Reproducing:

- Open the editor.

- Try to mousewheel zoom by while the mouse itself is outside the level boundaries on the bottom or right side (left and top outside boundaries seem to be ok).
   Note: This has to be the first mousewheel zoom you do since opening the editor. When you had 1 successful zoom before, the error doesn't occur anymore.

- Get a nice error message that implies the program tried to devide by zero. All future zooms will cause the same error now.

A while ago I found a presentation from a Game Develoer Conference and I was just remembering it now and thought: Why haven't I linked it here?

It's ~ 1hour long and it's called: Empowering the Player: Level Design in N++
As you can tell from the name N++ is the example here and the developers who created thousands of levels for it are talking about game and level design.

Now not all the points they bring up can 100% be projected on Lemmings or Lix levels in my opinion. For example the point: Let players choreograph, not just execute.

Of course only having precise trick levels is not very good, but especially on higher difficulties levels Lemmings level are a bit more about one or a small group of solutions. On the lower ranks this point fits way better, but in higher difficulty ranks you often want to enforce certain patterns or parts and I think finding the right mixture of restricted and a bit more open levels is the best way.

Other points they bring up:

- Minimalism on the core level idea + expanding that idea with more and more details for higher difficulties. Also the danger of overdoing it with adding too much.

- Level creation process - from core structure to the finished level.

- The nessesarity of culling stuff. Scrapping of levels and ideas - not everything fits and it can be better to cut it out.    - This point I feel needs to be addressed more here in the case of levels. For mechanics: Yes, I know I argued a lot about keeping stuff and features, but I also was in favor of culling a few things (gimmicks as an example). I still believe the right balance is correct and I don't wanna see things that offer a lot of gain and just fit disappear.
Sometimes levels just don't work out that well. I think that can also be expanded to features and machanics. They talked about at some point they added portals in N++, saw that it makes things too complicated in a fast platformer and threw them out again. I think Slowfreeze, Radiation and Gimmicks are the NeoLemmix equivalent here with them adding only unnessesary precision and complexity without offering too much.

- Balance between "boring/calm" and "exciting". Calm parts make exciting ones stick out more.

- Smooth difficulty curves and inclusion of breathers.

- Mastering of skills and levels of high complexity + difficulty.

- Variance in level desgin - one type of level is not enough!  - I especially agree with that point. You don't wanna make only huge/tiny/button or trick levels for example. You wanna have a huge variation of levels that has something for everyone.

- Naming of levels.

- Access to all/a lot of the levels from the getgo to avoid getting stucked completely.      - We solved that with unlock all.


So, I think maybe you can take a few things with you from this presentation, even if it's another quite different game they are referring to and not everything can be transferred to Lemmings 1:1.

The most speed increasing thing in the new editor (I am sure) is the grid. Even more in combination with "times 8" tilesets.  (L2, L3 as examples)

But often I encounter cases where I want to turn off the grid for 1 or a few things and after that turn it right on again.

A hotkey for ON/OFF toggling of the grid would be a great acceleration for level creation speed.

I might even argue about moving the grid option from "Settings" menu to the "Global" tab so that it is instantly avialable at all time, as I change the grid quite frequently (2,4,8,16 being the most common settings).

Yes, thinking more about it: A dedicated Hotkey + having the grid setting in the "Globals" tab would both be very beneficial. Even if it isn't a level variable. 

Welcome to another contest of the Lemmingsforums! This time the three rules have been picked by Nepster as his prize for winning an older contest.

A few words to new participants and forum members: If you haven't entered before, I strongly encourage you to try - even if you don't win, it's fun to participate; and we have had cases where first-time entrants have won before!; there are three choices of rules given, you may enter one level each for up to two of the rules.
You may either use new format NeoLemmix, or Lix.
If you have two entries, they may (but do not have to) be for the same engine. Please make sure you tested your level for basic solvability before submitting and be sure to also submit any custom tileset you are using, so others have no problem playing your level.

New guideline: You can choose 1 person who does a bit of pre-testing for you, so that the biggest backroutes and screw-ups of your levels can be detected before the playing phase. I cannot control this so it's only a guideline, but still I would prefer not everyone knows every level before the playing phase starts.

Here are the rules on how the submission deadlines work:
- Initial submission phase deadline will extend such that it's 72 hours from the time of the last submission, up to the 5th submission (inclusive). After this it no longer changes no matter what.
- Update phase deadline will not extend over the initial dead line!
- Even if you missed the cutoff date for the initial submission phase, late entries are accepted until the update phase ends. There is no penalty for a late entry, beyond that people are less likely to spend as much time on the level before voting begins.

