FS2004 How to find a "rogue" exclude file?

[Chris Eve]

I've met a couple of situations where default airfields don't show the default "generic" buildings that are "supposed" to be there.
Using SceneGenX I can import the default airfield, extract the "missing" default buildings and generate a new file containing just the buildings, which then makes things look like "normal", or even completely regenerate the default scenery and save it at a suitably high level in my Scenery Library, again making things look "normal".
So, my supposition is that there's an exclude "somewhere" that's been set up to hide the default buildings, but it's not identifiable from the ICAO code of the airfields in question.
I'm well familiar with disabling sceneries en-masse to isolate problems, but if one of the clever utilities will give me a specific filename (and possibly location?) of any exclude that's directly under my aircraft it could save me several hours of disabling, re-enabling and rebooting.
I've tried a few programs, but not being particularly familiar with many of them I may well have missed an option or "tick box".
Just to help prevent any confusion, I'm meaning an XML exclude, not a VTP exclude.

Thanks for any insights

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Chris:

It is true that Exclusion Rectangles can be located in BGLComp XML based BGL files other than the main Airport BGL, "Stub" Airport file, or even a legacy Area layer exclude statement in the text of Scenery.Cfg.

The latter "active" Scenery.Cfg text entry can be quickly checked in NotePad.

I can use AFX to display Exclusion Rectangles in its in-sim OpenGL superimposed 2D preview layer at Airports. but it only displays objects in the BGL file it currently has loaded.

Otherwise IMHO, the best FS utility for this task is Instant Scenery, which can display Exclusion Rectangles in its OpenGL superimposed 2D preview layer as one slews over the extent of an Airport and moves into close proximity to such objects, and IIRC the IS3 "Labels" feature displays such objects continuously when Labels are on-screen.

Specifically, one can display file and object name above objects via the IS3 "Labels" feature, for all BGLs set active within an assigned Geographic extent around the user aircraft.

I am not certain whether ADE in FS9 mode will open or import any BGLComp XML BGL except Airport, Scenery Library or APX/OBX-types, and I am not sufficiently familiar with WhisPlacer, so I am not aware of other FS2Kx utilities that can graphically display Exclusion Rectangles.

PS: Exclusion Rectangles "should" be located (1) discrete Area layer in Scenery.Cfg above the Area layer containing specified content one intends to exclude, so I doubt one would find rogue Exclusion Rectangles within BGLs in Addon Scenery\,Scenery or Scenery\World\Scenery sub-folders.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Generic buildings can be placed as Autogen via Default.XML and local *an.agn Autogen annotation files.

When Generic buildings are placed via Autogen methods they are at risk for Exclusion by custom CVX Vector Airport Background polygons, and by SCASM G-Polys.

There are so many variables that could result in exclusion of Generic buildings, that one can easily justify the IS3 payware price, to save a lot of time and effort.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

Hi Chris:

It is true that Exclusion Rectangles can be located in BGLComp XML based BGL files other than the main Airport BGL, "Stub" Airport file, or even a legacy Area layer exclude statement in the text of Scenery.Cfg.

The latter "active" Scenery.Cfg text entry can be quickly checked in NotePad.

I can use AFX to display Exclusion Rectangles in its in-sim OpenGL superimposed 2D preview layer at Airports. but it only displays objects in the BGL file it currently has loaded.

Otherwise IMHO. the best FS utility for this task is Instant Scenery, which can display Exclusion Rectangles in its OpenGL superimposed 2D preview layer as one slews over the extent of an Airport and moves into close proximity to such objects, and IIRC the IS3 "Labels" feature displays such objects continuously when Labels are on-screen.

Specifically, one can display file and object name above objects via the IS3 "Labels" feature, for all BGLs set active within an assigned Geographic extent around the user aircraft.

I am not certain whether ADE in FS9 mode will open or import any BGLComp XML BGL except Airport, Scenery Library or APX/OBX-types, and I am not sufficiently familiar with WhisPlacer, so I am not aware of other FS2Kx utilities that can graphically display Exclusion Rectangles.

