yeah i think keeping the disclaimer a bit more succinct - the first sentence, skip the next two, and keep the rest plus you might include the user assumes all liability for the use of this report blah blah blah.

also, my plates are never that shiny what do you wash them with?

seriously though, spend a bit of time setting the reflections. almost everything in the room seems to reflect... leverage settings like blurred reflection on surfaces which are not polished. and in general, i'd just turn down a bunch of the reflection levels.

@medeek said in Medeek Engineering:

you would think that after years of refining the code we would slowly arrive at suitable load combinations and stick with them.

yeah, but then without so many conflicting standards, where would we be? all those jobless standards bearers would be out on the street making mischief... lol

yeah, definitely depends on the gear a content creator needs. many will simply need a good computer, possible a good music keyboard or two, good video monitors, good audio monitors, and fresh air. many would fit into a 9x11 room but more would be better in a 12.4' W x 15' L due to best ratio for acoustics assuming 8' H ceiling.

i sorta did a long while back wrt leaving space to allow me to use an i-column or steel post, but not actually requesting one thanks!

see attached
example medeek hvac.skp

here's my DC components i typically use - not as smooth but the idea of the flushing to ends...
example DC units.skp

the smooth curved units need "0" ends to meet flush to straight legs. meaning one more beginning and end arc segment. in my example using 8" and a tight 90° it becomes apparent. the ovla and round duct joins on perpendicular ducts looks good, the rectangules ones (as you've shown) still need some love to get to meeting flush. overall a good start!

might be useful to have a dialog option to enable users to add basic info - select type, enter model #, H-W-D, and/or maybe select similar product type and re-size to "simulate" pending adding an actual model.

i know for me, given space constraints on uiltity rooms in recording studios, having the equipment sized correctly (as simple boxes) is much more important than the detailed looks when configuring the approximate systems layout for the engineers to refine later.

simpler is better for the model. same when you get to things like decoupled collars, etc where it is possible to get crazy with geometry whereas i think most would be interested in a) good models w/ schematic options in wireframe mode, b) fairly accurate calculations/stats on flow and frictions, and c) parts list...

looking good. also - there is some "clumping" of members on the left-hand side of the right-hand chase. likely due to having a second change and the sizing of the middle truss members (maybe instead a long one and clumped one, make two even one as i think this is how they would be manufactured)

it's less the risk of updates and more that it's forcing the program data folders to be rebuilt EVERY F'ING TIME i double click on an skp file. and it's ignoring both the preference settings AND the manual edits on the private preferences json file (and as a note, the private file does not have any thing other than my appdata folders for the materials and material browser, styles and style browser, and component and component browser)

so there is some special magic happening to "helpfully fix" my install every time. this is not the behaviour in the 2024 version nor the earlier 2025. so someone changed the behaviour, adding things like "would you like to purge your model before saving? it can help improve performance" -- i get it. there are people who will f-up their basic installation so "self-healing" can be useful. but simply ignoring or overriding my settings (used for years mind you) is problematic.

please fix this.

so, checking the private one - there were folder locations from SU 2021, 2022, 2023 listed. maybe we can remove extraneous folders (the numbered ones) when installing a new version?

the custom folders have been in the same appdata locations for over 10 years and more. when did SU decide that i could no longer set the directory for them? because according to the preferences window, i can set them (and these are the locations that sometime in the distant past SU set them up initally).

as a note - removing the .style and .skm files from the materials and style program data folders w/o removing the subdirectories, apparently keeps the SU install-checker-annoyer-thingie from doing the install process. so it seems like it's only looking at the folders to determine if the app needs to install the files into the non-preferred folders...

SU 2025

for some reason, even though i specify the preferences for my components, materials, and styles, if i double click on a SKP file, it reinstalls components, materials, and styles into the program data folder instead of the user app data folder.

the preferences are set to point ot the user app data folders but it is also pointing to the program data folders. this results in duplicated entries in the materials list (very annoying) and removing the materials in the program data folder causes the re-install.

any reasons why this happens and how to correct it? after 20+ years of using this program, this is the first time i've had to battle with the file preferences.

i think this is a good solution - otherwise you'd have to do all the other computations for where existing parallel joists are located. whereas here, you let the user crate the extensions on the header as needed or desired. cheers!

what! no yellow board! j.k.

i think the one double on the right side needs to extend to the next joist. the trimmer is ok where it is to size the opening, but structurally always best to have the joists and headers linked.

also, consider in most practices the headers perpendicular to the joists, and some trimmers are doubled to ensure strength on the spans and avoid "soggy" floors.