And here is the new ruleset provided by Nepster:

Rule 1

Create a pair of levels: The second one has exactly the same terrain as the first one, just upside-down. There is no restriction regarding the object placement, skills, or Lemmings.
These 2 levels will count as 1 entry and it's the 2 levels combined that will also be voted for! So no extra entry and be sure one level doesn't drag down the other!

Hint:
This can be easily achieved in the new format NeoLemmix editor by simply selecting all of the terrain, click on invert and then save the level in a different file. Then you may proceed replacing objects again and carving out a new solution.
I am not 100% sure about the process in the Lix editor, but it should still be easily possible there.
EDIT: In Lix you can select all, mirror horizontally and then turn twice -> that should correspond to mirroring vertically.

Rule 2

Construct a Miniature: At most a total of 10 lemmings, at most 5 skills (not skill types!) and the level must not be larger than the following sizes:

- NeoLemmix: 240x120 pixels    (Nepster's chosen ammount)
- Lix: 480x240 pixels                  (as Lix has exactly double the resolution of NeoLemmix, levels get twice the size there)

Rule 3

Create a level without any of the original 8 Lemmings 1 skills.

This forbids only one of the Lix bombers: The imploder. As the fling exploder can have vastly different uses than the standard L1 explosion.


Submission phase ends July 30th 2018 at 00:00 UTC. A bit longer due to Rule 1 being a bit more time consuming. This should give everyone enough time to think about a level. Deadline for the playing / update phase will be announced when it begins.

Ruleset in detail again: http://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2246.0

Send me a personal message with your level/s and if needed tileset/s to participate. It would also be nice to also tell me the rule which each level satisfies.

Prize selection:
- US $5.00
- One month's advertising on the forums news ticker
- Pick next contest's rules

Entries so far: 18

- Crane (2)
- geoo (1)
- IchoTolot (2)
- grams88 (1)
- namida (1)
- Proxima (1)
- Raymanni (1)
- Nessy (1)
- Gronkling (2)
- Flopsy (2)
- Arty (2)
- SQron (2)

So I recalled Arty's level creation stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsI9kSsZXlc

He still used the old editor as he has one major problem with the new format one and I can see that problem being a bigger issue for people using a lot of tileset mixing.

I personally haven't noticed it due to me sticking to 1 or 2 tilesets in most cases.

So the problem is: You have to constantly select and switch the tile selection bar for changing tilesets -- a huge problem when using many different tilesets and switching constantly.

I thought about a possible solution, but still I am not sure if making it standard or a selectable option would be better.

Proposed solution: Clicking on a tile changes the selection bar to the tile's tileset.

This would minimise the tileset selecting, as you would only need to select it once from the list, due to then having the option to click on a matching tile to switch. Also people who rarely use tileset mixing won't notice this due to them having only 1 active tileset most of the time.

Still I am wondering if making this an option under "Settings" would be a better call. If somebody does not like this behavior they simply can leave this deactivated.

I even would call this a higher priority, as this prvents people to switch to the new editor and they even take the extra step of converting for this.

So is my proposed solution acceptable? Is having this as an option better? Other proposals?

Welcome to the Level of the Year 2017 voteoff!

So, most of you will know how this works, but just in case - and so that specifics are covered - here's a quick rundown.

The nominated levels have been divided into 9 groups of 10 or 9 levels, semi-randomly. To be specific, the division was done in such a way that a single author wouldn't have too many levels in a single group.

Each group will be voted on one at a time, with four levels from each group advancing to Phase 2 (which will run in a similar fashion). First we bring them down from 10/9 to 7 and then to 4.

Voting for each group will be open for three days. Remember, you're voting for the levels you think should win, not the ones you want to see eliminated.

If we get ties, there may be some tiebreakers to ensure only 4 levels out of each group advance to Phase 2. That says: 10/9 to 8 or 6 levels instead of 7 will be acceptable in the first rounds, but afterwards the 4 will be ensured by tiebreakers.

If you want to see the full list of nominated levels in non-randomized order, check the nominations list topic
If you want to play these levels without having to dig up all the various level packs, check the playing phase topic which has an NXP available for download that contains all the nominated levels.

Please remember that discussing the nominated levels is not allowed in the LOTY2017 topics now that voting has begun. This does not apply to levels that have already been eliminated at the time. Discussing them elsewhere in the site is okay, as long as it's not in the context of LOTY2017.

