So I've decided to exclude the third rank that was planned for the pack. Rather, I'll be fixing up existing levels and adding more pizzazz to them as I go. Mainly graphics-wise, no changed solutions. Nuisance Level 19 "The Aquatic Ruins" will be slightly different to fix up a backroute. A v2.0 release will still happen.

Basically, I would need a lot of help to do a third rank. I am still learning how to make more difficult levels for future level packs. Armani is working on a pack of his own and may be too busy to make more levels for this pack. I have been unable to reach him, which is understandable. Thank you, Armani, for your great levels! It was a pleasure to work with you again.

Take care, folks!

Thank you for the kind words.

I can't speak for the whole team here, but my hope is that by putting in the work now, we'll reach a version we're happy to sign off on as the definitive final version so that no long-term maintenance is necessary (especially as the NL engine will now have no further updates). If more backroutes turn up later, we just accept that the pack isn't perfect.

One reason for this decision is that the pack is over 12 years old now and is a compilation of (mostly) even older levels; most of the authors aren't around to consult about intended solutions. There are some exceptions, and of course we can use our own judgement as to what backroutes should be prevented; but the ideal state of having a compilation of intended solutions to consult is unreachable.

Another is that I don't have the time or energy to put more into this pack than helping to make one more version, and I'd like it to be done so that I can move on and get back to finishing my own pack (which I have been promising to do for years at this point).

Quote from: WillLem on April 02, 2026, 05:50:51 AMHaha! Apologies, it's just easier to keep track of these things when they have separate topics.

Of course! No need to apologize.

Quote from: WillLem on April 02, 2026, 05:50:51 AMThanks for posting the full Error logs, some of those will no doubt be from before the previous "ToUpperInvariant" fix...
...
...But, let's completely exhaust the existing system first.

But I do need to apologize myself; because I have not been able to regenerate the error since the last time.
I can't remember if the last one I received  was from your RC version or v3.0.2, but I am beginning to suspect that it was also related to the "İ" problem.
If it ever comes back, I will make sure to report and let you know under this topic.

Thanks for taking such an interest in fixing and making your releases better which each version.
Greatly appreciated,
Cheers!

When there are multiple objects, terrain etc on top of each other, with similar sizes and irregular shapes, it becomes impossible to select the desired asset.

For example on the design I am currently working on; I have a terrain piece on top of a very large piece of steel and an exit object on top of all.
I had to move the terrain back in order to align and position my exit but now I am stuck with not being able to select it because of the steel which blocking the way.

For my particular problem; an option to Show/Hide Steel (like any other layer) would solve it immediately.
Steel is the only asset type that hasn't got an option to hide/show.
I know steel is also technically a terrain, but I am referring to the distinction between steel and not steel.
Because in my example, I need to select the "not steel" terrain which is below the steel.
I fear it may not be possible to implement since the editor sees them all as terrain
but am hoping using it's flag etc would allow it.


An option in the settings or a modifier key press; that simply allow bypassing the alpha channel when selecting, would also save me right now.
I believe CTRL+Click and/or holding down the left mouse button 'sometimes' help with selecting an object which is behind of another,
but because of it's inconsistency I'm not so sure if this feature actually exists or not.

What would be a QoL update is; an actual toggle button to let the cursor prioritize and select the layer at the back/behind.

What would be an even better addition; is the layer system implementation;
Currently there is no way to tell how many layers are there or which and what layers are currently on the map.
This also makes it impossible to clean/delete an asset that has been removed/changed from the style folder,
because there is no way to select it once the editor is restarted, the level is reloaded or simply the styles has been refreshed.


If there was a file list or a layer system, that would allow;
- Eliminating the need to use the "depricated" feature. Since the assets can be selected and deleted from there,
- The ability to select/move, show/hide layers and objects individually,
- The ability to see/find assets at a glance, since it is outlined as it's selected,
- The ability to see/find how many and which assets are currently placed on a level,
  (assuming the filename is used for layer name instead of effect type)
- Make grouping and organizing much easier,
- Possibly allow to Show/Hide asset groups or groups of layers.


I hope I was able to explain the situation that I am struggling with.
Please let me know if I am missing something and if there's an already implemented way of working or selecting 'the object behind'.
Because even the marquee doesn't always help.

I wish all of you good luck. It takes coordination and compromise.

Consider long-term maintainership, i.e., longer than 10 years. Is a proof replay enough for coverage/documentation? E.g., Proxima has many anything-goes levels in the Lix lemforum pack, and Proxima judged my player solutions fine even when they varied from his proof replay in fundamental ways. Such mismatch would have been judged a backroute in other levels.

This is a general worry about long-term changes of level maintainership. It's not particular to this collaboration.

-- Simon

March/April 2026 update to the pack has been posted and can be downloaded here:

https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=7351.msg108439#msg108439

Description of the pack update are included in the Lemmini Level Packs Archive topic in the link above

Pacguy765's Challenge Pack - originally by Pacguy765, converted by ericderkovits

March/April 2026 Update

Posting a small update both for the original Lemmini pack and eric's SuperLemmini conversion of Pacguy's pack. Other than restoring the original Lemmini pack download, the only changes here are to once again fix the music by removing the ones in the levelpack.ini files that aren't used despite being listed. As a result, the number of music tracks has been reduced from 33 to just the 25 that are used! Also, it's not necessary, since you should get them when you go through the Lemmini and SuperLemmini extraction process if you're doing the first-time setup for them, but the Amiga Lemmings .mod music tracks used for the pack have been added to the downloads. Yes it's a case of going from 9 music tracks to 25, but you still end up with the 25 intended tracks for the pack either way

For levels, the only level fix in this update is for Pack 3, level 3, where the invisible trap over the visible exit is now fixed so that it kills the Lemmings. It was a pixel too high before and hence the Lemmings are able to get by without getting killed. So, just another layer to the level title's meaning of "things are not as they seem!" The visible exit remains unchanged, where like in the original Lemmini version it still doesn't work here, which is how the pack author had it.

