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.

i was expecting that the blue z-axis would the the one on the bottom and top edges, not the green y-axis for example your left-side object - i would expect to see two options - z and y axis. on the right-hand one, i would see two, z and x axis.

it seems counter-intuitive if the z axis is vertical (blue line in the image) that the scale tools would declare the vertical handles for either the x or y axis.

and due to the 0 thickness, those would not be available on the faces dependiong on their orientation.

last note - if the Y axis has depth - then the scale tool shows handles correctly. it's only when the component or group is flat does this seem to be an issue.

removing the scale tool from the DC - the raw scale still shows the incorrect axis and same issue with new file and simple group

building a simple flat vertical panel dynamic component. the axis is set to the default (X - red - width, Y - green - depth, Z - blue - vertical) on 0,0,0. setting size, position, or rotation via DC editor dialog or setting dialog = OK.
however, i added the "scale tool" with the X and Z checked (all others off). when testing the scale tool - the Y and Z axis are transposed - meaning if i switch the setting to X and Y, then i can control the X and Z axis scale. otherwise with X and Z set, only the X scale handles are available (as Y is set to be 0).

see attached images.

file
vertical baffle assm.skp

in 2025

• everything in the trays are expanded with extra spacing and now requires much more screen real estate than 2024.

• things like the material display forces a lot of extra space around the view and pushes down the list/icons.

i'll add this to the feature request section in case all the extra spaces wasn't a bug...

in 2025

• everything in the trays are expanded with extra spacing and now requires much more screen real estate than 2024.

• things like the material display forces a lot of extra space around the view and pushes down the list/icons.

i'll add this to the bug section in case all the extra spaces wasn't a design feature...

and then, when you update to 2025, the default is into the app data\roaming directories, but still mysteriously mapped to the old 2024 path - so you end up with duplicated entries if you copy from the 2024 into the new home paths in 2025... very confusing - the preferences setting should be honored as-is or port the old path into the preferences... i just spent an hour trying to figure out why i was getting duplicates when i copied over to the new preference settings... please fix this in the next update...

Q: does the 5 year "lifetime" license mean it expires after 5 years? or just the free updates are no longer available for use after the 5 years? i.e. i get free updates on the products for 5 years, but after 5 years, no more free updates but the software continues to be useable?

for some reason, many "metric" countries are using different building codes and material sizes from the others. whenever i start a studio design for someone - first check - get all the building codes and material sizing for that country established before beginning the actual design work. early on (~20 years ago) i made the mistake of assuming all metric countries were "standardized"... then after doing all the construction docs, during review the builder pointed out all the wrong dimensions on the materials, code-prohibited practices or confused one etc etc... needless to say another 3 weeks to fix it all...

that last step is a doosie...

one option might be to have the handrails independent of the riser sections. you could create a stair assembly from whatever your stair setup is (like a component with unified stair metadata inside it), then add the handrails over the entire structure - which could be a continuous rail or segmented, etc. might be easier to code it this way by reading the overall stair assembly metadata and use that to generate the handrails.