On page 137 of the 2026/R1 PDF manual, Zemax describes this situation for determining the semidiameter of a mount in a thermal model: OpticStudio handles this situation in one of two ways. If, due to thermal expansion, the radial position of the contact point were to become smaller than the lens mechanical semi-diameter, then the thermally-adjusted radial size of the mount is used in calculating the "edge thickness". However, if the reverse is true and the mount radial contact points were to thermally expand to fall outside the lens mechanical semi-diameter, then OpticStudio instead uses the lens mechanical semi-diameter in calculating the "edge thickness"This behavior highlighted below means the changes for + or – temperature changes are not symmetrical, if you have a lens where the distance after the 2nd vertex of the lens defines the spacer. What this means is that Zemax adjusts the size of the mount in a way so the behavior is not symmetrical for small ± changes in temperature arou

Hi all: I think this is a bug but I will let you guys try it out as well. Although I discovered this issue only in 2026 R1.04, I believe it may be happening in previous versions as well.Using Tilt/Decenter tool crashes the LDE. Example LDE setup as shown below.LDECross-Section CXI have tried:# Added Dummy surfaces before and after Surfaces 3 and 4 and use that as START/STOP in Tilt/Decenter tool → Still Crashes.# Changed wavelength from IR to VISIBLE and use N-BK7 instead of SILICON → Still Crashes# Used ZERO for all TILT and PIVOT values → Still CrashesPS: I have opened a Support Case in parallel. Will keep you folks updated on what Ansys says.Cheers!

Hi all, I am currently doing some tolerance analysis and would like to use TEZI multiple times for the same surface to model surface form deviations of different order. My tolerance data editor looks for instance as follows (just random numbers): The surface that is created looks as follows: It looks like as if the first TEZI is used to change the surface itself to “Zernike Standard Type” and add some values. The second TEZI deletes the surface form deviation of the first TEZI again and adds a composite infront of the surface (no #3). The third TEZI changes the maximum term of this composite but doesn’t add anything. Using TSDR in addition doesn’t make it better. I am confused. Is it not intended to work as described? At least AI says that should work, even if I can’t find anything in the manual. ;) My complicated workaround is to add the composites manually before the analyzation and change them accordingly. However, thats quite cumbersome.  Thank you and best regards, Gregor