I don't play RetroLemmini, but here's my opinion:

Once you've added action replay, you've already removed most of the punishment for making a mistake.  All that's left is for the player to replay and fast forward, which does not require any skill.  It's just tedious, and that doesn't make for a good game.

I vote YES for a rewind button!

I don't think a Rewind feature is completely necessary, I don't want to ruin the classic feel of this engine either and I think it should be preserved.

I think having to restart when making mistakes about 4-5 mins deep into a level is a little bit annoying because the fast forward is currently not fast enough to get there quickly and it occasionally results in me having to restart the level again because I don't even notice the fast forward reaching the point where I need to re-attempt. This has only become apparent today when making solve replays for my tougher SEB Lems converted levels for RetroLemmini.

1. Faster Fast Forward - this is the feature I'd support most, it kind of addresses the slowness of the current fastest fast forward speed.

2. Checkpoints - this is kind of moot if you are saving your replays at regular points anyway in case you accidentally click to cancel the replay too early or right at the start of the replay. This is probably a separate thing and it's never really been an issue for me personally.

3. Rewind to last assignment - this is the 2nd best option for me, there was a level where precision was ultra high and I think diggers are harder to place precisely on RL than on NL. Being able to return to the last assignment is a useful feature personally.

Again, I'll re-iterate. I am a native NL/Lix player but I don't wish the NL/Lix editing/frame stepping features to be brought into this. Rather something to fast forward through replays faster.

I vote yes on a rewind button. The thing I dislike about SL/RL is having to start the level over from the beginning when making mistaks especially on large levels or levels where precise skill assignement have to be done. This would be nice to have so I can get the precise skill assigments done quicker without restarting the level from the beginning.

Should RetroLemmini have a Rewind button? I'm currently about 50:50 on this.

On the one hand, RetroLemmini has a replay system which can be used to backtrack when the player makes a mistake anyway; from one point of view, it seems unnecessary for the player to have to wait for the replay to fast-forward to the part of the level they're trying to get to.

On the other hand, RetroLemmini currently represents the best way to experience the original games on a modern PC (in my opinion), and the replay feature is there as a pleasant bonus rather than an integral part of the way the game is played, like it is in NeoLemmix. I'd be wary of beginning to introduce the ability to fine-tweak replays, and essentially ending up with yet another 'Lemmings replay editor'.

If we do include any sort of 'Rewind' feature, it certainly shouldn't be a frame-by-frame backstepping sort of feature. The possibilities I imagine are these:

1) 'Fast-rewind' (similar to the current fast-forward but moving in reverse)

2) A checkpoint system, which allows the player to jump back to the most recent checkpoint

3) Jump back to the last skill assignment

All of the above provide a way to quickly undo mistakes without introducing the kind of granular replay editing that NeoLemmix and Lix offer (which, again, I'd much rather avoid).

I'm very hesistant to do even this to be honest, because I like the fact that RetroLemmini has higher gameplay stakes. However, it's difficult to ignore the fact that the replay system already exists and already means that players can just fast-forward to the part of the level that they need to redo. Why not, then, allow them to get there a bit more quickly.

One other possibility here is to implement a super-fast-forward, which allows the player to advance very quickly through the replay; as fast as the rendering will allow, I imagine.

Please share your thoughts.

I need feedback on this. If I don't hear back from anybody, I'll assume that people are happy with RetroLemmini as it is and I won't take any action.

Hi,

we have a few German members. Who's up to meet for a few days?

I live in Kassel, Germany and am considering hosting the meetup at my place. Reasonable dates will be around February 2027 or March 2027. I have a weak preference for early March, but really anything in February/March would fit. I'll make up my mind and will let you know within the next few months.

Flopsy considers flying here from the UK for a week. To book a flight reasonably cheap, Flopsy needs concrete dates in 2027 by October/November 2026 at latest. I'd like to pin it down by November.

IchoTolot lives nearby and will be happy to come over.

Ideas for what we can do:

• Play board games.
  
• Share Lemmings levels and solve each other's levels.
  
• Work next to each other our computers, on Lemmings projects or other projects.
  
• Take a small hike.
  

Are you up to join? Let me know what dates suit you best.

-- Simon

After a longer conversation with CLAUDE I received this!

ooh some fun stuff to search for when I'm bored. There's a bunch of those I don't know about. 

I still think about those 500 lost levels every now and then. Why must Gary never let them see the light of day!? [yes I am obsessive and cry about things like this, even though it's probably pointless]

Quote from: Proxima on August 14, 2026, 07:00:05 PMFor the save requirement ... NLCE adds a tick to the flag, which is also good. (I would still prefer the negative numbers, as "-5" conveys "5 short of the requirement" a lot more easily than just "5" does, but maybe there's already an option for this?) Anyway, no colours needed here and that's great.

There is an option to count up from 0 then display '+n' once the save requirement is met. Some users (myself included) prefer this to the negative save count.

Yes, no colours are needed here, but I like the idea of using teal to bring attention to this part of the display once the save requirement is met - let's give this a try and see if it's OK. Certainly, the save count should be green whilst the SR is unmet. We all agree here.

Quote from: Proxima on August 14, 2026, 07:00:05 PMThe timer needs to indicate (at least) three possible states: infinite; time limit counting down; overtime
...
Will argues that red shouldn't be used for overtime because red conveys urgency, while you can remain in overtime as long as you want; but the same is true for "not enough lemmings left" and we're fine using red for that. (Or should we change it to blue for both?)
...
Completely agree with Simon that there is no need for any "15 seconds left" indication.

Red for both is fine, let's give that a try. And OK, we'll do away with the 15 seconds 'warning'. Nobody has piped up in support of that, so... let's get rid of it and see if anyone complains later.

Quote from: Simon on August 15, 2026, 12:49:23 AMAlternative to minus sign: The yellow hourglass (that has sand in both halves) turns red (together with its number) and has all the red sand in the bottom half.

This is a great idea!

Quote from: Simon on August 15, 2026, 12:49:23 AMThe satisfied save requirement is a flag with a checkmark. Consider removing the flag and have only a checkmark in this icon. Makes it easier to see the checkmark, and the switch into the winning state will pop a little better.

Let's see if using teal to make this pop is good enough. Flag-with-checkmark works nicely, I'd personally prefer to keep this as it is.

---

Current proposal, then:

Use GREEN for everthing except the following:

TEAL/CYAN = save requirement is met | level has a time limit

RED = not enough lemmings remain | time has run out (alongside Simon's red sand timer)

BLUE = panel button hints

I think this could work nicely. Let's give it a try in the next update.

There are 2 possible fixes here:

1) After being turned by a Blocker, suppress the next 4px horizontal movement.

2) After being turned by a Blocker, reset the action/animation to frame 0.

Both of these fixes guarantee that the Miner will either not clip through terrain, or will destroy the terrain directly in front of them (after turning). However, neither looks quite right (the 2nd is definitely the better of the two in this regard), and both will likely break replays involving turning a Miner with a Blocker.

All other fixes (checking ahead for terrain, checking for during-movement terrain) interact poorly with existing physics, which often has the Miner stepping through existing terrain anyway.

NOTE: It seems worth mentioning that this bug is also present in SuperLemmini. So, it's not being caused by any changes to Miner physics made in RetroLemmini.

The only other option I can think of is to completely refactor the Miner's movement cycle so that it moves across-then-down rather than down-then-across. This could interact poorly with the sprite, though, and still wouldn't guarantee no clipping.