[NeoLemmix][DISC] Iindependent tiles in hi-res mode for official styles

[WillLem]

The problem arises because the low-res masks look blocky compared to the hi-res terrain. Diagonal edges that are implied to be smooth in low-res look jagged in hi-res, simply because there is more detail around it to compare it to.

As I understand it, the hi-res mode was only ever intended to be an aesthetic overlay. The physics will always remain low-res, and so it's important that the masks reflect this.

Perhaps this is, in fact, another argument in favour of using zoomed rather than upscaled low-res graphics when in hi-res mode (at least by default); that way, only the lems themselves will appear "hi-res", and all terrain and masks will appear as they do in low-res. Maybe this will help to reduce the comparitive blockiness of the masks.

As it stands, I generally don't mind this aspect of the hi-res mode and I personally still plan on using the upscaled graphics. But, I would support a move towards having zoom as the default if this would help.

Meanwhile, we have 3 votes for a completely new set of hi-res graphics! I'm not sure how likely this is to happen, in all honesty. We have a conversion of the Mac graphics well underway and I personally support the options that are, in fact, already currently available (i.e. zoom/upscale), so it's highly unlikely I'll be creating anything new myself (although I'd be happy to help with such a project if someone else were doing most of the work!). Maybe Zanzi or someone equally artistically skilled could have a look at it.

[Proxima]

As I understand it, the hi-res mode was only ever intended to be an aesthetic overlay. The physics will always remain low-res, and so it's important that the masks reflect this.

I can't agree. The point of using high-res is a decision to prioritise appearance over pixel precision, taken in the hope that level design should be about macroscopic decisions, and precisely which pixel a lemming is standing on shouldn't be important (outside of specialised situations found when attempting challenge solutions). Exactly the same process that leads a user to prefer the high-res curved pillar top tiles (see the Fun 2 screenshot on the previous page) would lead them to prefer a smooth destruction mask.

(Unfortunately, high-res destruction masks would definitely fall under the "no new suggestions" clause )

Perhaps this is, in fact, another argument in favour of using zoomed rather than upscaled low-res graphics when in hi-res mode (at least by default); that way, only the lems themselves will appear "hi-res", and all terrain and masks will appear as they do in low-res. Maybe this will help to reduce the comparitive blockiness of the masks.

I am confused about why this is even being suggested as an option. Unless I've misunderstood something, you are literally suggesting that users who go into their NL settings and click the "hi-res" box should get low-res graphics.

(I'm not saying that "zoom" shouldn't exist as a possible setting for upscaling.nxmi; there could be individual styles and terrain pieces for which the designer doesn't want the upscaler's result and prefers to disable it, but doing this for the default styles should not be under discussion.)

[Dullstar]

Perhaps this is, in fact, another argument in favour of using zoomed rather than upscaled low-res graphics when in hi-res mode (at least by default); that way, only the lems themselves will appear "hi-res", and all terrain and masks will appear as they do in low-res. Maybe this will help to reduce the comparitive blockiness of the masks.

I am confused about why this is even being suggested as an option. Unless I've misunderstood something, you are literally suggesting that users who go into their NL settings and click the "hi-res" box should get low-res graphics.

It would still give you the high-res lemming sprites, but honestly if that were all that high-res mode had been designed to do in the first place, I doubt it would have gotten in at all (and could be a potential juicy target for culling). Doesn't that really defeat the whole purpose of having a high-res mode in the first place?



That said, WillLem -- you don't have to try to convince me regarding the skill masks. I've stated my opinion regarding them, but it's not like it's a situation where I want to use high-res mode except this one thing is bothering me too much (though it, alongside the lack of proper style support, are certainly factors that push it from "I prefer low-res but high-res mode looks nice too" to "I dislike the way high-res mode looks"). For the graphic style used by Lemmings, more resolution isn't necessarily better (though not necessarily worse, either). It's just different, at least when good high-res graphics are provided.

The default upscaler does well sometimes (lots of the marble pieces look nice, though not all of them), but ultimately it's better used as a starting point for creating proper graphics if you ask me - that way, you could touch up the results as needed, keep anything that works well, and get rid of everything else. It would be nice if NL could dump the upscaler's results to a file for exactly this purpose.



Basically: I'm happy to share my opinions on what I think can make the high-res mode the best that it can be, but ultimately I'll probably keep using low-res mode regardless out of personal preference.

[WillLem]

The physics will always remain low-res, and so it's important that the masks reflect this.

The point of using high-res is a decision to prioritise appearance over pixel precision ... and precisely which pixel a lemming is standing on shouldn't be important

Maybe it shouldn't. But since NeoLemmix is a pixel-precise platform (and offers plenty of helper tools to deal with this), it's an unavoidable part of the game and its interface. If masks were given a hi-res counterpart that was physically inaccurate, that wouldn't be a good move and I would likely oppose it. Good thing that it most likely won't be happening!

