Author Topic: Custom Tilesets in Lemmix? (Read 17146 times)

Dullstar · « **on:** June 12, 2009, 03:47:19 AM »

Just to clarify things a bit: this does not mean VGASPECX.DAT files.

I'm wondering if there is a way to create a new tileset that could be used in Lemmings.
If this is possible, we could possibly extract tiles out of VGASPEC levels, and use them in our own custom levels!

ccexplore · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2009, 04:16:17 AM »

VGASPECx files contain the terrain for one entire level as a single giant bitmap, so it might be tricky to try to "extract" tiles out of it, but feel free to try.

The format for Lemming's tileset files are well known, so theoretically it would be possible to create a new tileset, but there are no tools right now to do so. But if we're talking Lemmix only, it would probably be easier if Lemmix supports a new file format for custom tilesets. Advantages would include no need for specialize tools to create tilesets (you could just have one or more bitmap files for the graphics, and a text file containing information mapping tile numbers to bitmap files), and ability to support 24-bit colors (ie. no longer limited to 16 colors as in Lemmings). Basically something like how Cheapo does custom tilesets (possibly even adopting the very file formats Cheapo uses for custom tilesets).

Dullstar · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2009, 05:29:15 AM »

Yeah, I know it would be hard. Beast of A Level would be a nightmare, because of the detailed terrain bottom. However, the end result could be worth it.

The Doctor · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2009, 08:17:37 AM »

Adopting Cheapo's format would be great, because obviously those styles could then be reused, and there were quite a few I liked. Also, they were very easy to make.

Clam · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2009, 08:44:24 AM »

I don't think a tileset extracted from a VGASPEC level being very useful for making new levels. You'd either end up with gigantic terrain pieces (like trees that are as high as the screen), or smaller pieces that look awful unless they're assembled together to form the whole thing (then you end up with the first problem again $:-\$ ). And there's other problems with VGASPECs too, which I mentioned in the "sad lemmings physics" thread.

EricLang · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2009, 09:46:28 AM »

Quote

The format for Lemming's tileset files are well known, so theoretically it would be possible to create a new tileset, but there are no tools right now to do so. But if we're talking Lemmix only, it would probably be easier if Lemmix supports a new file format for custom tilesets. Advantages would include no need for specialize tools to create tilesets (you could just have one or more bitmap files for the graphics, and a text file containing information mapping tile numbers to bitmap files), and ability to support 24-bit colors (ie. no longer limited to 16 colors as in Lemmings).

I am thinking/working on this. Maybe we could even abandon the whole idea of tilesets. Why not mix them? The way in which a level is stored could also be changed. Each tile or structure could just be a filename for example.

Clam · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2009, 10:13:51 AM »

I very much like that idea. In fact I can't believe I never thought of it.

That would open up so many possibilities!

The Doctor · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2009, 10:16:50 AM »

I agree.

I don't know if you have played the PSP/PS2 version, but you can mix and match the tiles from each style.

Certain objects are dependent on the level's background style (for example, if you choose the Roman background style, the water is water. If you choose the Hell background style, the water is lava, etc.) Then you can add tiles arbitrary of the main theme. Even traps can be added independently (I frequently use the Pink/Marble Revolving Fire Trap in every level I make).

Bit hard to explain, but if you have played either version, you'll know what I mean.

Tim · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2009, 01:14:24 PM »

When I made my first tileset that was based on Lemmini files (called Mario World) but still used im Lemmix for level making, I mixed some tiles (the staircase) from the Brick style in Oh No More Lemmings into the tileset.

Here is the example on YouTube (you will need to skip about 1 minute of the video to see it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rjH1R6YnIE

Unfortunately since Lemmini is not really known to you guys, its probably not very relevant to what you are planning. Still, I thought Id get the message out there just in case

It just shows that it is possible to mix tilesets into one.

P.S. That level was my first test level, and therefore thrown together, not intentional to be a builder-excessive level.

The Doctor · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2009, 01:16:49 PM »

That's not so much mixing however, as just including graphics from one tileset in another. It's still one tileset, in the end, and you are limited to it.

Lemmix uses a nice graphics model, with subdirectories containing graphics.

Tim · « **Reply #10 on:** June 13, 2009, 01:21:30 PM »

Oh, then this discussion is different to that. Never mind

Dullstar · « **Reply #11 on:** June 13, 2009, 08:04:44 PM »

Beast of a Level isn't all that adoptable, anyways. Beast 2, however, could probably work with most pieces except maybe the tree. AWESOME level could be looked at to see if there would be a chance of getting the terrain used in the dragons separated. The stars will. Menacing may pose problems.

ccexplore · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2009, 09:50:57 PM »

Quote from: EricLang on 2009-06-13 03:46:28

I am thinking/working on this. Maybe we could even abandon the whole idea of tilesets. Why not mix them? The way in which a level is stored could also be changed. Each tile or structure could just be a filename for example.