PS: Exclusion Rectangles "should" be located (1) discrete Area layer in Scenery.Cfg above the Area layer containing specified content one intends to exclude, so I doubt one would find rogue Exclusion Rectangles within BGLs in Addon Scenery\,Scenery or Scenery\World\Scenery sub-folders.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Generic buildings can be placed as Autogen via Default.XML and local *an.agn Autogen annotation files.

When Generic buildings are placed via Autogen methods they are at risk for Exclusion by custom CVX Vector Airport Background polygons, and by SCASM G-Polys.

There are so many variables that could result in exclusion of Generic buildings, that one can easily justify the IS3 payware price, to save a lot of time and effort.

GaryGB

Thanks for all that info ... Instant Scenery seems like the tool for the job, but for the minor inconvenience caused I don't think I want to be spending any money on it.
I'd confirmed that there weren't any exclude statements in my scenery.cfg (not a feature I've ever needed) so it'll be down to old-fashioned disable/re-enable groups of sceneries 'till I isolate which bgl contains what is probably a "historical" exclude that had been compiled by mistake with another scenery. Weird that there's (at least) two different Finnish airports with these symptoms and the only 3rd-party Finnish sceneries I've got installed are just old-fashioned AFCADs with nothing other than airport data in them. I have tested them in a "plain vanilla sand-box" installation and the default buildings show through fine!

Thanks again for your time ... it's at least refreshing to know that I didn't have the facilities to hand and was simply not taking advantage of them

Addendum :- I dug around and found the demo version of Instant Scenery on the Flight1 web-site and it does indeed display exclude rectangles in sceneries where I know there is one ... unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an exclude causing my symptoms, so it's going to be "something weird"
I'll put it on the back burner for now and it'll give me something to do when I fancy a bit of a challenge.
Thanks again!

 

[GaryGB]

I can recall adding very small (1-file ?) 3rd party "AFCAD" updates to legacy FS2002 and IIRC FS2004 files (many) years ago that targeted AFCAD version 1.x and AFCAD 2.x

I do not recall scenarios from that FS era however, which resulted in missing Generic buildings, but it certainly might have been reported back then.


It will be interesting to see what turns up in a search on this new info involving AFCAD airport updates causing missing Generic buildings.

IIRC, Lee Swordy was working with SCASM code for airport AFD data processing of TXT input files in some cases, and I do recall there were some quirks in SCASM involving Generic (aka "Advanced") Buildings; so obscure things could have caused this in a manner comparable to the vulnerabilities of Autogen display that have been such an issue in FS2Kx over multiple FS versions as well.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

I can recall adding very small (1-file ?) 3rd party "AFCAD" updates to legacy FS2002 and IIRC FS2004 files (many) years ago that targeted AFCAD version 1.x and AFCAD 2.x

I do not recall scenarios from that FS era however, which resulted in missing Generic buildings, but it certainly might have been reported back then.


It will be interesting to see what turns up in a search on this new info involving AFCAD airport updates causing missing Generic buildings.

IIRC, Lee Swordy was working with SCASM code for airport AFD data processing of TXT input files in some cases, and I do recall there were some quirks in SCASM involving Generic (aka "Advanced") Buildings; so obscure things could have caused this in a manner comparable to the vulnerabilities of Autogen display that have been such an issue in FS2Kx over multiple FS versions as well.

GaryGB

It doesn't appear to be an AFCAD file causing my particular problem. The AFCADs in question work fine in my sandbox installation, but the buildings still don't show in my main installation even with the AFCADs removed, though the buildings are still there in the default files, as SceneGenX can import them.
It's not a big deal, I was just hoping there might have been a quick work-around.
Thanks again.

 

[GaryGB]

I just ran this search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=sit...Hzc4FBDy0wN6BAgJEAQ&biw=1184&bih=517&dpr=1.62


Apparently Jim Vile clarified that Exclusion Rectangles targeting Generic Buildings, actually "exclude" only FS 'default' placements of Generic Buildings.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...ees-oddly-enough-it-worked.113508/post-712481


BTW: It was interesting to also see additional clarifications pertinent to Airport scenery by Reggie Fields, Scott Smart and Mace in a related thread:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/can-someone-explain-what-is-in-an-afcad-file-exactly.5534/


IIUC, if Generic Buildings are "excluded" by Exclusion Rectangles, they may likely have been placed by FS9 'default' scenery, not custom "AFCADs" ?


I hope this may help somewhat with narrowing down the process of elimination for such anomalies involving missing Generic Buildings in the future.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

Thanks for your continued interest
The SDK is quite explicit as to what can be excluded.
If the appropriate flags are set you can "hide" most things, including Library Objects (ie: towers and fuel stations, NDBs and VORs) as well as the generic buildings, and autogen is disabled separately using the TriggerObjects flag ... not intuitive!
I'll admit to usually setting it to exclude everything, but the options are there to be selective if I want, like disabling the smoke effect from a chimney but retaining the chimney in the landscape

Extracted from the FS2004 BGLComp SDK :-

excludeAllObjects	Boolean indicating whether all objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude
excludeBeaconObjects	Boolean indicating whether beacon objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude
excludeEffectObjects	Boolean indicating whether effect objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude
excludeGenericBuildingObjects	Boolean indicating whether generic building objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude
excludeLibraryObjects	Boolean indicating whether library objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude
excludeTaxiwaySignObjects	Boolean indicating whether taxiway sign objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude
excludeTriggerObjects	Boolean indicating whether trigger objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude
excludeWindsockObjects	Boolean indicating whether windsock objects are excluded	TRUE = exclude FALSE = don’t exclude

 

[GaryGB]

Hi again:

Indeed, we can place / exclude by Exclusion Rectangles, Generic Buildings via custom BGLComp-based XML coded BGLs.

At first glance, Jim appears to allude to something in FS that uniquely IDs Generic Buildings placed only by "stock" BGLs.

Excludes only react on FS9 stock scenery and not your added scenery.

I am thinking he may have referred to the fact that ADE only writes "micro- Exclusion Rectangles" for stock Airport / OBX BGLs.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

Hi again:

Indeed, we can place / exclude by Exclusion Rectangles, Generic Buildings via custom BGLComp-based XML coded BGLs.

At first glance, Jim appears to allude to something in FS that uniquely IDs Generic Buildings placed only by "stock" BGLs.



I am thinking he may have referred to the fact that ADE only writes "micro- Exclusion Rectangles" for stock Airport / OBX BGLs.

GaryGB

Indeed, we do seem to be talking at cross-purposes slightly.
I use SceneGenX for most of my scenery generation (and have done ever since whenever) and when I ask it to generate an exclude it immediately gives me a list to choose what I want to exclude (defaulting to everything), so I rather took it for granted that was how it worked. SBuilder is similar in that it presents a list to choose from, but it defaults to "nothing chosen".
Excludes generated like this will "hide" anything chosen below them in the Scenery Library, so I keep all my own sceneries at the top of the Library so they automatically have priority.
If, for example, a set of scenery files (which include one or more excludes) exist at Priority 100 in the Scenery Library and I write a file at the same location and position it at Priority 99, the contents of the new file will display despite the excludes below it.
However, if this theoretical new file is installed at Priority 101, any components within this new file that are "covered" by the excludes at Priority 100 will not show.
Just for clarification, if needed, I use the term "Priority" because that is the term used in the FS9 Scenery Library, where the lowest number (1) has the highest priority.

 

[GaryGB]

Glad to see that SceneGenX is working well for you; I have not loaded it more than a few times (I use AFX and ADE).

I shall look forward to seeing what you find to be the cause of the missing Generic Buildings.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

I shall look forward to seeing what you find to be the cause of the missing Generic Buildings.

GaryGB

Haven't nailed it down to a specific file (or set of files) yet, but the issue lurks within the FS9\Scenery\Eure folder.
The default files have been modified/replaced by (at least) two different "installers", UT Europe and FinnMesh, and they don't appear to have "played nicely" together
I've installed a copy of Eure from a default installation and the generic buildings show up.
I'll need to do a bit of "mix and match" to isolate the issue exactly, but in the meantime I've got a workaround so things "look right"
Thanks again for your interest and your Instant Scenery suggestion, it certainly helped isolate the issue.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi again:

The only info I am able to find on Wayback Machine after FSNORDIC was rolled into another web domain suggested that FinnMesh was a FSX add-on:

http://web.archive.org/web/20201028172252/https://files.fsnordic.net/finnmesh-fsx

With FinnMesh being for FSX, the fact that restoring your default FS9\Scenery\Eure folder fixed Generic Building display may implicate UTEurope/


IIRC, Ultimate Terrain for FS9 modified files within default fs9\Scenery sub-folder chains, and used SCASM/ASM coding to implement custom object display.

