Super Mario Bros. X Forums

Uchiha Madara wrote:

King of Eterity wrote:

PixelPest wrote: If it works in 1.3.0.2 it'll be compatible with 2.0 so don't worry; it'll be fine

What if the level uses dummy blocks/BGOs/NPCs that are used in 2.0 for new NPCs?

The judges will probably be using SMBX 2.0 to judge, so it does not matter if the user made his level in SMBX 1.3.1, SMBX 1.3.2 or SMBX 2.0.
The only thing that can become impossible is to test a level from a higher version in some of the other lower versions.

If a 1.3 level makes use of these dummy blocks/BGOs/NPCs, then it won't work properly in 2.0 because of how they were used to add new things. Basically the dummy blocks were originally just for visual additions but 2.0 has used them so that new blocks are not just different graphics, same goes for the BGOs and NPCs.

Uchiha Madara wrote:

King of Eterity wrote:

PixelPest wrote: If it works in 1.3.0.2 it'll be compatible with 2.0 so don't worry; it'll be fine

What if the level uses dummy blocks/BGOs/NPCs that are used in 2.0 for new NPCs?

The judges will probably be using SMBX 2.0 to judge, so it does not matter if the user made his level in SMBX 1.3.1, SMBX 1.3.2 or SMBX 2.0.
The only thing that can become impossible is to test a level from a higher version in some of the other lower versions.

Wrong. 1.3.0.2, or rather, Lunalua, was updated more frequently than 2.0. Current nightlies of lunalua include shader support and path/level.visible fields for the overworld, for example. Using Beta 3 is the safest option with literally no risk involved.

King of Eterity wrote:What if the level uses dummy blocks/BGOs/NPCs that are used in 2.0 for new NPCs?

Then the designer of that level is an idiot and deserves to be disqualified for trying to boycott future compatibility with the engine? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Enjl wrote: Then the designer of that level is an idiot and deserves to be disqualified for trying to boycott future compatibility with the engine? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is there not a clever way to get around it though?

tfw ur contest level gets corrupted hahaha

I know this may be a stupid question but are local APIs the same APIs you would include in the LuaScriptsLib except called local_API? And would they be included outside with the level or in the level folder?

King of Eterity wrote:I know this may be a stupid question but are local APIs the same APIs you would include in the LuaScriptsLib except called local_API? And would they be included outside with the level or in the level folder?

They're basically a rename to ensure a future update to the API won't break your level. In the level custom assets folder, please.

Enjl wrote:

King of Eterity wrote:What if the level uses dummy blocks/BGOs/NPCs that are used in 2.0 for new NPCs?

Then the designer of that level is an idiot and deserves to be disqualified for trying to boycott future compatibility with the engine? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or the devs of 2.0 are the idiots for trying to boycott backwards compatibility. I don't think there was any warning or pop-up that you should not use unused blocks.
Just don't jump to conclusions xD If this actually happens, maybe the designer just didn't know.

Inspirited wrote:

Enjl wrote:

King of Eterity wrote:What if the level uses dummy blocks/BGOs/NPCs that are used in 2.0 for new NPCs?

Then the designer of that level is an idiot and deserves to be disqualified for trying to boycott future compatibility with the engine? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or the devs of 2.0 are the idiots for trying to boycott backwards compatibility. I don't think there was any warning or pop-up that you should not use unused blocks.
Just don't jump to conclusions xD If this actually happens, maybe the designer just didn't know.

We're not boycotting towards backwards compatibility. We're in beta. A thing or two might break on restructuring. That kind of stuff being actually used later is simply rational thought.
We won't disqualify for doing this kind of stuff, but my point is, don't. It's just pointless work for when we put together the episode so I guess if you don't care about this, go ahead i guess. But unlike CC12, that actually DIED from this stuff, we want to release all the levels as a package before the heat death of the universe.

Alright, sounds fair.

Inspirited wrote:Alright, sounds fair.

Are you signing up?

RhysOwens wrote:

Inspirited wrote:Alright, sounds fair.

Are you signing up?

He has already completed his level

Oh shit, uhh pichu and i will submit a thing hopefully as a team. Dont be suprised if nothing happens tbh

All of you better fucking finish your levels, or else there will be consequences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:((((((((((((((((

Sanct wrote:All of you better fucking finish your levels, or else there will be consequences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:((((((((((((((((

You don't wanna be losing your precious points.

Sanct wrote:All of you better fucking finish your levels, or else there will be consequences >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:((((((((((((((((

Keep calm dude. No need to be salty all the time

I'm ready to face the death stare

it's the same usual thing with procrastination, you do it because the deadline seems far away first, but there's always something getting into your way

Supershroom wrote:I'm ready to face the death stare

it's the same usual thing with procrastination, you do it because the deadline seems far away first, but there's always something getting into your way

And then the deadline creeps up on you and before you know it, there's only like 2 days until the deadline. Time tends to move faster when you're not thinking about it.

HeroLinik wrote:

Supershroom wrote:I'm ready to face the death stare

it's the same usual thing with procrastination, you do it because the deadline seems far away first, but there's always something getting into your way

And then the deadline creeps up on you and before you know it, there's only like 2 days until the deadline. Time tends to move faster when you're not thinking about it.

the deadline was extended to april 30th ;)

^ Aaaaaa thats good i guess, but it's bad too.

Inspirited wrote:^ Aaaaaa thats good i guess, but it's bad too.

elaborate?