@Victor Stepanov Yes, it works fine if I apply the scale and then get the dimensions of the scaled mesh. However, I noticed that in the Transform Panel of the 3D viewport, the dimensions given change even when the scale is not yet apply to the mesh. So, I try some things and it seems like if the mesh is created and scaled in the same script, without applying the scale, the dimensions given by the script will be the ones of the unscaled mesh. But if the mesh already exist, and the script only scale the existing mesh, without even applying the scale, it will then gives the dimensions of the scaled mesh. I find it a bit weird but maybe there is a reason for that. I guess it is something to keep in mind. I attached two screenshots that show those two situations if you are interested. Also I have updated my Forest Generator, now it has two different trees (Pine tree and Round trees) like you suggested int the new Capstone Project. The script now makes use of conditional actions, and percentage of Pine trees compare to Round trees can be easily managed with a variable.

@Victor Stepanov Ho nice, thank you for taking the time to find the solution for that ! 🙏

@Victor Stepanov Years ago, I tried learning C#. I managed to complete the course, but there wasn’t much real-world application for what I was learning. It felt like I went through the theory and was then left to figure everything out on my own. The course essentially said, “Now you can create games with what you’ve learned,” but I felt lost due to the gap between knowing the basics of a programming language and creating something complex with it. To be fair, it was years ago, and even at the time, the course I followed was already outdated, it was a more old school way to learn if I can say so. Still, I learned a few things and gained a glimpse of how programming works, which later helped me better understand certain software. One of my more recent attempts involved learning through an online game-based platform called Future Engineer. The game has multiple levels, each introducing a new concept. The premise is simple: there’s a crane, like the ones you see in UFO catchers, and the goal is to use code to control the crane, catching and placing blocks in a specific order. This approach made learning fun—seeing the crane move according to my written code provided immediate and satisfying feedback. Unfortunately, the course is incomplete, and updates are infrequent, with new levels being released only every six months or more. That’s why I feel like I’ve finally found success with Godot. My previous attempts at learning programming gave me a better foundation and made it easier to grasp how things work. More importantly, with Godot, I get immediate feedback from the code I write, and it’s directly tied to creating games. This makes the learning process both enjoyable and tangible. The same applies to scripting in Blender. The results of the code are immediate, and the focus is on practical application rather than just theory. I think this direct connection between coding and real-world application is key to keeping people engaged and motivated to continue learning.