It is possible that if the Generic Building display was a result of UTEurope for FS9, it may have been reported, and was fixed by 1 or more updates.


I enjoyed using the UT product line when I was routinely flying FS9, and IIRC, all issues I saw related to UT for FS9 (and FSX) were fixed by updates.

It might be worth a review of the content available on this website if you are a frequent FS9 flyer:

http://files.100megabyte.com/ultterrain/ut_downloads_FS9.html.


Do you see the anomaly only at 'certain' Finnish airports ?

It should be possible to narrow down the files loaded at specific airports (if ICAOs are known) via IS3 'labels' and Jim Jeir's LWMViewer 1.x and/or 2.x.

Once one knows suspect filenames, it may be possible to disable specific suspect file(s) by Geographic Area to save some work with larger sets of files.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

The files I've got are definitely for FS2004 ... "FinnMesh (version 2.0) for MSFS 2004" as written in the associated pdf.
I've also got all the UT Europe updates, and yes, FS9 is my simulator of choice.
I've tried FSX ... even "borrowed" a few landmarks for use in FS9, but overall it wasn't for me, just too "high definition" for my taste, with all the detail too crisply defined.
As for 'certain' Finnish airports ... only the ones that are supposed to have generic buildings
As the mood takes me I'll be setting up test environments with just UT Europe, just FinnMesh and another with a combination of the two.
There's a possibility that which order they're installed in might affect things ... there's also a slight possibility there's a third, as yet unrecognised, factor.
I'll update as and when I've got anything useful to add.

 

[GaryGB]

The files I've got are definitely for FS2004 ... "FinnMesh (version 2.0) for MSFS 2004" as written in the associated pdf.

I've also got all the UT Europe updates, and yes, FS9 is my simulator of choice.

I've tried FSX ... even "borrowed" a few landmarks for use in FS9, but overall it wasn't for me, just too "high definition" for my taste, with all the detail too crisply defined.

As for 'certain' Finnish airports ... only the ones that are supposed to have generic buildings

As the mood takes me I'll be setting up test environments with just UT Europe, just FinnMesh and another with a combination of the two.

There's a possibility that which order they're installed in might affect things ... there's also a slight possibility there's a third, as yet unrecognized, factor.

I'll update as and when I've got anything useful to add.

Sounds like a thorough testing plan for the (2) suspect add-ons.


IIRC, UT Europe, like UT USA for FS9 can disable / enable any feature via Flight1 UT product Setup utility; on my install it is at:

[FS2004_Install_Path]\Flight One Software\UltimateTerrain\USA\SETUP.EXE

(I do not have UT Europe for FS9 installed currently).


I just used ADEv1.79x to open FS9 "stock" EFHK and EFHF airports; both have Generic Buildings, but no 'Exclusions'.

AFX shows Exclusion Rectangles, but apparently does not show any Generic Buildings (if present); IS3 does that instead.

IS3 "Labels" feature shows Generic Buildings at EFKH and EFKF, but no 'Exclusions' ...at EFHK and EFHF airports.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

Sounds like a thorough testing plan for the (2) suspect add-ons.

IIRC, UT Europe, like UT USA for FS9 can disable / enable any feature via Flight1 UT product Setup utility; on my install it is at:

[FS2004_Install_Path]\Flight One Software\UltimateTerrain\USA\SETUP.EXE

(I do not have UT Europe for FS9 installed currently).

These installer/uninstaller and configuration utilities are all fair and well in a "stand-alone" environment, but when another package comes along and renames and/or replaces files they tend to go a bit haywire.
I'll make up a couple of sand-box configurations with nothing else installed, then see what happens when I add FinnMesh to UT Europe and vice-versa.
I'm not really interested in the larger airfields, they're just so much dynamic scenery in the background to me, but they don't "look right" as just an expanse of apron with a couple of taxiing aircraft and no infrastructure, so having the default buildings present "fills in the gaps" without having to go to the effort of generating an airfield I'm unlikely to use.