As usual, I have the pack downloads labeled and set up so that you just need to extract the files in the Lemmini zip to your Lemmini directory and the files in the SuperLemmini zip to your SuperLemmini directory. Everything will fall into place.

Quote from: kaywhyn on April 02, 2026, 08:44:41 AMNot only that, that one's only 210 levels (not counting the secret levels)

This is of course correct: v2 has 210 levels (7 x 30), not 270 as I said in my earlier post. I've fixed the post now with all the calculations that follow from this. The total number of available levels (v2 and v4 combined) is still 341.

I'll start a new topic for level selection for the first two packs very soon.

Yesterday's April Fools!

Quote from: WillLem on April 01, 2026, 10:42:34 PMAh, 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.

Indeed, the confusion is all mine: I got it the other way around! For some very strange reason, I kept thinking the two 120-level packs was based on the v2.0 RotL pack and then Lemmings Assemble is based on v4.0 if you think it's still best to collaborate our efforts together. My mistake. Not only that, that one's only 210 levels (not counting the secret levels, and even counting them it comes a bit short of 240 anyway ) and hence it wouldn't be the even 120 split for the two mini-packs. That's what happens when I spent so much on getting an update posted for eric's SuperLemmini RotL conversions working tirelessly over the last several days that I was just flustered with how many issues in them bothered me that warranted an update IMO and hence I get mixed up about things

Yes, splitting the current v4.0 RotL pack into two packs of 120 levels each and then as a result Lemmings Assemble is its own thing independent of any of the RotL packs (save for any levels that get used from the Outtakes and overflow/extra pool) available makes complete sense to me now. People who want to contribute to Lemmings Assemble by making levels for it now makes sense Before with my mix-up, I was thinking, what's the purpose of people making levels for it then if you're basing it on v4.0 if you decide that's how it should be after doing the two packs of 120 levels each first, them being based (incorrectly, as I now see my mix-up and mistake) on v2.0?

In any case, now that my update for the SuperLemmini conversions are posted, unless there are issues that I missed that need fixing, that's that for them and they won't be brought up again as they're at least archived here on the Forums Now I can completely turn my focus on doing a long overdue update for the v4.0 RotL (2022 version) pack which is where my contributions should be in regards to this project!  

Quote from: WillLem on April 01, 2026, 10:42:34 PMAgreed, 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.

Yes, I got that. What I'm getting at here is that it's all right if nothing gets done with this, as it's not the end of the world or anything if so. However, as I already mentioned a few times before, I agree about not leaving the 2022 RotL pack the way it currently is. I've been meaning to update the pack, I just haven't gotten around to doing much work towards that yet or thought too much of it with everything else I have going on with my life outside of Lemmings or other priorities I have

Quote from: WillLem on April 02, 2026, 02:48:15 AMI 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.

Well, I don't think it'll be possible to fix all backroutes with only one update, even if I'm quite careful about nearly everything I do. Here, I would suggest giving it maybe 3 versions, similar to how you detailed me your approach to backroute fixing your levels, especially for those of yours you really like. I believe it went something like you give yourself 3 attempts, but if it's still backroutable after those 3 editions, you just don't bother fixing it up anymore. I think that's a good approach, even if I myself haven't made much use of it or given myself any kind of hard limit number on backroute fixes yet! Guess I'm one of those who prefers to release as many updates as is necessary until my level is finally fully backroute-proof. However, as I don't have any levels in the 2022 RotL version and that I'm fixing up other people's levels, I'll very likely relax this point when backroute fixing them, especially as a lot of them we don't know what's the intended solution anyway.

---

Anyway, I appreciate you wanting me to get involved and thinking that I'll (along with everyone else who will be doing some part in it) be valuable in contributing to the project! When we do eventually get to Lemmings Assemble much later down the road, again I'll consider contributing some levels of mine and/or making levels for it, though not a guarantee for the latter. Also, to be clear, I definitely am getting involved, as I mentioned that I been meaning to update the 2022 RotL pack for quite some time now. This would definitely be a good opportunity for me to do so while things are fresh again. Admittedly, it's thanks to @hrb264 that I've been revisiting RotL again for the past several weeks, when she had been posting her progress on solving the levels of the pack and that she got held up on JAILBREAK and I decided to take a look to see if it's solvable in SuperLemmini in order to help her out with the level roadblock!

One thing, and that is I would suggest letting the poll run its course first before we commit to our duties. I highly doubt it'll reverse in the next several days to overturn the green light to go ahead with it, but let's see first. I haven't voted yet, but I'm definitely one of the "yeses" for sure!

Because there was a bit of confusion with some people over what was being proposed for the project, I had a brilliant idea last night, and that is I suggest making separate in-development topics for each of the 3 packs you had in mind. I believe Proxima had the idea of making a separate topic from this one for level selection, and I agree. It should be possible to split them here, and if so, let me know how you want them to be split when I'm making the topics Otherwise, we can simply make new topics for them without splitting any posts here, but I do think we'll be able to split the posts. This topic has gotten plenty of posts already and hence things could very quickly get out of hand again, so I think we should split them when we get the chance!