Thanks, that's helpful to clarify StaadPro's behaviour with user-defined section coordinates.
However, the point about the graphical misrepresentation of such sections has not been addressed. 3-D rendered images of structures are very useful for visual checking of the structural configuration and also for presentation of images of the structure to the client, checking authorities and fabricators.
Above is an example of the mis-representation of a user-defined section. The circled beam is a triple-web beam which is in fact aligned with the dummy post members below it and the truss node above it. Doesn't look like it though.... the top right corner of the top flange is shown at the location of the centroid of the member.
I checked that the beam is in fact correct by temporarily substituting a standard UB section; all showed correctly with that.
If the visual image is wrong that does not engender confidence in the correctness of the program or its results. You and I may well know that the centroid of the beam is in the correct place and that the analysed results are absolutely correct. However all that 3rd parties see is a beam in the wrong place. That doesn't help the image of either StaadPro or of my skill as an engineer.
I can't imagine it is overly difficult to correct the graphical presentation of a built-up section - please arrange for that to be done for a future StaadPro release.