All the sub-topics discussed here in this thread are in principle, equally valid, and related to the overall topic of the OP as of its first post.
On a practical basis, however, to keeps threads more specific to pertinent sub-topics that can more easily be found by all interested readers during searches, it is generally regarded as preferable to sub-divide those sub-topic inquiries and discussion into separate threads.
Since this thread is on its 4th page of extent within this forum, we should probably make a focused effort to subdivide future sub-topics.
I shall now try to answer your latter queries in groups by sub-topic, with less detailed quotation of our prior statements and subsequent replies.
Are you saying that the QMID can be changed before compiling? All I have been doing is revising each square generated by the UTX extracted shape files to this:
...Then going to “general” tab and assigning new altitude.
For Lake Nippising, the squares ranged from QMID 13 to QMID 15. And there are times when the clip is not even on a QMID line’
In the case of the Ottawa River, it gets even worse. The splits between polygons are also along the Quebec/Ontario border.
In what I am doing now, there is no “flattens” (if by this you mean terrain). But I still get HPX.___.xml files.
I am trying to keep my revisions simple. This process you are suggesting seems to complicate things. Is it really necessary to do any changes to the clip levels ?
If you wish to maintain the UTXCan 'configurator' utility compatibility and to maintain run time rendering as intended by Scenery Solutions, you 'may' need to maintain and compile all edited CVX vector BGL content within the same identical quad and clip level structure.
Although FSX default merely clips all 'normal' content at LOD-9 / QMID-11 quad borders, and only HWY Traffic at LOD-13 / QMID-15, I assume Allen Kreisman and the Scenery Solutions team had specific reasons for how they structured the quad sizes and layers for UTXCan CVX vector BGLs.
That said, Doug Matthews of ACES inferred that the SDK SHP2VEC compiler was exceptionally robust as a SHP processing engine, and can utilize any specified mix of clip level, and include Poly-lines, Polygons, and Excludes all in the same BGL.
Default quad sizes are essentially an attempt to keep FSX run time LOD-5 Area content loading / rendering performance hit to a manageable level.
So, if you wish to experiment, we do know that FSX' own LOD-9 / QMID-11 and HWY Traffic at LOD-13 / QMID-15 quad size scheme works OK.
Thus if you also wish to simply use the default LOD-9 / QMID-11 quad clip for water polygons, feel free to test it and see if it works OK.
I assume that any replacement BGLs for the UTXCan BGLs will not work properly with the UTXCan configurator utility.
But if you keep the content of original UTXCan source CVX vector BGLs within the same coverage extents in derived / edited CVX vector BGLs, it is "possible" it may still render OK at run time in FSX, even though the internal clip levels may be FSX' default LOD-9 / QMID-11 ...instead of the clip level being identical to UTXCan.
I understand the principle of adding a “hole” polygon and “attache” it to the main polygon to create the island. What I don’t understand is how I get to loose that association when all I do is create one file that “excludes” the water bodies then create a second file assigning new properties and elevation to that same polygon. And this only happens in about 1 to 5% of the time.
Would I need to send you my actual SBuilder files for you to examine?
Please specify an island by name and/or Geographical coordinates, and perhaps we can step through creating one as a "worked example".
I think it’s more like the web files take the information of top of water from google earth, while on the paper copies, the elevation was taken from the original NRC paper maps and converted to metric.
Here is what I am talking about. I am using top of water elevation for Trout Lake (East of North Bay) and Turtle Lake (East of Trout Lake). I know for a fact that Trout Lake flows into Turtle Lake.
On Google Earth with my units set to Ft for elevations, Trout lake is at 663ft (202.07m) and Turtle Lake is at 670 ft (204.20m)
On the web maps, Trout Lake is at 202m and Turtle Lake is at 204m
But on the paper maps, Trout Lakes shows 202+/- m and Turtle Lake shows 201 +/- m
Bottom line: for Flight Simmer, which what FSX is all about. Nobody really cares what the top of water elevations is as long as the profile looks good from the air. This is what UTX did. They matched the profile from Google map and as long as it followed somewhat the ground profile of whatever they original used for Flight Sim, it was good.
I am more picky (it's my O.C.D) and I want to get it right.
Here is another bit of information I found that gives me the top of water elevation above the various dams on the Ottawa River
Remember that Google Earth uses older 90 Meter elevation data from the original NASA Space Shuttle radar scans, that has since been cleaned up and updated by correlation with other types of elevation data sets.
I woud instead use the CDEM data, and where available, the new tiles of LiDAR DEM / DTM data viewed in QGIS to get / set water surface elevations.
For the locks, I am referring to this tread
I feel I need to apologize in advance for another "crazy post". But I have these ideas that keep popping up to make my "boating experience" thru the water canal system more realistic. I kind of remember seeing this a while back and had forgotten about it. But In my search recently for all...
The thread you are referring to is more about "AI" boat traffic configuration.
I do have the MCX program. As for the “SDK compiler workflows”, is this part to the SDK package that comes with FSX?
You have given me a glimpse of hope for my locks. But I imagine I would need to start by modeling up a lock in Gmax first.
This would require me to go find a copy of Gmax, as my original program is in my older computer which is inoperative.
GMAX is still available for free ...here:
IIRC, one may activate it without Discreet's website registration etc., even if FS9 is no longer installed; one may find this info on a FSDev forum query.
However, I think you may find it easier to 3D model by instead switching to either Sketchup or Blender, although that involves a new learning curve.