 

[GaryGB]

Indeed, I tend to fly mostly very small "bush" type airfields, and thus have encountered less issues with Generic Buildings.

Since FS9 default Generic Buildings placed at small airports are primarily (but not exclusively) impacted by AFD-type code rather than Autogen code, I would be surprised to see such Generic Building anomalies occurring because their placement ended up "underground" thereby disabling Autogen display at run time due to a greater Altitude of terrain surface imposed by add-on terrain mesh, since airports will nearly always have flattens at ARP Altitudes, and Generic Building are nearly always placed AGL.

So I am intrigued as to how an AFCAD update would have imposed this, unless default Generic Buildings were substituted by custom ones made for example in SBuilder for FS9 / FSX, and placed at an arbitrary assigned altitude rather than "AGL" (which AFAIK 'should' otherwise follow the ARP / local flatten and/or local highest priority terrain mesh ...Altitude).

This is certainly an intriguing scenario.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

Indeed, I tend to fly mostly very small "bush" type airfields, and thus have encountered less issues with Generic Buildings.

Since FS9 default Generic Buildings placed at small airports are primarily (but not exclusively) impacted by AFD-type code rather than Autogen code, I would be surprised to see such Generic Building anomalies occurring because their placement ended up "underground" thereby disabling Autogen display at run time due to a greater Altitude of terrain surface, since airports will nearly always have flattens at ARP Altitudes, and Generic Building are nearly always placed AGL.

So I am intrigued as to how an AFCAD update would have imposed this, unless default Generic Buildings were substituted by custom ones made for example in SBuilder for FS9 / FSX, and placed at an arbitrary assigned altitude rather than "AGL" (which AFAIK 'should' otherwise follow the ARP / local flatten and/or highest priority terrain mesh ...Altitude).

This is certainly an intriguing scenario.

GaryGB

It's certainly not an AFCAD issue, there were no AFCADs included with the FinnMesh package, just the usual mesh files (in a separate folder) and these "extras" that have appeared in the Eure\Scenery folder, together with install/uninstall batch files, which don't appear to work properly, probably because UT Europe had already "colonised" that folder and renamed some files.
I already had a "test" environment with just UT Europe installed, so I've managed to establish that there's no generic buildings issues in that configuration.
I've yet to dig out and start testing the FinnMesh installer, to see at what point things start to fall over, if indeed they do ... there's still the possibility there's "something else" causing the problem!

 

[Chris Eve]

Indeed, I tend to fly mostly very small "bush" type airfields, and thus have encountered less issues with Generic Buildings.
...
This is certainly an intriguing scenario.

GaryGB

Found it!
It would appear some "well-meaning" installer had over-written the default OB9EURE0.BGL in the Eure\Scenery folder with an empty "dummy" file ... hate it when they do stuff like that
Probably means there'll be the odd building appearing where it's not wanted in some 3rd-party sceneries, but I can deal with that on a case-by-case basis and a quick local exclude, if and when I find one.
It does appear there might be some other "conflict of interest" between FinnMesh and UT Europe ... if I'm feeling really nerdy one evening I'll set up two machines side-by-side and run a few parallel comparisons.
As it stands, all now looks as I want it to and I can get on with tidying up the little strips and adding a few buildings of my own.
Thanks again for your input

 

[GaryGB]

Found it!
It would appear some "well-meaning" installer had over-written the default OB9EURE0.BGL in the Eure\Scenery folder with an empty "dummy" file ... hate it when they do stuff like that

Probably means there'll be the odd building appearing where it's not wanted in some 3rd-party sceneries, but I can deal with that on a case-by-case basis and a quick local exclude, if and when I find one.

It does appear there might be some other "conflict of interest" between FinnMesh and UT Europe ... if I'm feeling really nerdy one evening I'll set up two machines side-by-side and run a few parallel comparisons.

As it stands, all now looks as I want it to and I can get on with tidying up the little strips and adding a few buildings of my own.

Thanks again for your input.

Interesting, as that file is implicated in numerous problem scenarios involving FS9 installations of payware / freeware add-ons.

