Downloaded the Site Designer (formerly named RSD V3) and gave it a first try.
Just to get a kickstart I purchased the new Glossy Theme and installed it (recommended, because it's much easier to get used to the new features with a skilfully made example - and not try to load an old fashioned column based website made in RSD V1 or V2).

It is such a relief to discard this old row and column stuff - only needed for layout purposes!
Maybe it's a little bit easier for me then for others to leave it all behind me, as I never go back with old builds once the website is live. The generated html and CSS files only serve as templates for the CMS that drives the websites I build.

Any way, compared with RSD the new features and user interface of SD are really refreshing.
I am sure we will discover some bugs or come up with new wishes, but so far it looks good and works for me.

As for the name, I would suggest "Coffeecup Site Builder" as in my opinion that's exactly what it is. An empty tool to build sites. You will always need a good design, whether you buy it (themes), have it designed by a web designer or design it yourself.

I wish to compliment the folks at Coffeecup for doing such a good job with the quality of the tutorials and other information that is already available. A big improvement compared the first versions of RSD.

May I also suggest to cut some dead wood in the current - a bit confusing - product portfolio and focus on integrating some of the remaining products with SD (as an - paid - add-on).

Keep up the good work; thumbs up!

Pretty sure everyone is going to be talking about this addition pretty soon....

http://materializecss.com/

Thanks Hennie, I really appreciate it.

Compliments like this keep this small team going in creating and documenting great software

Agreed!

But, just like everything else, one has to learn a lot about something before finding out what it's best used for -- the DIS-advantages as well as the advantages.
Surely, then, too, Materialize must share the DIS-advantages of Material Design -- in this light, here's what seems to me to be a pretty fair assessment of these issues
https://www.justinmind.com/blog/flat-design-vs-material-design-whats-your-flavor/

Reading that article it seems Material design is the clear winner there.

And for that one disadvantage / example where they says it's not clear where to click — if you browse through the materializecss framework you will see that nothing got implemented like that. One of the things they did write is greating perspective / depth and adding actions to (important) click events using 'pulse'.

I finally got to use SD3! I've only started with the basics.

Grid Editor: Love it! It makes setting up your grid(s) VERY quick, easy and visual!

Tabs and Style Settings: If you an RSD 2.5 or older user, things are going to look differently. However, I'm finding that the styles are grouped much better. Once you get used to it, it's quicker to get to what you want. (For example, I love not having to scroll a mile to get to effects settings.)

Once you understand what CSS Grid does, you'll understand why going with CSS Grid is so much better than the basic "rows and columns stuff" (to use Hennie's phrase from above). My site designing is jumping up to a new level because of RSD3!

Thanks Brian. I agree, it's surprising how investing a few hours in "Grid' helps you jump to a super level!

The extra usability touches in SD3 are very nice. For example, I like the ability to select, duplicate or delete elements right from the element itself as well as the having the delete and duplicate buttons on both the Styles and Element panes as well.

Plus selected Tabs (inside the Control Panes) and scroll positions are maintained.