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.

that looks like a lawsuit just waiting to happen lol

as a note though, it's also common to stagger the shorter joist sets to get more purchase on the supporting beam, certainly with plain wood or lam joists. thus one set of joists is shift to one side or the other of the opposing joists so they each extend to the full width of the beam.

probably not something you need to code though. if i needed to represent this, i would just create separate floor sections and nest them - so leave it as is now.

another consideration are vierendeel openings for ducts... etc

yes! i have some custom DC to mimic this but it's flakey and i haven't revisted it, so have this "built-in" will be a nice feature.

what if i want them staggered the other way? LOL J.K. nicely done!

wall structure using additional support for beam over door or window.![example steel framing for beam over door. you would adda stud on each edge of the steel column to support the top plates. but this is the idea. today when this arises, i just manually remove the members and add the needed assemblies.

@medeek I'm away until Thurs I'll send some then

i don't have to do it often but a couple of recent projects have beams over doors to address the extended span of a room with the door the best option - in those cases we used steel i-beams as posts and header as well as the new beam in order to get the load supported needed with lower profile than wood products. so it's rarely needed but a useful option when you can get around to it. maybe even just leaving the space so manually someone could insert the members / assemblies would work.

agreed - i'd say less detail on the components to improve speed and rendering, and just good descriptive text / names instead. one option might be in a "library" view showing a detailed version of a single component so selection purposes, but the generated structure uses the simpliest possible geometry.

honestly though, if i was putting in a beam support over the opening, i've have either an additional jack stud under the header/lintel, or a X x X sized column on either side, and likely as well as a glulam etc type header/lintel. unless the beam was only supporting some deadweight and not a live area above. just me probably...