Connecting two shapes


#1

I never thought this would take so long and be so frustrating. Using lines and arcs I made a shape I needed, it filled, I offset and added 3d text. Did the same process again and it didn’t fill, so I started to try and add lines until it filled partially then the last part just would not fill, so I created the missing shape and it filled no problem. How do I stitch the two pieces together? I can only assume that Cura only shows a partial shape and none of the 3d text because of the two pieces although it is missing quite a bit and I have no idea where to start. Here are some pictures to help explain.


#2

You should share the model, from those images it will be hard to help you.


#3

Generally when you’ve got a somewhat intricate 2D shape to draw, in order to make sure that all the elements are coplanar, you should first draw a big rectangle, say on the ground plane, and then use that as a drawing surface. Then, when you actually draw the outline of your shape on the rectangle, make sure to wait for On Face inferencing to tell you you are on the face of the rectangle.

Now, also, you seem to have some 2D decorative linework on your shape. I’m talking about the double line around the Slicers and the vertical line at bottom center. Do those serve any purpose in defining 3D geometry? Doesn’t look like it. 2D graphic/decorative lines don’t really exist in SU. When you use edges, whose purpose is more structural than decorative. as graphic lines, there are usually some unintended consequences at some point.

What is more usual and really much better is to handle decoratve 2D objects as images, not geometry. You can use an image to represent a whole object, like your entire Slicers logo. It’s usually smaller in file size, less demanding on resources, less likely to run afoul of other objects, and looks much, much better.

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish?

-Gully


#4

Since Cura (slicing software for 3D printing) was mentioned, a replacement of the geometry by an image won’t be an alternative in this case.


#5

That might have been useful for the OP to mention, or perhaps he could have posted this in the 3D Printing sub-category.

Then we have yet to learn whether the thing is actually 3D geometry or merely a simulation of 2D linework made with 3D objects (e.g, is that double line a bevel or simply a double line)? If it’s a representation of 2D graphics, I guess lines will have to be represented by beads, like lines drawn with toothpaste, or maybe by rectangular channels incised into a slab of some thickness.

-Gully


#6

I think my first mistake was not creating the rectangle and using it as a guide. As far as I know all of the lines are geometry, I just used the offset tool once the shape filled and sunk it .25 inches. I got a suggestion to upload the file so, here it is.Flying L 1~.skp (1.1 MB)


#7

Sorry, too tired to explain how, it was simply easier to fix.
But basically just some bad geometry.
Flying L 1~.skp (1.1 MB)


#8

Perhaps this would be a better approach for 3D:

-Gully


#9

You hit the nail on the head. I did go back and start over with a rectangle and I have had more success, right up until I was getting rid of the rectangle background. When I deleted it it took half of the back of the shape off, so I had to redraw lines on the back to make the shape solid again. I like the sunken letters better than my raised letters, I think I’ll try again. I appreciate all the time and advice, it really raised the morale.


#10

Well, I’ll bet that was disappointing. Trust me: at some point you finally put all the rules and advice together and you undergo a subtle change at the molecular level, and your modeling suddenly becomes deadly accurate (usually).

As an alternative to deleting the background rectangle, what I often do (and did here) is simply select the face itself and slide a copy off to the side.

-Gully