As a learning exercise, I am trying to fix a lake near Seattle (Sammamish) that sits way too high in the FSG mesh. I could create Area16N flattening polygons, but that seems like a band-aid approach. Would it not be cleaner to edit the default LWM polygons directly in the HP*.bgl?LWMViewer makes it easy to locate the area and export the data to bgs. And the SDK describes the LWM structure well enough to find the lake and the elevation data that need editing. But I see no way to recompile from a bgs.So next I decompile the bgl with BGLAnalyze. Surprisingly for an FS9 file, it requires the old version and generates asm code. This would be easy to recompile, but the data are much more cryptic than in bgs -- no lat/lon references to locate things.The question is -- how do you best find a particular LWM or other scenery element in an asm file?

Howdy,if this is really just about one lake or a few then Steve's FSTFlatten is definitely the way to go. Why? Because any default file contains about 300x300km. If you want to distribute your patched version then you'll quickly end up with compatibility issues. For example, my recently released Columbia River Gorge includes edited default files and that particular section (LOD5 cell 15 x 15) reaches all the way up to Seattle!However, if you decide to go ahead with editing default files then I can send you a draft tutorial I wrote a while back, which explains the process of editing and re-compiling LWM and VTP files. Just send me an email or PM with your email and make sure that you can receive attachments of about 1MB.Cheers, Holger

Holger -Good point! As I am using your CRG package, it is your modified HP915150.bgl that I would need to change.The lake is a more of a test case in the process of getting educated about scenery design. I really would like to learn how to edit bgls, so will drop you an e-mail.Thanks for the kind offer.John

Holger's tutorial solved my problem. I was trying to recompile bgs code using BGLC, instead of the new BGLC_9 from Richard Ludowise's TDFmacros.zip.A public thanks to Holger for his highly readable explanation of the mysteries of modifying bgl files.John

Hi,Just out of interest what was the problem compiling using BGLC? That's what LWMViewer's source export was designed for...Cheers,Jim

Jim, I kept getting syntax errors, basically saying BGLC did not recognize LWMPoly3 structure. Just assumed BGLC must not be compatible with the new FS9 polygon code options.BTW, your LWMViewer is fantastic -- what a time-saver. I only wish it had a file save option. Sometimes I pull in a collection of bgls from various add-ons to get a composite view. Would be nice not to have to recreate it each time -- or am I missing something?

Hello John,it sounds, like you don't use the newest version of the TDFMacros from Richard (where these LWMPolyX structures are defined).With the newest TDF-version the compilation with BGLC will succeed.Regards, Edgar

Hi John.Edgar's right. The latest version of the macros is the need. BGLC_9 is functionally the same as BGLC, but includes extra commands for FS9/Gmax MDLs... allowing us to hack the ASM code from FS9's MakeMDL.But there's no harm in using BGLC_9 for all ASM compilation. I use it almost every day for LWM and VTP ( even for CFS2 ).Dick

Thanks, Edgar and Dick -Yes, as I reported in #3 above, Holger's tutorial steered me onto the new TDFMacros and BGLC_9. Since then, have had no trouble.Maybe I misunderstood Jim Keir's question in #4. Thought he was suggesting that the old BGLC should be able to recompile bgs code exported from LWMViewer, even from FS9 bgls. ????John

Hi John.The old BGLC is just fine for FS9 terrain ( VTP and LWM ). Regardless of the version of BGLC, you need to use the updated TDFMacros to take advantage of all the FS9 terrain features.The primary advantage of using BGLC_9 is that it allows you to tweak and compile the Gmax-derived ASM code for FS9 objects. In my case, I've archived all the older versions of BGLC on my computer, and now use BGLC_9 exclusively, because I don't want to keep track of different versions ( when one will do just fine ).Dick

Hi Dick,Aha -- that's it. I was using the old TDFMacros with the old BGLC. So it was not BGLC_9 that solved the compilation problem, but rather the new macros included with it in tdfmacros.zip.Thanks for clearing that up!John