Cannot Intersect 2 Pipes Properly


#1

Hi.

So I have 2 pipes that are perpendicular to one another (i.e. at 90 degrees) that need to intersect to form part of a metal handrailing.

I’ve told the 2 pipe faces to intersect, and they appear to do so. However, when I try to delete the excess geometry that is inside of the vertical pipe, it takes a portion of the horizontal pipe with it.

I am at a loss as to how to prevent or correct this. Any advice?



#2

It seems like it might be “tiny face” issue, or intersect just not cutting the geometry properly.

Would you be able to upload file or at least that part of the model?


#3

We need the SKP.
Also work in Monochrome view mode - the intricate texture leads to madness.

PS: It is probably because the object are very small - leading to the 1/1000" tolerance problems.
Scale up intersect, do work and scale down etc…
And you could also try ensuring that the two pipes are similarly oriented so that their segmented edges coincide, so any intersect is as clean as possible and avoids tiny facets…


#4

They aren’t the same diameter though - the vertical one is 3/4" and the horizontal is 11/16".

How do I scale up and back down?


#5

They both pipes have the same number of segments but one is currently rotated 1/2 segment off.
Retry with segments that coincide on divisions wherever possible - e.g. centrally.

One simple scaling ‘trick’ is to make the geometry [i.e. in this case the two pipes] into a component.
Make a copy of it to one side, and Scale it x10 or x100 [say].
Edited the Scaled version and do the intersection etc.
The enlarged size will then avoid tiny geometry problems and should create things properly.
Exit the edit and then delete the scaled copy.
Now the original sized component will display the same changes - its tiny geometry can exist, but it cannot be created from scratch.
Explode that component if desirable…


#6

I’ve tried TIG’s suggestion and it does not work.


#7

If anyone wants to take a look and see the madness, the file is here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B02B7rLNxpCTYW92b0VWdnNicWc


#8

Sorry but it’s pointless posting a bigger model with a tiny glitch hidden in it.
I can’t see how you work efficiently without using groups or components to separate the geometry.
Also working with complex textures when doing geometric modeling is a recipe for a headache…

Here’s a simple working example using your diameters - NO scaling needed:

IntersectingPipes.skp (128.9 KB)


#9

Posting the component was pointless? Ojay then.

Sorry I don’t model the way you approve of.

I’ll attempt to orient the horizontal pipes so the edges line up. If that fails I’ll probably go mad.


#10

What you linked to was NOT a component.
It was a complete model.
A component is a logical ‘part’ of a model.
A few posts and rails are much easier to handle when made as a component or a group.
And would be much easier to give us…
It is unfair to those of us who are trying to help you out of your self-inflicted hole, to expect us to dig into your model to find the tiny part in question [especially when heavily textured].
A component separates itself from all other model geometry and makes changes and sharing much easier…

It is not ‘a way that I approve’ - it just makes sense !
Any other approach is the road to madness…

But if you find any serious SketchUp user who does not use components and groups, and advocates your approach, then I’ll apologize !

I have already given you two solutions to your issues.

One to scale up/down - to avoid sloppy modeling issues,
and the other, which I have illustrated, and which at the sizes you are using works without scaling -
whereby you simply ensure your circular extrusions [tubes] have the same number of segments and align,
so that they share a common edge at their potential intersection - minimizing tiny facets.


That’s all folks !
:unamused:

#12

You are one too… touché !
I am surprised that the built-in censors did not ******* out your post’s profanity !

So… let’s recap…

You are determined to fail to accept constructive advice.
And you do not seem to appreciate the simple explanation that by not separating your model into manageable parts [components] you will make life far more difficult for yourself that it needs to be.

A ‘dock’ with many handrails is NOT a component - it’s an assembly of components.
A ‘handrail’ is a component !

When seeking advice from others I usually find that NOT calling them names is the best way forward…
Why alienate those trying to help you ?

You were not ‘insolent’ - but just ‘gauche’.

I offered you good advice [freely!].
Whether you accept it or not is your choice.
However, I suspect that somewhere down the road you will eventually learn that there are several good ways of doing things and many bad ones - I had just hoped you might take some good advice - after all the title of your post asked for help - which was clearly given…

You need to help us to help you.
But you could have done better.
Please don’t become a troll.
The unpaid volunteers here always try to help you - so also help them and accept their comments/advice gracefully - even when you mistakenly see that as some sort of personal attack - which it was not… you were doing something wrong, and being advised on how to fix it doesn’t make you a bad person.
But being a twat in your response does !


This is definitely goodnight…:confounded: