line-weight

What is the reason that you want to create a "new" model rather than just continuing to make further modifications to the original one?

I have had similar experiences trying to use the built in satellite imagery or maps - frequent failures to download or other errors. It shouldn't really be necessary to fiddle about with resolution to make it work. This part of the tools (image download from server) needs to handled much better I think. As it is, it can be very frustrating, especially when it can be a bit difficult to understand what's going on with the GIS tools anyway.

Ok, I see. It may be that you don't use the Structural Member tool in a way that is affected by its limitations. But I think there are many of us who do. Most of these limitations aren't necessarily bugs - I would call it something like incomplete implementation. And there are a few threads (like the one I linked to above) that outline these in quite some detail. This of course is a separate process from the bug submittal one - it's users letting VW know that the tool would be greatly enhanced if some time could be spent improving it.

Another example of an existing feature that desperately needs attention is the notes database & manager.

If this is the case, then the problem is exactly that: fixes and improvements being defined as "low priority". They should be a higher priority than the implementation of other, new, features.

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/90654-structural-member-usability-improvements/

Exactly this. And the structural member is a good example.

The new features are fine and good. The problem as ever is the lack of progress in fixing all the "old features" which most of us would use every day if we could.

This was actually confusing me the other day and I wondered if something had changed in W2025. I had problems with a SM imported from a VW2023 file and I could only get the texture to work after creating a new one (might still have been user error though). You can set "by class" here in the SM settings circled in red. It took me a while to find this because the "texture" column circled in green doesn't offer "by class" as adirect drop-down option whereas "attributes" next door to it does. You have to click and open a dialogue box and find the "by class" button at the top.

Have submitted.

My guess is that @Scott Schwartz, AIA is thinking that the suggestion is to use a bunch of 2d SLVPs on a sheet layer rather than a bunch of 3d DLVPs assembled in 3d on a design layer(s).

And, not having used the SM tool in anger for a few months, this is tripping me up all over again. Had to come back to read this thread to remind myself how to stop SMs auto-connecting when I don't want them to.

It's very frustrating that we still can't lock the slope angle whilst adjusting the span or length of a structural member. The most simple operations become much more convoluted than they need to be.

Another question for @Matt Panzer I think.... is this a bug?