Tilesets mainly help organize the graphics into groups that make it easier for users to download all the custom graphics they need for particular levels. You could easily handle mixing of graphics from different tilesets with an organization like this:

A tileset is simply a subdirectory in Lemmix containing a bunch of graphics files.
Levels can refer to graphics by the path to the file, something like MyTileSet\terrainpieceA.bmp.
The Editor lets you pick graphics from any tileset to use in your level, so mixing tilesets is supported.
Because the path to a file tells you both "what file" and "which tileset", the game can easily figure out all the tilesets a user needs to download for a particular level, whenever there are missing files. It would be a lot easier than telling the user a flat list of all the individual graphics files they need.

A totally different alternative is to actually embed all the graphics files needed by a level into the level file itself. The main advantage is that the user will never have a problem with having to download any missing files/tilesets to play a level, since everything needed by the level is included inside the level file itself. The main disadvantage of course is that it makes the level file a lot bigger, although in this day and age, that might not be too big a concern, depending on how much bigger the level file becomes (hard disk space is most likely not a problem, so it's mainly the impact on how long it takes to download the level file).

The Doctor · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2009, 06:11:36 AM »

That's a good idea. Storing just whatever tiles are used would balance well.

Level packs could be one file, as well. Sort of like DOS's blah.DAT files. Then all resources would be in the one file, rather than in many seperate files taking up more space.

EricLang · « **Reply #14 on:** June 16, 2009, 07:54:08 AM »

In case of adding the graphics directly into the level: maybe an XML format would be great. I'll play around with this and check the size (compressed and uncrompressed).

Dullstar · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2009, 09:22:30 PM »

If you added the graphics directly in the levels, there *could* be oversized level files.

The Doctor · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2009, 10:29:08 PM »

Is that not the point the previous three posts just tackled?

EricLang · « **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2009, 08:00:15 PM »

If I use compression and include all graphics a level will be in between 20-40 KB.
Uncompressed will be much much bigger, because bitmaps use a lot of space (Lemmix uses 32 bits colors).
However, if I use compression the level-files will only be readable by Lemmix, which is a thing I maybe want to prevent. XML or inifiles are more transparent formats.

ccexplore · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2009, 08:42:54 PM »

Quote from: EricLang on 2009-06-18 14:00:15

However, if I use compression the level-files will only be readable by Lemmix, which is a thing I maybe want to prevent. XML or inifiles are more transparent formats.

I'm not sure I follow. The compression's mainly for the graphics right? I'd guess that you can still get a reasonable size if you compress only the graphics, then the rest can still be uncompressed XML.

EricLang · « **Reply #19 on:** June 18, 2009, 10:06:56 PM »

That's true.
And yes, compression is mainly for the graphics.

The Doctor · « **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2009, 11:12:56 PM »

Quote from: Dullstar on 2009-06-18 12:38:51

Doesn't look like it. This one, however, yes.d* be oversized level files.

No, actually it was. File size limitations, formats and methods to overcome them. Yes, those few posts before your own did tackle that issue.

Anyway...

I like the idea of compressing the graphics needed for each level into the level itself, with uncompressed XML. It sounds a bit like the Office 2007/2008 file format, which is essentially a zip file containing the resources and XML data for the actual document, and you can see the difference between a Word 2003/2004 and Word 2007/2008 document's file size is quite large in certain circumstances.

I still propose that level packs be one file containing all resources for all levels, so that if any levels in the pack share a particular tile (say, the crystals from the blue style), then it is stored once and referred to by all levels rather than have it present in every single individual file. It also keeps directories clean. (Nothing worse than going to play peoples' levels and you wind up unzipping more files from their pack than you have actual documents).

Dullstar · « **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:57:53 AM »

Never mind, those three WERE about size.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another idea would be to make it so that downloading the combined sets wouldn't be a huge problem.

{setname}_{terrainpieceID#}.{image format}
So, for, let's say the horizontal pillar in the Pillar set, or whatever you call it.

pillar_01.png

Why *.png? No reason. Just an example.

This would allow for custom tilesets.

A good idea would be to set up a tileset thing somewhere, too, for people to post their tilesets.

Such as, computer game tileset clones? Like, cavestory-eggcorridor_01.bmp?
Or: supermetroid-tourianruins_01.gif
sonic3andknuckles_sandopolispyramid.jpg

It would work great, and take less space in the long run!

ccexplore · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:24:55 AM »

It's possible to improve hard disk space usage by having the program automatically strip the bitmaps from a level you downloaded, and incorporate the bitmaps into some sort of "tileset store" where each bitmap is only stored once (so if you already got the bitmap from some other levels, no extra copies are stored). The level editor can support the inverse, re-incorporating the bitmaps back into the level for the version of the level file that you upload to the web for others to play.

