When I Tried the newest SCM2VTP, I get some strange results.The new version (08.02.2003) looks like this:; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------include TDFMacros.incinclude TDFHeaders.inc; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------; VTP Method2 Roads 62.22656 9900 BGLHeader 63, 61, 9901, -15061, TerrainHeaderStart, VTPHeaderVTPHeader label word VTPFileHeader 256, VTPIndexStart, TextureStart, VTPEndVTPStart label word; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- datamark_v0 label word datamark_v1 label word; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cellv_17955_77 EQU VTPCellID 0, 17955, 77 datamark_v2 label word; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cellv_1000_77 EQU VTPCellID 0, 1000, 77 datamark_v3 label word; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cellv_-12288_78 EQU VTPCellID 0, -12288, 78 datamark_v4 label word; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cellv_-11264_78 EQU VTPCellID 0, -11264, 78 datamark_v5 label word; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cellv_-4096_78 EQU VTPCellID 0, -4096, 78 datamark_v6 label word; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cellv_-2048_78 EQU VTPCellID 0, -2048, 78 VTPDataArea 1, 1, 0, 0The old version (28.01.2003) looks like this:include TDFMacros.incinclude TDFHeaders.inc; VTP Method2 Roads 62.22656 6.5625 BGLHeader 63, 61, 8, 4, TerrainHeaderStart, VTPHeaderVTPHeader label word VTPFileHeader 256, VTPIndexStart, TextureStart, VTPEndVTPStart label word datamark_v0 label word VTPDataArea 1, 1, 0, 0Has anyone else experienced the same?

I have, but only when I convert a file that does'nt contain any roads.

Hi Knnygar!I haven't seen such bug but I got another: some (not all!!!) long roads/rivers end with 31+127 points and they could be missing more than 100 points. Anyway, speaking of errors, Falko is there any posibility for not dividing roads at 31+127 points but divide them only if they cross LOD8 quadrants? We have sucesfully tested roads which have a lot more points in one LOD8 quadrant, my record is around 500 points in one piece, but I remember Chris Wright (AutoAsm) reported around 32000 points...Best regards,Goran BrumenFS Slovenija 2002 teamhttp://slovenia.avsim.netP.S: Falko, If You need a test file to test my error, please send me mail; I would gladly give it to You!