWell, we are producing a new version, so ... this will be version 5.

Sure, but we're working from version 4.0 - that's significant, and should be understood by all concerned. Also, this project is intended to replace v4.0, not follow it. I'll make that clearer in the above post.

---

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

ATTENTION!

Please read the overall proposal and vote in the poll. Thank you!

We need to be very clear at this stage exactly what's being proposed, so that there is no confusion when we seem to be referring to different "versions" of the pack. The following is exactly what's being suggested, and ideally we need to all agree on this before we move forward with anything:

This project can be thought of as a 'community packs' project, consisting of level contributions from anyone who's ever made a custom lemmings level!

1) The existing pool of levels (as identified by Proxima here) should be split into two packs: Revenge of the Lemmings and Return of the Lemmings

2) Once these are done, we can then focus on the development of the third in the series: Lemmings Assemble

3) The outcome of this project is that we have one version of each of the above packs, ported to both NeoLemmix and RetroLemmini

4) The NeoLemmix port will be the one being worked on primarily (so, v4.0 as it is currently, which will be replaced by the result of this project). The NL version will be cross-ported to RetroLemmini as we go, keeping the two versions as identical as possible

5) All previous versions should then be considered obsolete, but can of course remain available in the forum archive

Do we all more or less agree on this? Please vote in the poll either way, thanks!

Please note that this topic has now been moved to the Lemmings Main board, hopefully to reduce/prevent any possible confusion regarding which engine it's for.

Quote from: Proxima on March 31, 2026, 03:19:21 PMThe levels unique to version 2 mostly fall into two categories: easy repeats of later levels; and levels by Martin Zurlinden, Clam Spammer and Insane Steve (which were removed from version 4 because these levels are available in MazuLems, Clammings and Insane Steve's World in NeoLemmix). I think WillLem is leaning towards leaving these levels out; certainly, if we want to reduce the pack to two packs of 120 each, 337 levels is a lot to work from, and cutting these out makes the task easier!

Thanks for investigating this, nice work! And sure, whatever we can do to get the level count down to 240 is fine by me. Obviously there's no need to remove all levels by these authors, but certainly if a large chunk of them are repeats from other packs, it seems a good way to get the numbers down initially.

Quote from: Proxima on April 01, 2026, 02:20:55 AMWe don't have to keep all the original seven rank names.

Strongly agreed. As far as my opinion goes, we can make up a completely new set if necessary.

Quote from: Proxima on April 01, 2026, 02:20:55 AMsince pack 2 is overall harder, we could do something like Ruckus - Frenzy - Berserk - Armageddon.

Frenzy and Berserk feel like they're both too similar (in terms of the difficulty level they might represent), and also too different (in terms of what the words describe). Ruckus, Frenzy and Armageddon all seem to refer to catastrophic happenings, whereas "Berserk" is more of a descriptive word. The difference is subtle and nuanced, but it is there.

If "Calm" has been used too many times, here are some possible alternatives that fit well with Ruckus - Frenzy - Armageddon:

Hubbub / Quibble / Quarrel / Scrap / Brawl (actually, this one could come after Ruckus)

or

Peace / Quiet

Quote from: Proxima on April 01, 2026, 02:20:55 AMalready been used by three other packs
...
has been used by four other packs. "Brutal" would be very good but it has been used twice

Honestly, I don't think we need to worry too much about rating names having been used elsewhere if they fit well with what we have.

That said, I'm open to coming up with completely new ideas and concepts for the rating names as long as they fit well as a "1 - 10 - 100 - 1000!" series.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 01, 2026, 10:57:24 AMBefore any work goes towards Lemmings Assemble, however, I think it's best if WillLem first focuses on the two mini-packs of 120 levels each first.

Agreed. We should get the NL 4.0 version sorted first, and it should be the proposed 2 smaller packs. Assemble development can follow once we have this sorted.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 01, 2026, 10:57:24 AMAfter those are done and maybe deciding on some more things on the third pack, then see if you still feel like it's best to collaborate our efforts on updating the V4.0 New Formats Nl version of RotL for Lemmings Assemble to closely resemble and follow.

Ah, 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.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 01, 2026, 10:57:24 AMyou also mentioned that people who want to contribute to the Lemmings Assemble pack are free to create levels for it. If so, it does sound like it'll be its own project independent of the New Formats NL version of RotL.

Again, please see this post for a response to this.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 01, 2026, 10:57:24 AMUltimately, just remember that there's no rush or even any real urgency to do this

Agreed, 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.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 01, 2026, 10:57:24 AMTo be clear, I think this project that WillLem proposed is a great idea. I just think it's best to focus on a few things at a time so as not to overwhelm oneself

Strongly agreed. Small achievable goals, little and often, is key to the success of this project for sure!

Quote from: roltemurto on April 01, 2026, 07:22:13 PMI get the "Warning: Could not read editor options from SLXEditorSettings.ini. Editor uses the default settings."

There should be an "ErrorLog.txt" in the root folder where SLXEditor lives.

Can you make the error happen, then post the resulting ErrorLog.txt here so I can figure out what's going wrong. Or, let me know if the file isn't being generated.

Thanks.

Do you have a link to this? Can't see any such game available online. Is it an offline game?

Glad to hear it worked, thanks for reporting back quickly! I'll get a hotfix release out soon

Quote from: Proxima on March 31, 2026, 07:47:47 AMPack 1: Picnic, Hootenanny, Riot, Carnage

This works well to continue the "social gathering" theme, nice.

Quote from: Proxima on March 31, 2026, 07:47:47 AMPack 2: ?, Pain, Frenzy, Armageddon

This group I'm less sure about. There doesn't appear to be a common theme between them.

'Frenzy' and 'Armaggedon' could work well together I suppose, I'd suggest 'Calm' and 'Ruckus' as leading ratings for these.

So: Calm / Ruckus / Frenzy / Armaggeddon

Side note: 'Frenzy' and 'Carnage' are interchangeable here IMO. We could have:

Picnic / Hootenanny / Riot / Frenzy

and:

Calm / Ruckus / Carnage / Armaggeddon

But honestly, the other orderings work just as well.

Quote from: Proxima on March 31, 2026, 07:47:47 AMPack 3: Kind, Devious, Menacing, Absurd

'Absurd' definitely doesn't fit here. The leading theme appears to be "character traits", which is why I went with 'Cunning' between 'Kind' and 'Devious'.

Honestly, I think my original suggestion is better here:

Kind / Cunning / Devious / Menacing

If you don't like 'Menacing' as a final rating, here are some other suggestions:

Relentless
Intense
Savage
Brutal

All of these fit with the "character traits" theme.

Version 2.9.6 hotfix update

Stabilized replay auto-saving, and made some UI improvements.

Here's what's new:

Replay Autosaving

• Auto-saving has been refactored for stability. Previously, a bug occurred in which replays were sometimes not auto-saved if a replay had been manually opened during the session. This (amongst other things) has now been fixed, and auto-saving replays is now much more solid and maintainable.
• Improved default name string - pack titles are now also concatenated (as well as level titles and ratings) for replays, but not for the auto-save pack subfolder.

Unlocking Levels via Code

• Previous behaviour for unlocking a level via a code (the level remains unlocked in 'Choose Level' dialog for the current session, and reverts to being locked for subsequent sessions) has now been restored following the Player Records refactor.

Skill Panel

• RR buttons are now much more responsive, and repeats kick in sooner when holding the buttons.
• Dragging the cursor between -/+ RR now produces continuous RR updates (modelled on the Amiga skill panel!).

Styles

• Red and green gems in 'sugar' are now a touch darker and more like rubies/emeralds.

Editor

• RL Editor version 1.5 is included with the download. See the Editor's "About" dialog for update info.

A reminder of what's new as of 2.9.

---

Get the latest version here.

Version 1.5 hotfix

A small update this time.

Bugfix/UI

• When typing a level title, if the limit of 32 is exceeded, the title is shown in red as a warning (but still allowed).

---

Download the latest version of the RetroLemmini Editor.

Thanks for reporting this. I've prepared a test version with the suggested fix (see attached), although it uses "ToUpperInvariant()" and "ToLowerInvariant()" instead, as this is shorthand for the same thing.

Can you confirm that this indeed fixes the issue?

---

EDIT: Attachment removed.

Quote from: Proxima on March 30, 2026, 11:04:52 PM* Avoiding miles-out-of-place howlers like "Crossing Paths" being in the first rank
* Keeping the focus either on NeoLemmix, or on NL and RL equally
* Working together on level selection so we can come up with a final version we're all satisfied with, and we won't have to have the same discussion and yet another version five years down the line 

Agreed on all points. I think it probably makes sense to keep the focus on NL (since that's the most popular engine), and then cross-port the resulting pack to RL.

As for porting to RL, the process will be generally this:

1) Is the level playable in RL without changing anything? If yes, add it. If no, move to (2)
2) Is the level playable in RL by making a small change to the level layout or release rate? If yes, make the change and add it. If no, move to (3)
3) Is the level playable in RL by making a small change to the skillset, lem count, or time limit? If yes, make the change and add it. If no, move to (4)
4) Is the level playable in RL by making a large change to anything? If yes, make the change and add it. If no, move to (5)
5) Find a suitable replacement level in the reserve pool and add it

It should be understood that replacement levels would be added at the same listing slot as the level being replaced, in order to preserve the ordering.