KML looks fine, as does the lox model.
I understand that the pit would look like a transparent hole if rendered in a map without the lower scrap. Wasn't there are way you suggested which might allow toggling the options on a line in different maps Bruce? So you could have the pit filled in one map but transparent in another?
Yes, the revise statement would allow the user to quite easily change the outline parameter for any 'non-standard' outputs without having to manually edit it each time. If the pit is defined in scrap1 as Martin suggested ('-outline in -clip off' or whatever is required) and it has -id scrap1pit1, then perhaps in the map definition with the lower scraps offset, the revise statement could be included... map LowerScrapOffset -proj plan revise scrap1pit1 -outline none # restore shading to top scrap scrap1@s1 MapofScrap2 preview 100 000 metres below # MapofScrap2 contains scrap2@s2 endmap Must admit I've not used revise in this context, and not sure if revise would need to be inside the map definition or out. Still, one way or another it should work and be relatively painless unless you have 400 pit lines to revise. To digress a little... If your resolution was not as seamless as it appears to be I was going to cancel my support of the -2d [in out] and -3d [in out] idea and suggest a new entity; area void Area void would have no effect in 3d models and would erase the passage fill in 2d drawings (and as a nice to have bonus- except where no scrap is rendered beneath it in the particular output). It seems there is no need though. Bruce