For reference, I am tallking about GigaLem's redesigned versions here: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3443.0

As far as I can see they are using the exact physics of namida's original versions, but that needs to be rechecked.

From the visual aspect they just seem like a clear update -no offense to namida here -

That's why I want to ask around if we should use them as the standard version overall. They look superior from my point of view and maybe only some visuals of existing levels need to be rechecked if the physics turn out to be the same if we switch to them as the standard.

A merge would also reduce the huge tileset number by a bit when all/most LP styles have been remade by GigaLem.

The only thing I clearly see that stands against this merge: If we plan to replace namida's styles, then people should not make levels using the current GigaLem's styles, because such levels will break then due to the different file paths to the pieces. Maybe there is even a way to link levels using these to use the other filepath - therefore prevent breaking in the first place?

All levels made with the original LP styles will automatically using the new styles though.

So what's the general opinion here? I still would say let's take the updated visuals, as I think they overall look superior and spare us from having 2 versions of the same set.

Ladies and gentleman, we've got our final results!

Congratulations to Nessy for winning the 14th Lemmings Forums Level Contest! Somebody is on a roll!

Also congratulations to Raymanni for reaching the 2nd place!

Choice for the prize for the first place is either

- a month's advertising on the forum's news ticker
- picking the second-next contest's rules as Nepster will determine the rules for the next one
- or US $5.00 (PayPal would be the easiest here I think).

The new Flexi-Toolkit is missing a "Replace" button -- the current workaround in the UI is: Deleting the level - Adding the new level - Moving the new level to the position of the old one.

This process can be shorten massively with a "Replace" button which replaces the old level with a selected new one at the same location.

Yes, if the level name stays the same you can overwrite the text file in the rank folder, but I still think the UI should be able to do this more easily -- not all users are familiar with file management -- especially in the case if the new level has a new name or the rank size is very big this button can shorten the process quite a bit.

The results here actually make sense once you managed to set things up, but let me explain.

With the new editor you can pair teleporters and receivers in pairs of 2 and only 2. If you select 3 then only 2 get paired, if an already paired gadget gets re-paired the other gets unpaired.

But now we found out by editing the saved level's text file we can create pairs of 3+ teleporters and receivers by manually giving them the same group in the text file.

The result makes even sense: They all get the same true-physics letter. Only 1 teleporter at a time gets to teleport to a receiver while the other has to wait until it is free again.

The bug is more like: It's possible in the text file, but not in the program itself. So either the manual text file change should be recognised and forbidden by the program or the program should get the ability to create these groups as well --- at least in my opinion. A function only possible to access with text editing is a bit weird.

EDIT: I personally would forbid it for simplicity and only let pairs of 2 exist.

Today we found a nice interesting behavior that could be a bug. We had the idea to overlap blockers and their blocker areas using teleporters and pre-placed lemmings - and it worked!

Attached is a test level, with a replay + screenshot. These show an interesting (maybe buggy) behavior that pushes lemmings trapped between 2 blockers out by using a teleported-in third blocker between the initial blockers.

I don't see any levels using this behavior and would like to make Nepster aware of this and we should decide if this is fine or needs some fixing.

So basic question: Is this overlap intended, or are any changes needed here?

Okay, so, by now most of you know how voting works.

Just as a quick guide for those who are new to the contests - the voting is broken into rounds, and each round you're allowed to vote for up to a certain number of levels. Votes are for the levels that you want to stay in the contest, not for levels you want to be removed. Just to be clear, you are allowed to vote for fewer levels than the permitted amount, and you are allowed to vote for your own levels. Generally, the number of levels that qualify for the next round will be the same as the number of levels that each user is allowed to vote for. The results so far are only visible once either the voting closes or you've already voted.

Please remember that discussing the levels anywhere on the forums (except private message) is not allowed while the voting phase is in progress, even if the level in question is not in the current round, even between rounds. However, it is okay to discuss levels that have already been eliminated. This rule does not extend to anything off-site, so you can eg. continue posting Youtube videos of your playthroughs, discuss in IRC chat, just don't draw attention to them on the forums.

There'll be voteoffs for each rule, to get down to one/two/three remaining levels each. After this, all qualifying levels will go into a mixed voteoff.
I've decided to keep the percentages of "surviving" levels of the rule-voteoffs somewhat similar to give every rule a fair chance. Example: A rule with a 66% survival-rate and one with a 33% survival-rate for the mixed rounds doesn't seem that fair to me.