Although I still think hard disk space are comparatively cheap these days, so even a simple, naive, wasteful approach should work fine. If you're so out of hard disk space that you're only have a few dozens of MBs left, most likely Windows and other programs won't be running well anyway.

The Doctor · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:27:41 AM »

Still, do we want to commit to inefficiency for what could be a successful long term solution?

Also re: Dullstar's idea. That's how Lemmini currently works.

Dullstar · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:36:34 AM »

Exactly. By the way, half the "huge level" argument is DOWNLOAD TIME.

Please read the recent posts in the thread, THEN post.

The Doctor · « **Reply #25 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:40:10 AM »

Yes, it can be so easy to forget that many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many ...

...

... many many many many many many people don't have fast broadband, or still have dial -up.

Dullstar · « **Reply #26 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:44:08 AM »

Exactly.

"HOLY ****! IT'S A NEW FREAKIN' RECORD! 26.0 MPS! AWESOME!"

And that about describes my...

Crap. Down to 19.5. Which is above average, actually.
I don't know if that's considered "slow" because I don't know what the general speed is, but that's just an example.

CRAP! 13.0 MPS at Very Low signal strength.

Translation: Your Internet connection is connected, but it is low strength so Windows will lock you out of the Internet until you have gotten a better signal.

ccexplore · « **Reply #27 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:55:39 AM »

signal strength? What exactly are you using anyway to connect to the Internet?

If you're relying on some random WiFi access point way outside of your house (eg. stealing some neighbors' WiFi, tsk tsk), then you get what you paid (in this case nothing) for.

The Doctor · « **Reply #28 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:58:34 AM »

By the way, any measurement of data transfer with an M in it (be it MB or Mb) is huge. Since MPS isn't a transfer rate, I assume you must mean something like KB.

And all of those speeds are indeed goshawful. >_<

But something I can sympathise with.

First rule of software development: you are not making the software for yourself, you are making it for the users. Those who may wish to play Lemmings may not have at least DSL.

ccexplore · « **Reply #29 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:59:58 AM »

Quote from: Dullstar on 2009-06-18 21:36:34

Exactly. By the way, half the "huge level" argument is DOWNLOAD TIME.

Please read the recent posts in the thread, THEN post.

Um, there are no posts in this thread that talked about download time until you mentioned it.

Thanks for making me waste time re-reading posts on the thread, Dullstar

" title="Angry" class="smiley" />

ccexplore · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:01:56 AM »

Quote from: Dullstar on 2009-06-18 21:36:34

Exactly. By the way, half the "huge level" argument is DOWNLOAD TIME.

Well, EricLang found the size of a level compressed to be around 20-40 KB. I think even for dialups, that's not too bad. Although granted, it's been so long since I've used dialups, I've forgotten exactly how slow they are.

Dullstar · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:03:14 AM »

It's a wireless network, which is in the center of my house. Mr. K has not yet explained why just 1 room's difference makes the difference between a low/very low connection and a good/very good connection. If you move the computer to any point in the house other than my room, the strength skyrockets, and my dad's laptop gets great signal strength from here!

@Jason: Sorry, messed up. The speed of the actual connection is in Mbps. I don't know the conversion to see what it is as far as download speeds go.

@ccexplore: I swear I read a post that said that the huge level files would be a problem because of download time. Because hard drives are huge these days. I'll see if I can find it.

Dullstar · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:05:55 AM »

Quote from: ccexplore on 2009-06-15 15:50:57

(hard disk space is most likely not a problem, so it's mainly the impact on how long it takes to download the level file).

ccexplore! YOU posted that! Read this quote, especially the part I have underlined and bolded and italicized.

The Doctor · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:06:46 AM »

Quote from: ccexplore on 2009-06-18 22:01:56

Well, EricLang found the size of a level compressed to be around 20-40 KB. I think even for dialups, that's not too bad. Although granted, it's been so long since I've used dialups, I've forgotten exactly how slow they are.

Let's hope you never need to remember through first hand experience xD

20 to 40 KB is very good. I still maintain that a pack file is a better format for distribution of packs than just distributing each file in a zip.

@Dullstar: Heh, it's alright. If you're experiencing slowness, you'll be measuring in KB or Kb. Most likely KB. Highly likely KB. Extremely likely KB. Not so likely B or b. Probably KB.

ccexplore · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:09:36 AM »

Quote from: Dullstar on 2009-06-18 22:03:14

It's a wireless network, which is in the center of my house. Mr. K has not yet explained why just 1 room's difference makes the difference between a low/very low connection and a good/very good connection. If you move the computer to any point in the house other than my room, the strength skyrockets, and my dad's laptop gets great signal strength from here!

