@tt_su … dont sell yourself short. Your CleanUp extension will also minimize the DWG import edge count nicely 
Using the extension & cutting the hull down the middle will save a ton of geometry bulk.
Of course, if you mirror the hull using a half-hull component (if that’s what you mean, Chris), it won’t be a solid (I’m assuming the OP knew the significance of asking for a solid).
This is a solid:
It seems to me you’d need a very good reason to import this geometry. It would have to be something you couldn’t more easily and efficiently construct right in SU, which in this case seems not to be true.
-Gully
Hello Gully
I followed your suggestions and I was able to build a solid hull.
I wanted to ask how can I smooth the surface there is a plugin.
As seen in all my hull lines.
What I have created in your opinion might be fine for a 3d printing.
I’m making strides but the work I would do is still very long.
I drew the cabin as solid, but then put it on the hull as it is better to do?
Then I will ask other tips to build tubular inflatable
Below I attach the file with which I practiced.
I enclose also the final picture of what I want to build
thanks
Nicola
Test .skp (151.3 KB)
1 Like
Nicola, if you mean the edges bounding all the triangular (usually) faces making up the curved surfaces, you can soften/smooth them all at one time using the Soften/Smooth dialog–right-click > Soften/Smooth–or one at a time using Ctrl-Eraser (or probably a combination of methods). To use the Soften/Smooth dialog to soften all the edges at once, triple-click first to select all contiguous edges and faces, then just move the slider in the dialog to the right until you achieve the right threshold (leaving sharp edges unsoftened).
By the way, in this context, “soften” means to make invisible the internal edges separating the faces in a contoured surface; “smooth” means to blend the shading smoothly across these edges so they don’t look like creases, even though they’re invisible.
As for your project boat, you need some cross-sections through the hull. The shape of the hull can’t be determined from these pictures.
Edit–Oh, I beg your pardon–you’re saying that’s the same hull we’ve been working with. Duh.
And as to your question about 3D printing: as long as Entity Info recognizes a grpoup or component as “solid” it should print.
-Gully
Today I went on with my model, I was able to assemble the cabin to the hull, creating a group and then a volume printing 3d.
Then I created the tube around the hull, but when I go to join the two groups (tubular and boat) I do not get a single group with more volume.
How can I then join the group tubular with that of the hull.
I enclose the job file.
thanks
Idroambulanza.skp (217.8 KB)
To form a single solid, all geometry must exist in the same group and must form one integral, closed volume. There may be no trapped internal geometry and no holes or gaps in the single surface encompassing both the boat itself and the pontoon.
Normally, the OuterShell command should be able to combine two solid groups into a single object, but in this case it didn’t work, probably because of complexity of the geometry and the fact that the pontoon is nominally sitting on top of the boat–it should really intersect to form a continuous solid.
Have you considered 3D printing the boat and pontoon separately? They are, after all separate in fact.
-Gully
Now I am creating the window frames to put on the car, I created a group for the frame and I used the key together with the group of the cabin, but the two groups are not based in one.
… mmmm … I do not understand why
print tubular hull separately and had not thought of, I thought it was better to do it all in a single press to have a more solid structure.
Idroambulanza.skp (238.0 KB)
But you can’t simply have line-on-line contact between the pontoon and the deck. You need to push the pontoon down into the deck so they make a clean intersection and then remove the overlapping material trapped inside. I realize this is not the way the actual pontoon sits on the deck, but that was my previous point.
-Gully
You are working at a small size.
The ‘window’ is only ~11mm across - not it’s more likely 1.1m ??
Therefore the segments of the arcs around its inner corners are tiny - so some of these and their facets do not form.
SketchUp’s built-in tolerance is 1/1000".
Any edges which are smaller are assumed to have coincident ends vertices, so they are not made, then the faces needing them are lost too…
If you worked on this boat at ‘full size’ they’d be no such issues.
Tiny geometry can exist - it cannot be created.
SO scaling it down to the size needed to 3d-print it when it’s all formed is the best approach…
Hi everyone, thank you for a most interesting thread.
I have been drawing airplanes at their proper scale size, and at times I get frustrated when my geometries get all distorted because SkUp cannot handle very small dimensions and nodes accumulating complex geometries become all garbled up.