There's only a prize for the 1st place winner - of course, getting close to that still means you made a great level.

So... let the voting begin! Each round will be open for voting for 3 days, except the final which will be 4 days.

All levels are still avialable in the discussion topic: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3737.0

So a new user commented under my editor tutorial video and I've decided to give a little summary based on his feedback:

Issue: "The biggest problem i have is, that if i am unfamiliar with a style, i do not know, what count as Metal, what is a destructive terrain, what are only background graphics."
My answer: "For this go to "Options" and check in "Display piece names" this will display all object and tile names in the lower selection bar........Also under "View" you can turn on clear physics mode which toggles to a more detailied mode which clearly shows steel and terrain in your level...."
Response: "So Pieces that have the name Steel are the only one, that are indestructiveable? That is good to know. I did not think about the True-Physics mode either."

So what I can get from this is that we can get a big issue for new users out of the way very easily: Turn on "Display piece names" as standard. Experienced users who don't want this can turn it off no problem.

Also maybe all the view options could be a bit more obvious/more into the face to new players -- maybe a button bar to switch all the different options on/off on the fly or making the top options bar a bit bigger?


Issue: "Also I dislike the scrolling in the lower bar, which make it difficult to get what you are actually looking for."
My answer: "I also think that a simple scroll bar which you can drag is better than right/left clicking the arrows, but we will see if I can pursuade people for this way in the future"

Oh well, looks like the thing I was suggesting for a time now is not just a tick of mine      Scrollbar >> arrows with left/right clicking
It's simply faster and more intuitive! Just drag the thing! Maybe both can be supported.

Issue: "Actually i think, that the Editor should have much more categories which made it clearer. So an own category for Decoratives, Traps, Destructive Terrain, Indestructive Terrains etc.. Maybe even with specific subcategories. Also i think that you would find the desired piece much faster with this."

Ok here I was a bit conflicted: Most object categories already have problems getting the lower bar full and splitting them up even more is totally overkill and overcomplicates the bar.
Maybe instead of extra categories, options for filters could be a solution: Only displaying checked in things. Like I checked in steel for terrain and it only shows me steel pieces, I checked in traps and hatches for objects and I get traps and hatches.

Issue: "Is there also any indicator about the Splat Height in the Editor? Or do you have to go into the Game every time for the Splat Ruler?"
My answer: "Not currently. The splat height is 64 pixels though and many pices are 16 pixels high --> I am pushing for displaying the piece sizes when selecting them as this could be helpful with that."

At least I found no way of displaying this -- if I missed it you can blame me
Anyway having the splat ruler as a display option could be sweet and make the progress faster

Issue: "...you should be able to display the objects in more rows... i do not think, that only one row is necessary if you work on higher resolutions. If you are using a 4K resolution, you maybe could even display all objects at once and would have still more than enough space for the level editing area.�"

I have no idea how this goes on the implementing side, but I think having an option for more piece rows can be an interesting option for big monitors. Still don't know if this is possible.


So that was a bit of newbie feedback and I think we can get a few things to improve out of this.

While doing my tutorial video for the editor, I wanted to add the freshly made level to my test pack. Let's say it was still a bit rocky

First thing:

- I think a simple "Save" function which after a quick confirmation simply saves over the currently opened pack would be a great addition to make things a bit more fluent. The current "Save" is more like a "Save As" as it asks for the directory. Having both "Save" and "Save As" I would call a good feature to have.


The second thing was that the saving still created a few errors and weird saving behaviors that I don't fully understood on the fly. The fact that you choose the NL level folder as the place to save the pack's level folder and not being able to simply select the pack's folder in which to overwrite/write-into feels very weird and to be honest wrong. Also not being able to control the naming with either selecting the pack's folder, or write in the name in the saving process I would call suboptimal and unintuitive as well.

But me explaining things here I wouldn't call to effective, let me show you my confusion/problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asE8U9eZ_CY&index=1&list=PLKR1N9oJTTlLTZNfvUzr8bGDI21YLNkSk
From 48:00 I tried to overwrite my "United testing" pack with let's say suboptimal results and I think the opening-saving process should be naturally understandable without bigger problems. There was even an actual error message that I couldn't explain why it was appearing when saving over my pack.
It said there were levels/files currently currently being used by a program, while only the pack toolkit was running. The 2nd save succeeded then without the error. So it seems like the first save attempt is a bit buggy.

So hope this live feedback helps a bit with the toolkit and maybe even the editor.

If I made any errors in my explanations here, be free to correct me! (especially pointing at Nepster as I'm sure I got some technical things wrong here )   

So some users were a bit confused when a replay was failing in the 12.1.0 player, but was passing in the editor. What causes this?

That should be the case in levels where a graphic flipped hatch was used to make Lemmings spawn left out of the hatch. Now in the player those hatches are replaced with left-facing hatches that only have a different spawn direction than the standard hatch and have the correct shading again.
Discussion topic for that: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3712.0

Currently the editor has the temporal bug that still displays the new standard of left-facing hatches wrong as the graphic flipped version complete with a slightly off trigger area in some cases. This should be fixed in the next editor version.
But in the level file of levels where a graphic flipped hatch was used to make Lemmings spawn left it still seems to affect the editors test mode and using the now wrong physics instead of the correct face left ones. -- at least that's my explanation for the cause I could be wrong here
So the result of the player is the correct one! -- that should be true nevertheless my cause is wrong

So how to deal with and solve these inconsistancies and fixing your replays?

- Run a mass replay checker in the player to detect all failing replays because of the recent changes. (or you simply know where you used graphic flipped hatches to make Lemmings spawn left)
- Open the levels in the editor.
- Resave them.
- Now the editor's test mode should fail them correctly as the player does ---> the inconsistancy is resolved!
- Fix the replays to solve correctly again. (Most likely only the assignments are off by a few frames)

In any case a resave of a level should solve player-editor inconsistancies no matter the reason!

Again the editor problem should be fixed with the next update as Nepster is aware of the false display.

Alright, so nominations are now closed. Before we open the voting, we first offer a period to play the levels again, to familiarize yourself with those you haven't yet played and review those you have.

The list of nominated levels can be found in the nominations topic, I see no need to duplicate it here. It also contains information on where to find these levels.

Download links:

-  NXP collection of all old format NeoLemmix levels

Every author with 3 or more levels in this category gets an own rank in the pack. At the end there is a mixed rank for the leftover levels. Load the nxp with the old format NeoLemmix player.

- NXP collection music

Put these tracks in your NeoLemmix music folder to get the intended music tracks to the levels.

- NXP collection replays

A bunch of intended solution replays by some authors to a lot of of the NXP collection levels.

- All lix levels and replays to most of them

Here are all lix nominations together with solution replays to most of them. Put them in Lix's level folder to access them.

- Raymanni's new format NeoLemmix levels

The few levels from Raymanni for the new format version of NeoLemmix. The levels to put in the level folders of the player, as well as the fitting replays and music tracks to put in the music folder are all in extra folders of themselves. Raymanni's "ray_sppoky" tileset needs to be put in the styles folder to access some of the levels.

Not included overall:

- "Build Lem's Legend" (Tough 20, Lemmings Squared)   due to it being a completely different level now.
- "Slaughterhouse" (Autumn 2016 LD Contest Winner, NeoLemmix) due to personal request
           
Playing phase will end: April 30th 2018

General level feedback and solution replays can be posted here in the topic if you want! Have fun playing!

If there are any errors I've made in the collection, don't hesitate to inform me here!

EDIT: The nxp could crash due to too many tilesets being loaded. A restart of the NeoLemmix player should fix the error.

Note: This topic is ONLY for posting updates to your levels, or making late submissions. All other posts will be deleted. If you want to discuss the levels, post replays, etc, please do so in the Discussion Topic.

Please follow these rules for updates:
1. When posting a new updated version of a level, remove any old updated versions of that level. (I won't enforce this too strongly, but be aware that I probably will delete such posts eventually if the author doesn't; so don't store any important information in them.)
2. Make a new post for a new update; do not edit your most recent post. You may, however, post updates to multiple entries (if you have more than one) in the same post.
3. Use the same filename as found in the ZIP of the entered levels, with "V2" "V3" etc added at the end. No matter how minor an update is, give it a new number.
4. Do not post in this topic, unless it's to post an update to your levels. Use the discussion topic instead for anything else.

Please use the same naming format as in the zip file:  User1_R3V5.lvl      ---> Level by User1   for Rule 3   Version 5 of the level      the levels name does not exist in the file name!

For late submissions also, please use the same kind of filename as is used in the main levels download - ie: your username, and "R1" "R2" or "R3" to mark which rule the level is for. Remember that the maximum-of-two-levels-per-user rule still applies, even for late submissions. Please be sure to check the original contest announcement topic for the rules; as the notes in the discussion topic are simply meant as reminders, not full explanations of the rules.

All levels (14 NeoLemmix level): https://www.dropbox.com/s/clfisey2k2y3uy8/Contest14_levels.zip?dl=1

- The .lvl levels can be loaded with the last old format Neolemmix Player.

Levels in NXP pack form: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4sx2l5h3kac1bt/Contest14LevelCollection.nxp?dl=1

- The pack can be loaded with the last old format Neolemmix Player.

Music: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6cdxtzckvepkb23/Contest14_music.zip?dl=1

- The music must be put inside the music folder of the NeoLemmix player. If the folder doesn't exists, create it.

Tilesets (should not be needed if you only use the nxp pack): https://www.dropbox.com/s/njngutk490r56cd/Contest14_tilesets.zip?dl=1

- The tilesets must be put inside the styles folder of the NeoLemmix player. If the folder doesn't exists, create it.

Note: Some of the tilesets from Flopsy in here as I recall were originally not to be released for the old format --- if you want to make your own levels with them rather check out the actively maintained new format version! I just needed to include them here so you actually have the ability to access the single levels in here made with them.

Rule 1 Levels

IchoTolot's "Arctic Oscillation" (V1)
bulletride's "Whiplash" (V4)
Crane's "Cloning Vats" (V7)
Nessy's "Guardians Of The Hero's Shrine" (V7)
Raymanni's "Little house on the hill" (V1)

Rule 2 Levels

IchoTolot's "I Demand a Builder!" (V1)
Colorful Arty's "The Possimpible" (V3)
bulletride's "Medusa" (V2)
Flopsy's "Mystic Cave Lemmings" (V5)
Nessy's "Journey" (V4)
SQron188's "Danger Ahead" (V4)

Rule 3 Levels

Colorful Arty's "Adios amiga!" (V1)
Crane's "Die Doppelganger" (V11)
Flopsy's "This is not A Star Wars rip off" (V3)

You can check the rules details again here: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3636.0

Playing Phase will be closed on 31th of March!
Updates will close on 28th of March!

Note: This topic is for posting your comments, replays, etc for the levels. If you wish to post an update to your level, or enter a late submission, please do so in the Updates Topic instead.

This is probably a sideeffect from the intended change to merge "face left" and "flip".

I strangely noticed more and more replays failing out of nowhere not changing the converted level and the old replays even passed several times before.
After more investigations I found the cause: I usually set my left facing hatches to "face left" in the old format  -- they kept their original apperance but spawned to the other side. Now this option seem to be replaced with "flip graphic" entirely. So far so good. This causes levels to fail because some of the now flipped hatches have different spawn points now as it's not in the same spot anymore after the flip.

So far still acceptable -- a few failing replays but managable.

BUT: This is extra devious here as those breaking levels are not detected naturally by the checker! No, the cases will only fail (as with the pick-up stuff: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3711.0) after you manually load the level into the editor after the conversion and then save it again --- the hatch is now flipped, the spawn has changed and the replay fails.

So I would advice to bring back the "face left" behavior at least for hatches. Or we simply have to manually check and save all of our levels one at a time to identify errors making mass conversion mostly pointless and increase the conversion workload dramatically.

EDIT:
Idea: "Flip" only does the old "face left" for hatches.
To clarify again -- the main problem I would still call is that the automatic replay check doesn't cover this. With that working fixing replays won't be much of an issue. I just figured that my idea is easier to do than getting the checker to cover this.

So I've used this little workaround for quite a few situations where I needed more than 8 skills: Simply adding some needed permanent skills to pre-placed Lemmings -- therefore not needing the skill panel slot.

But I marked the pre-assigned skills with unreachable pick-up skills and that's causing problems now in the new format:

- Let's say I've got 8 needed skills for a level that are activated in the editor for the skillpanel -- the floater is not one of them.

- I used a pre-placed floater in that level and marked the pre-assignment with an unreachable pick-up skill.

- This pick-up skill is automatically added to the skill-panel now, replacing an actual needed skill --- regardless if I have deactivated the floater in the skillpanel and the slot will forever be empty!

This seems to be a case where the program wants to be smarter than me and failing to do so. Only skills that the author activates shall be added to the skillpanel!

My proposed solution: Only adding actually activated skills in the editor to the skillpanel, regardless if a pick-up skill with a deactivated skill appears in the level.

EDIT: Also cases where this breaks a level is usually not covered by the mass replay checker unless the converted level was loaded and saved in the new editor -- then it seems to be covered in the report.