BuildingsRaster.dat does not trigger building advection scheme

[JoshLovesFun]

Describe the bug
When using BuildingsRaster.dat as input, GRAL reads the building heights and counts blocked cells correctly, but the building advection scheme does not run because Program.BuildingsExist is never set. buildings.dat works as expected.

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Use BuildingsRaster.dat as the building input file.
2. Run GRAL for any scenario with buildings present.
3. Observe that the advection scheme related to buildings does not execute, even though the blocked cell count is correct.

Expected behavior
GRAL should treat BuildingsRaster.dat the same as buildings.dat, running the building advection scheme when blocked cells exist.

Screenshots
N/A

Desktop (please complete the following information):
Windows 11

Additional context
I modified ReadBuildings.cs to set Program.BuildingsExist = true when blocked cells exist:

if (block > 0)
{
Program.BuildingsExist = true; // <<< I added this
CalculateSubDomainsForPrognosticWindSimulation();
return true;
}

After this change, the advection scheme runs correctly.

I also noticed that the resulting concentration field is shifted slightly (1–2 meters) to the right when using BuildingsRaster.dat compared to buildings.dat. The raster file was generated directly from building_heights.txt to match the original building layout.

[MarkusKuntner]

Thank you for reporting these issues.
The first point is likely due to the fact that the BuildingsRaster.dat file was originally intended to be used as a supplement to buildings (as at least one building is needed in the GUI).
The shift issue could have several causes, including the GUI.
It will take some time to solve these issues, but they should be resolved.

[JoshLovesFun]

Due to the relatively simple file format of the BuildingsRaster.dat as input to GRAL, we have found this file as a helpful alternative to the buildings.dat file. Especially since it appears to be the same format as building_heights.txt, it was easy for us to generate. So the simple code modification above has been adequate. Thanks for your response!

[MarkusKuntner]

With the release of V26.01, I deleted branch V25.09 and, unfortunately, your pull request. I apologize for the mistake. Could you please create the pull request again for the new branch V27.01? Thank you very much. Otherwise, I can also apply the changes, but it would be more appropriate to do this via a pull request. Unfortunately, I am still too inexperienced with Git.

[JoshLovesFun]

I have made a new identical pull request, this time to the V27.01. Thanks for letting me know.
#53

[MarkusKuntner]

Thank you very much for your patience and support.