So basically what TIG says is that original drawings should be in full size if not bigger. No problem with that. But let’s see: say I draw a small plane in full size, for instance a nominal 7m wingspan Sopwith Camel. If I want to send it to the printer to the scale I want my physical model, 1:144 will make it less than 5cm, then I need to scale it down in order to export to the STL file. Won’t my carefully drawn geometry be all crumpled down when I downsize the model due to the low tolerance for small dimensions? If so what can we do to minimize the effect?
Thank you very much in advance,
Miguel
No. Existing geometry survives downscaling to tiny size intact. SU can’t form faces with any dimension less than [theories seem to differ as to the exact number. I’ve heard ~1mm–about .04"–most often]. Suffice it to say, if you’re working on something with features in the less-than-an-inch size range, consider scaling up.
Incidentally, after Nico’s model failed to form a single solid when I used OuterShell on the two solids he furnished, I tried scaling it up x1000, and it still failed. That’s why I spoke of problems with the geometry instead of the model’s small size.
-Gully
Thank you Gully, I see, so there is no problem in drawing “in the big” and then scaling down to physical scale model. I was getting frustrated with SkUp already because of this problem, which was a pity as SkUp is perfectly adequate for my tasks, simple enough for my tired but curious brain, and it is backed up by a bunch of really great and helpful people 
Kind Regards,
Miguel
As I said…
Tiny geometry can’t be created.
BUT tiny geometry can exist.
So if you scale down something you have made ‘full-size’, so it is then very small its geometry survives intact.
But you’ll need to scale it up again if you want to edit its geometry because it’s once again too tiny…
Thank you your suggestions I managed to enter the frames of overlapping windows.
They are then able to join the tubes to the hull and now I managed to create a solid print 3d
I still have a lot of work before ending, but I wanted to know from you if you are on the right track for printing 3d.
A curiosity, I wonder when printing volumes 3d interior of the hull and the cabin will be filled as part printers? or will be empty and then the structure will collapse.
I attach files of the work done
thanks
Nicola
Idroambulanza2.skp (455.1 KB)
It will be filled in - although some 3d-printers allow you to specify an inner foam-like ‘structure’ to reduce the amount of material used in the printed object.
Alternatively, you can add internal partitions or posts, provided they are ‘two-faced’ and don’t compromise the object’s solidity.
There are also ‘shell’ plugins to make a solid hollow form with all outer walls of a set thickness - but these can fail if the object has a convoluted form.
There’s also my Honeycomber plugin that lets you specify outer walls and inner ‘honeycomb’ partitions…
It is for Sketchup Pro only as it uses its ‘solid’ tools.
Today I have a new problem, Sketchup crash.
When I go to join the two groups (see photo) tubular boat with the end cone of the tubular the program closes.
What could be the problem?
I am attaching photos of what I mean to unite and file so that you can test the problem
thanks
Nicola
Idroambulanza2.skp (476.3 KB)
Did you submit the crash?
What SketchUp version?
What are the exact steps to take on that model to reproduce the crash?
[quote=“nicola_peron, post:36, topic:4490”]
When I go to join the two groups (see photo) tubular boat with the end cone of the tubular the program closes.
[/quote] Please use ‘SketchUp’ language. Join isn’t any SketchUp-basic option.
Are you trying the ‘Union’ operation that is one of the ‘Solid’ tool’s operations?
This may be the cause of a crash, see () below.
Moving the cone into position on the end of the tube should be enough (again ()). Then bring the cone geometry into the same group as the tube. Delete the coplanar face between the two shapes.
(*) The tube has segments at the end that are 131,904464mm, enclosing the circular end face.
The cone has segments at its base end that are 131,961980mm, enclosing the largest circular end face.
Uniting the two groups (also not aligned) with such small differences may create even smaller new edges and thus no new faces ----> crash?
Try again with a proper cone (same base size as the tube) and completely aligned with the tube.
Then try ‘Union’ operation (if that were the case in the first place).
(Although the first mentioned workflow would be the best/easiest/still covered by SketchUp Make)
Great … the problem is as you said, different diameters.
Now I can go on
thanks
Nicola
I’m still interested in that crash. Can you provide the information I requested?