A review of query links quickly indicates this is due to developers modifying and/or disabling that default FS9 file.

https://www.google.com/search?q=OB9...oAdAsgcAuAcAwgcDMi0xyAcD&sclient=gws-wiz-serp


https://www.google.com/search?q="\Scenery\Eure\Scenery\OB9EURE0.BGL"&client=firefox-b-1-e&sca_esv=f6bc877b3d7fa12d&channel=entpr&biw=1440&bih=704&ei=ZZ89aL_8CsDSp84PtJ_DkQ4&ved=0ahUKEwj_wrbL5NKNAxVA6ckDHbTPMOIQ4dUDCBA&oq="\Scenery\Eure\Scenery\OB9EURE0.BGL"&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJCJcU2NlbmVyeVxFdXJlXFNjZW5lcnlcT0I5RVVSRTAuQkdMIkjENVCJFliCHnABeACQAQCYAZwBoAHsAaoBAzEuMbgBDMgBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAIgGAZIHAKAHvgGyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp


Here is MCX' graphical depiction of the Geographic extents of the 109 objects / object placements within FS9 OB9EURE0.BGL:

I was rather surprised to see how widespread the unwise procedure of modifying FS9 default BGLs was back in the FS9 era.

In FS scenery development we must always Exclude then Replace scenery if making modifications ...and NOT modify BGLs.

Never ever change the default files. Almost all changes you want to make can be made in a new BGL file that will have priority over the default scenery. Or by using excludes to remove the default scenery. If every designer would start to change default files, it would become a complete chaos, with different versions of the same files etc.

If in doubt as to whether a clever installer modified a default FS9 file but preserved attributes, FS9.0 disk files are listed here:

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com...is-complete-list-of-what-is-on-each-fs9-disk/


One of the threads I chased suggested that the Land Class enhancements of UT Europe for FS9 was not implicated.

My FS9 file date / time for [FS2004 install path]\Scenery\Eure\Scenery\OB9EURE0.BGL is: 05/28/2003 -10:06 P.M. - 709 KB.

My FS-2004 install has the FS9.1 update., although I do not know if that impacted the file in question.


IIRC, I do not have any add-ons installed for that area in FS9, and of particular note, I do not currently have UT Europe installed.


IMHO, tracking down the guilty add-on airport and/or scenery in FS9 may not be as simple as it might otherwise be in FSX.

Nice troubleshooting work on your part.

GaryGB

 

[Chris Eve]

I was rather surprised to see how widespread the unwise procedure of modifying FS9 default BGLs was back in the FS9 era.

In FS scenery development we must always Exclude then Replace scenery if making modifications ...and NOT modify BGLs.


If in doubt as to whether a clever installer modified a default FS9 file but preserved attributes, FS9.0 disk files are listed here:

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com...is-complete-list-of-what-is-on-each-fs9-disk/


One of the threads I chased suggested that the Land Class enhancements of UT Europe for FS9 was not implicated.

My FS9 file date / time for [FS2004 install path]\Scenery\Eure\Scenery\OB9EURE0.BGL is: 05/28/2003 -10:06 P.M. - 709 KB.

My FS-2004 install has the FS9.1 update., although I do not know if that impacted the file in question.


IIRC, I do not have any add-ons installed for that area in FS9, and of particular note, I do not currently have UT Europe installed.


IMHO, tracking down the guilty add-on airport and/or scenery in FS9 may not be as simple as it might otherwise be in FSX.

Nice troubleshooting work on your part.

GaryGB

I'm not averse to modifying a default file for my own use ... I've come across a couple of obvious mistakes in the default scenery, mostly with airfield elevation, over the last 12 months, and have removed default flattens and/or complete airfields simply because it's quicker (and gives a neater result) than trying to fit in an oversize flatten to "hide" everything, especially if the general terrain is sloping overall.
However, although I may allude to there being a "problem" with such-and-such an airfield in any relevant upload, I don't include my modifications ... I figure it's something better ignored than risk messing up any modifications someone else has made.
I also keep extensive backups with associated text files as to the why and wherefore of any modification for my own reference and I have (mostly) default installations on other machines that I can use for comparison if the need arises.
I have my suspicions where the modified OB9EURE0.BGL file came from, it's dated 2014 and, so far, I've only found one installation in the area where all the files also have similar creation dates, but I'll need to find that installer and run it in a basic configuration before naming names