Hmm weird. Perhaps it's interference from other appliances (cordless phone? although I thought they were supposed to go on different EM frequencies)? Sorry to hear that your house has a Wi-Fi "blindspot" like that. I dunno much about WiFi to offer any possible solutions.

Quote

I'll see if I can find it.

No need to find it. Obviously if it makes for very large level files than it's not a good solution, but so far the size doesn't look too bad.

I do seem to recall that in Cheapo, the terrain is stored as a single bitmap (although interactive objects aren't) within the level itself. So we already have examples of storing bitmaps within a level. I don't remember though how big the cheapo level files are.

The Doctor · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:11:09 AM »

I don't recall levels being like that, I recall needing the styles in their own location.

Dullstar · « **Reply #36 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:12:40 AM »

I said my dad's laptop gets great connection in the same spot my computer is in. By the way, if I run the computer in Ubuntu, I get better connection strength, apparently.

Okay, one or two more comments, and then we can go back on topic. Or we could go on topic NOW.

The topic: Custom Tilesets in Lemmix.

Dullstar · « **Reply #37 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:13:24 AM »

Quote from: Jason on 2009-06-18 22:11:09

I don't recall levels being like that, I recall needing the styles in their own location.

I know! That is so true! Tell me one lemmings game that stores graphics in the level file!

The Doctor · « **Reply #38 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:14:06 AM »

I suppose Eric's unreleased lessthanAlpha Custom Lemmix implementation? xD

Dullstar · « **Reply #39 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:15:21 AM »

Possibly. Hasn't been released yet, though, so we do not know.

The Doctor · « **Reply #40 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:18:20 AM »

I assume Eric's at least tried it, given that he's talked about how well the compression worked.

Anyway, back on topic.

I'd love to see custom tilesets (or not even tilesets at all, as envisioned by Eric) so as that we can port some of the better Cheapo levels to a format for the newcomers to the Lemming community. Truly some good levels that nobody will play anymore simply because it's not Lemmix.

ccexplore · « **Reply #41 on:** June 19, 2009, 06:56:19 AM »

Quote from: Jason on 2009-06-18 22:11:09

I don't recall levels being like that, I recall needing the styles in their own location.

The style files are still needed because interactive objects, music, sound, etc. are not stored with the level. But the terrain graphics definitely is stored entirely within the level, because Cheapo lets you cut and paste arbitrary bitmap graphics into the level. This wouldn't be possible if the terrain graphics isn't stored within the level.

ccexplore · « **Reply #42 on:** June 19, 2009, 06:59:11 AM »

Quote from: Dullstar on 2009-06-18 22:05:55

ccexplore! YOU posted that!

Clam · « **Reply #43 on:** June 21, 2009, 12:04:27 AM »

Quote from: Jason on 2009-06-18 22:18:20

I'd love to see custom tilesets (or not even tilesets at all, as envisioned by Eric) so as that we can port some of the better Cheapo levels to a format for the newcomers to the Lemming community. Truly some good levels that nobody will play anymore simply because it's not Lemmix.

You've got a point there. I haven't tried Cheapo myself

Proxima · « **Reply #44 on:** July 11, 2009, 01:28:33 AM »

Quote from: Dullstar on 2009-06-13 14:04:44

Beast of a Level isn't all that adoptable, anyways. Beast 2, however, could probably work with most pieces except maybe the tree. AWESOME level could be looked at to see if there would be a chance of getting the terrain used in the dragons separated. The stars will. Menacing may pose problems.

I did this for Cheapo some years ago (including the tree from Beast 2, which I was very proud of). I still have the bitmap file, if anyone has any use for it: http://www.geocities.com/zarathustra47/Special-Graphics.bmp

ccexplore · « **Reply #45 on:** July 11, 2009, 01:34:31 AM »

Quote from: Proxima on 2009-07-10 19:28:33

I did this for Cheapo some years ago (including the tree from Beast 2, which I was very proud of). I still have the bitmap file, if anyone has any use for it: http://www.geocities.com/zarathustra47/Special-Graphics.bmp

Hey, welcome back Ahribar/Proxima! (Of course! Who else talks about Mac Lemmings?

)

It's been ages since I last tested and played your Cheapo levels, but I enjoyed them very much and it's a shame that you didn't make more. Anyway, how's life? I trust that you got your PhD by now? Married?

Anyway, welcome back to the world of Lemmings!

Actually you didn't miss quite as much as you might think. Sadly the forums had been down for like over a year; it's only been the past 2 or 3 months that we finally find a permanent home to host the forums.