Exactly the same process that leads a user to prefer the high-res curved pillar top tiles (see the Fun 2 screenshot on the previous page) would lead them to prefer a smooth destruction mask

Not necessarily, and I'm an example of a person to whom this doesn't really apply. Sure, I want the nicer looking lems and style pieces, but anything that reflects actual physics should ideally be as visually accurate as possible, even at the expense of aesthetics.

in favour of using zoomed rather than upscaled low-res graphics when in hi-res mode ... Maybe this will help to reduce the comparitive blockiness of the masks.

I am confused about why this is even being suggested as an option. Unless I've misunderstood something, you are literally suggesting that users who go into their NL settings and click the "hi-res" box should get low-res graphics.

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that those who are bothered by the blockiness of the masks may prefer "zoom" to be the default in the absence of actual hi-res counterpart graphics as opposed to "upscale". Of course, they may not.

Obviously, the ideal is to have actual hi-res graphics when in hi-res, and users who choose this option have to accept that because the physics are low-res, the masks will be also. It's a small price to pay for an overall better-looking game.

I'm not saying that "zoom" shouldn't exist as a possible setting for upscaling.nxmi ... but doing this for the default styles should not be under discussion.

Yes, but at present the official styles don't have hi-res counterparts. And, zoom/upscale are currently essential for all styles that don't have hi-res counterpart graphics. Therefore, it does need to be discussed whether we:

a) Include hi-res counterparts, whether by making them from scratch or using existing ones from elsewhere
b) Zoom by default with the option to upscale
c) Upscale by default with the option to zoom

I think most of us can agree that (a) is the best option, but if no suitable tiles are created (or if the Mac ones end up being the only ones presented and people don't like them), then (b) and (c) each have their pros & cons.

alongside the lack of proper style support

I'm not sure what "lack of proper style support" you're referring to here. The option is there for people to make hi-res tiles for their styles, if they wish. If they don't want to or don't have time, then NL provides no fewer than 2 options for rendering the tiles in hi-res. I don't see how this constitutes a lack of support.

[Zooming] would still give you the high-res lemming sprites, but ... Doesn't that really defeat the whole purpose of having a high-res mode in the first place?

No, because it gives you hi-res lemming sprites and a hi-res skill panel/interface; for me personally, that's enough, and I was pleased to help with bringing that into fruition.

As it stands, hi-res style pieces is a nice bonus which hi-res mode offers us the option of exploring. And, of course, there are users who feel that these ought to be an integral part of the mode anyway, at least for the official styles. Hence this topic.



Just to summarise the topic at this point:

We currently do not have hi-res counterpart graphics for the official styles. Lots of people don't use hi-res, for various reasons. Maybe if we included hi-res graphics for the official styles, more people would take an interest in hi-res mode.

Proxima is currently working on transposing the official Mac styles to NeoLemmix, so this is one possibility (and an exciting one!), but there are others. A majority of people have stated that they would like to see something made entirely from scratch, so it's at least worth discussing this possibility as well as any others that may arise.

Meanwhile, in the ongoing absence of hi-res graphics (current situation), which is the best option to have as the default between zooming and upscaling? I personally prefer upscaling, but many have stated that they don't like the way this looks. It has also come to light that it clashes with the destruction masks, so maybe zooming is the way to go - again, in the absence of actual hi-res graphics.

Obviously, if a style does have hi-res graphics, then people will just have to live with the relative blockiness of the masks. If that's enough of a reason for you not to bother with the mode, then so be it. But, hopefully, most people will agree that it's a minimal enough trade-off for the possibility of having a mostly great-looking game.

[WillLem]

So, to move the discussion forward.

I like the idea of exploring the Mac graphics, and I'm happy to help with that where I can. @Proxima, would you like me to work through a few of the styles alongside you?

The default upscaler does well sometimes ... but ultimately it's better used as a starting point for creating proper graphics if you ask me - that way, you could touch up the results as needed, keep anything that works well, and get rid of everything else.

I love it when we agree; this is something I've actually done myself (i.e. this is the way I processed most of the graphics for the Lemminas style in SuperLemmini).

The more I think about it, I like this as a way to go for the hi-res mode; this would give NeoLemmix its own look and feel, so it's definitely a favourable option. That said, it would be a lot of work. It's probably worth seeing how the Mac graphics turn out first.

It would be nice if NL could dump the upscaler's results to a file for exactly this purpose.

+1 for adding this capability to NL (although, it probably belongs in "new suggestions" territory, unfortunately).

Thankfully, Namida has already released NL's upscaler as a separate tool (this is what I used it to recreate the Lemminas style for SuperLemmini), but it does require processing each image individually. Better than nothing, though! I've attached it here.

[Proxima]

I like the idea of exploring the Mac graphics, and I'm happy to help with that where I can. @Proxima, would you like me to work through a few of the styles alongside you?

Right now, the biggest thing I need help with is providing high-res equivalents (that fit in with the Mac style, rather than the NL upscaler) for the pieces that have been newly added in NL and didn't exist in the original styles. Is that something you can help with?

[WillLem]

the biggest thing I need help with is providing high-res equivalents ... for the pieces that have been newly added in NL and didn't exist in the original styles. Is that something you can help with?

Absolutely. If you'd be happy to compile them all into a zip, I'll have a look at them as soon as I can.

Meanwhile, I've had a look at 2 of the pillar pieces which I thought could do with a touch-up. The first is block_07, which I think looks a bit too orange, particularly compared with the original.

Mac version, DOS/Amiga version (zoomed for comparison), new alternative which aims to match the DOS/Amiga colours more closely:


Also, the pillar ends look too "perfect" in the Mac version. I prefer the look of the DOS/Amiga ones, in which the circular orbs are more subtle, giving the pieces a more "ancient" look:

Mac version, DOS/Amiga version (zoomed for comparison), new alternative which gives the orbs a more "implied" look:


Let me know what you think. Happy to give other pieces similar treatment.



For reference, block_07 is Color Balanced with values -8, 0, +16 for RGB and +10, +10 for Brightness & Contrast

[Proxima]

Attached zip contains all the pieces in the NL original styles with no Mac counterpart. I'll do ONML later.

marble/steps_04 is included because it has no Mac counterpart in the zip ccexplore posted; since there is a gap in the piece numbering, I assume its counterpart did exist and was left out somehow. In any case, this is just a piece made up of smaller bricks that exist separately in the style, so there's no problem putting it together.

[Proxima]

I've updated the zip attached here with the diagonal blocks, bumps, circles and stairs all checked for pixel matching, i.e. an empty pixel in low-res should correspond to a completely empty 2x2 in high-res, and a full pixel should correspond to a partly or entirely full 2x2.

Pillar ends still remain to be done. I've given WillLem's modification a try, and here's how it looks on the actual level (contrast with the screenshot on the previous page):

[Dullstar]

By "lack of proper style support" I don't mean that the engine doesn't properly support high-res styles; rather, the styles themselves don't properly support it; rather, you're just left with upscaling. Note: here, when I say upscaling, I'm not referring to any specific method of upscaling - nearest neighbor (what we've been referring to as "zoom") and what NL currently does would both fall under the upscaling umbrella.

[WillLem]

By "lack of proper style support" I don't mean that the engine doesn't properly support high-res styles; rather, the styles themselves don't properly support it; rather, you're just left with upscaling

OK, I see what you mean.

Upscaling isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. In my honest opinion, I like the way the upscaled pieces look in hi-res and probably wouldn't have done much differently with them if tasked with the job of reproducing the pieces manually. They could have been a lot worse, in fairness!

I'm really only opening up this topic of discussion because the upscaled look puts a fair few people off, and a new look for the hi-res mode might help a few more people to get on board and give it a try. Why is it important? Well, if a content creator takes the considerable time and effort to create hi-res styles, I would hope that a fair few people would get to appreciate it.



Meanwhile, I'm wondering whether the Mac pieces might look a bit odd with jagged edges, thus moving the problem of the skill masks to the edges of basically every single tile which isn't straight-edged. I did a very quick fix on this one to demonstrate the effect (the edge pixel colours could maybe be re-jigged a bit to lessen this slightly):



Personally, I don't mind this and wouldn't see it as a strong enough reason not to use them. However, someone is bound to point it out eventually so let's see if we can address it early on. Ideally the hi-res tiles would take this into account wherever possible.

[Proxima]

Meanwhile, I'm wondering whether the Mac pieces might look a bit odd with jagged edges ... someone is bound to point it out eventually

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said I am still working on precisely this?

[WillLem]

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said I am still working on precisely this?

Ah yes. You said "Pillar ends still need to be done," but to be fair I didn't realise that you meant exactly this.

Anyways, at least we're all aware it needs to be fixed now.

a full pixel should correspond to a partly or entirely full 2x2

Really, it should be an entirely full 2x2, since the lem may end up looking like they're interacting with empty space otherwise, even if only when zoomed in.

I realise it makes very little difference, but... wherever possible, we should aim to completely fill all physics pixels. The tiles should match CPM exactly, in other words.

[Proxima]

Really, it should be an entirely full 2x2, since the lem may end up looking like they're interacting with empty space otherwise, even if only when zoomed in.

No. That is precisely what causes the jagged appearance. The aim is to keep the nice smooth appearance of the Mac high-res tiles while matching the NL physics.

[WillLem]

No. That is precisely what causes the jagged appearance. The aim is to keep the nice smooth appearance of the Mac high-res tiles while matching the NL physics.

I realise that, but what you're suggesting is that there be pixels which appear empty but are actually solid. Does this not constitute misleading visuals?

I'm aware that I may be wrong here and that it may not be an issue in practice - maybe I'd need to see an example of it working. I'm just making sure that we're on the right track.