Haven't had any time to look into the problems introduced by the most recent "improvements". No biggie.

FINALLY had a chance to use one of the dies (aka cookie cutters) I've created for use with pottery.

It sorta worked..., but didn't produce the time savings I was hoping for. I think there are some additional refinements to the tool design that will help, so we shall see. But along the way...

I've spent a lot of quality time with OpenSCAD.

From my experience thus far, what it is good at it is really good at. But..., if you get anywhere near anything that it isn't good at, you hit the wall hard.

Most telling are the various tech discussions on various OpenSCAD related topics..., and the thing they seem to struggle with: can a functional language effectively solve the problem being discussed. Often times, regardless of whether or not A solution is POSSIBLE, in any practical sense, the answer is "no" (at least with OpenSCAD). Some significant problems can't be naturally/comfortably solved within the confines of the language without either significant alteration to the language or the implementation of a black box module that ya just don't wanna know how it works.

The discussion regarding the means by which one can compute a bounding box is an excellent example of the problem. Sorta ironically, one common workaround is to use some other language to generic canonic OpenSCAD. I'm still conflicted as to whether to consider that an "insight" or "damnation".

So..., despite my previous rants, and with a little trepidation, I guess I'm gonna spend some time with FreeCAD scripting to explore other ways of processing various bits of art related design.

If FreeCAD's "bug density" turns out to nix that avenue of exploration, then I'm gonna finally bite the bullet and begin the long long long long long long (are we to Pluto yet?) journey with Blender.