I’m trying to duplicate 16 chamfered holes with the chamfers overlapping without much luck. Basically trying to model this existing part (pic while I was making it, it’s hard to see the chamfers here, they disappear when the part got painted and it ended up with a smoked lens in front of the chamfers):
If I draw the 16 holes and choose their edges and use fredo’s chamfer tool it warns about 60 overlaps and if you still let it do it it turns into a mess.
If I draw one and try Fredo’s tool it deletes the hole it’s weird.
If I draw one hole, draw the larger OD of the chamfer and then use the move to push the center hole down to make a chamfer I get a nice chamfer, if I move/copy and then /15 to make for a total of 16 evenly spaced copies it closes the faces and I have to choose them all and “intersect faces” to get anything selectable, and when I do I can delete where the backs are filled in (smaller diameter that does not overlap, but some of the front is selectable and some isn’t, and I can’t seem to figure out how to clean that up:
I’m on my phone so can’t check anything or demo but I’d recommend that you will need to work at a larger scale to get this to work successfully.
Also your comment about fredo’s tool making the hole dissappear is probably just that it created a skin over the top that you can select and delete.
If the chamfer really do intersect, then you should use a few components with intersect to make one component for the internals and one for the ends that you flip.
I’d reccomend solid tools for this. Make the hole its own solid drawn with Follow Me. Then copy that solid the number of times it is needed and lastly use solid subtract to remove it from the board.
Here you go, used the Dave method, arrayed your first ‘hole’ 15 times, then intersected to selection and removed the unwanted geometry. DaveMethodShiftLightBezel.skp (411.7 KB)
Unless something has changed, isn’t that a pro only feature?
Huh, Box, are you telling me that at 140m I didn’t have the resolution in SU to do it and it worked fine for you by making it 1400m? You have me wondering if the size of the model doesn’t matter but the persision setting in the model units is what causes the problem… I’m going to have to play with that.
Well, it’s not a precision setting or a size problem. I tried setting the precision to the highest setting and it did the same thing by copying the original hole using the array, I then tried scaling it to 10x and it did the same thing. I finally setup the “dave method” way turning it into a component and I still got the same thing:
OK, trying again. Looks like LICEcap, the Win10 fall creator’s update and my screen scaling do weird things together. Here is what it looks like when I try to do it using dave method. Box, I’m assuming you did something different to get it to work?
Small sizes may make it impossible for SketchUp to create faces.
But even at a larger scale SketchUp’s ‘Solid’ tools (pro only) may be facing too many operartions simultaniously, causing it to not work as expected. If you subtract one solid from another and add a next solid you may get the desired result. But not with a full row as you present.
My example was done manually, deleting the surrounding face, and adding it back in the end after cleaning up the geometry in the overlapping chamfered holes.
Your original file seems fine for me being it’s in Meters. I took a slightly different approach without using plugins or solid tools.
Hopefully you can tell what I did here. It’ just copying intersecting and cleanup. Oh and one rotate.
@john_drivenupthewall, more or less how I modeled the overlapping holes, although in place. Hence deleting the surrounding face in my remark.
I don’t know how anyone can continually model in ‘Parallel’ mode when creating some 3D object.
Only flat (as an example plans) things I may do in ‘Parallel’ mode + Top view.
My original, even without the dave method was done in METERS, 10x the scale that you used. My dave method example is 10x that, I don’t see how I could have been too small a scale at 10 or 100x your scale.
Shep and John, you look like you took the same approach, what is the rotate for (John, I can see that you rotated the original hole, Shep, I’m assuming you did the same thing)?
If I do the same without the rotate (since I don’t know why you’re rotating it) if I drag the holes back without cleaning up their overlaps I get similar results to my tries doing it in place. If I do clean up their overlaps I get a good front face:
Which wasn’t working before. It seems like the intersect isn’t working right for some reason. I wish I knew why.
Eh, I go back and forth, I sometimes find it easier for flat items or ones that have details that you only see in 2 dimentions and not the 3rd. In this case until you get to the chamfers it’s very 2D but I probably should have switched back (I debated it to record the GIF but didn’t feel like re-recording and like I said, I was having some interface weirdness with the recorder and the latest edition of Win10 and my screen scaling which made it a hassle)
I didn’t say you used too small a scale. For I also said:
The many simultanious operations on an entire row of chamfered holes may have been the culprit in your case. I don’t know all the steps you did but leaving out ‘Solid’ tools to operate on that row or any other plugin you can get the result with simple native tools. More work though. Also see @john_drivenupthewall’s video.
Well then I misunderstood you WRT to the scale, but I did say that I tried it both using the tool (FWIW, not solid tools but Fredo’s round corner extension) and using the built-in features.
As far as @john_drivenupthewall’s video he did that with my SKP file and a hole that I generated (and described how above).
So I got it modeled as the current one is built, (top hidden geometry in the pic) but trying to draw a new version (different size holes in a differently shaped plate) done the way in the examples (drew outside of the model, cleaned up and then moved into the model) and ended up with one hole that I just can’t open up:
I understand your example where you have a 4 sided shape and if both are not exactly lined up that you don’t get a rectangle, but in your GIF using my SKP you rotated a round shape what looked like 2 hidden segments, which would translate to your square example as taking 2 squares that were aligned and rotating one of them 180* which essentially gives you the same square.
I’m not really sure why alignment matters in this case anyway, since in my example and yours you’re not butting them up against each other but instead overlapping them, intersecting them and then cleaning up the extra.
I know that there has to be something I’m not following since 2 of you suggested it and I’m obviously not getting correct results, but I don’t know how much I need to rotate it to make it work or why since I’m not following why you’re rotating it.
Well, I can’t tell you why this needed to be done for the one hole considering how the whole thing was made, or why it really worked but I deleted the back face, made the back of that one hole a solid and push-pulled it out farther, closed the back face, intersected selection and then deleted the extra and it worked:
