Hi Daniel.If your still having problems with 'hard' edges at the bounds of the LOD5 area, check out this discovery by schampi]. It is possible to vary the edge now, with transparent ground tiles, in order to hide the definition between the new landclass area and the default 'worldlc.bgl'. You should be able to blend the edges better. Also, it's now possible to change just a few ground tiles, and allow the default to show through. Just remember #254 ( HEX_FE ), is the 'see-through' tile number.Also, take note of Gerrish's important info on autogen. If you use a twin 'texture' sub-folder, you must supply all AGN files to be used in the LOD5 area of the landclass scenery, or else the autogen is disabled for that area ( custom local texturing requires local autogen ). You could use a totally transparent LOD5 area, and supply a custom autogen for that area... or custom textures... or both. All autogens need to be in the local twin 'texture' sub-folder, but only changed ground textures need be there ( if the default textures were copied to the main "[rootTexture" folder ).schampi's discovery also seems to indicate that a mixing of landclass and photoreal tiles is possible within the same BGL. I haven't experimented with that, yet. It would also follow that a photoreal LOD5 area must have all used autogens, for the whole LOD5 area, in the twin 'texture' sub-folder.

Thanks for that link, that's very interesting. It gives us a way of distributing modified land class for a small local area without obliterating someone else's equally expert stuff for their own home town on the same 'tile'. FSLandClass owners can do that by swapping 'force' data files, but that relies on people co-operating with each other (as well as owning FSLandClass), which is all a bit unreliable and improbable really. This method with the transparent land class 254 is potentially much more useful and 'universal'.CheersGerrish

I totally agree. I

I am totally new at this. I made s few successful landclass files by hand digitizing using Landclass Assistant. I decided to try using the NLCD files as described in your posts.I changed the palette in the .tiff to represent proper FS Texture numbers as gray levels. Reading the indexed .tiff shows that they are correct. I then discarded the color information to create a grayscale image and saved it as a .raw.I cannot get the .bgl to come out right though.My source file is 6750 x 6750 and it covers the area of 82.5 west, 28.125 north by 80.6250 west, 26.7188 north. My .inf file looks like this:[Destination]LOD=5NorthLat=28.125SouthLat=25.3125WestLong=-82.5EastLong=-78.75DestDir=.DestBaseFileName=landclass[source]Type=ClassU8SourceDir=.SourceFile=landclass.rawLat=28.125Lon=-82.5NumOfCellsPerLine=6750NumOfLines=6772CellXdimensionDeg=0.00278CellYdimensionDeg=0.00278I got the Cell sizes by dividing the lat coverage by 6772 and the long coverage by 6750. I just rounded them off.Can someone tell me if there are any obvious errors in what I am doing here?Thanks very much,Bob

Just checked my files and while my grayscale .tiff file looks great the .raw file is scrambled. It looks like stripes. I have been working in Photoshop and have had no problems with smaller .raw files. The ones I was using to hand digitize land cover were 256 x 256. Is this a size thing? Does size really matter after all?

PeterKAnything around New Bedford out to the Vinyard for Cape Air flightsPete http://home.attbi.com/~kodist