Feature suggestion for Solids

I would like a Solid option to edit a group of Solids, or a Component consisting of a number of Solids, as though the Group, or Component, was similar to a Union of the Solids. With this option, all of the Solids in the Group or Component, would remain as Solids. The problem with grouping a number of solids with the Union feature, is that the Unioned Solids are no longer Solids. A feature of this nature would greatly reduce modeling time for certain projects.

Your description isn’t clear, at least to me, perhaps if you added an example file showing what you mean.

1 Like

It’s hard to provide a better picture without the actual ability to perform the task. The best I can do is what I said, which is to subtracting a solid from a group of solids, leaving the remaining objects as solids. The difference of this, compared to subtracting a solid from o union of solids, is that solids that have been grouped in a union are no longer solids.
I’ve included a simple model to demonstrate what I talking about. You can turn on various parts of the model by using the Outliner Tray.
I started by constructing the tread units, as solid groups, by assembling them to be considerably larger than what would remain when finished. I then assembled the spiral of treads. Next I used inside and outside solids to trim the spiral of treads. By using the trim function I could trim each tread assembly, one by one by clicking on them. What I’m look for is a function where I could group all the tread assemblies, and use the subtract function to do it all in one step, leaving the remaining tread assemblies as solids.
I should mention that the components in the tread assemblies had to be separated from each other by a small fraction of an inch, in order to have the group of components recognized as a solid. This is another issue that I think needs to be addressed in the future.
TEST.skp (3.3 MB)

To be recognized as a solid, every edge in the opbject must be shared by exactly two faces. No more and no less. Since the tread and the riser are loose geometry in the group you would either need to prvide the separation as you have done or remove the internal face created with the geometry in contact or, if they are really supposed to be discrete objects, the tread and riser should each be a group or component.

What you seem to be suggesting is that internal faces should be allowed in solid objects which doesn’t make sense.

That’s what I did.

Solids 2.skp (513.2 KB)
Looking at these two cubes, they appear to be identical. Looking closely at the horizontal planes in the middle, you can detect the difference. The difference between to two cubes is that the one on the left is composed of a cube stacked on the lower cube. The one on the right has the upper cube actually inside the larger cube, with all faces and lines touching each other, or so it might appear. So, to many, the Sketchup definition of a solid just might seem a tad hard to grasp.

I am trying to follow this, but I am still confused… I downloaded the Solids skp, but did not get a clearer picture… the model had four solids… in one case they overlapped each other, on the other, they butted up against each other inside of a group. Is there something wrong with this? Sorry… still confused but really trying to track!

With the two cubes on the left, you have two faces sharing the same plane. With the two cubes on the left, you have all but one face in the upper cube sharing planes with the larger cube. So, one might wonder, why the faces in one solid are able to share planes with another, and then can’t in a different construction. This seems to me to be a matter of coding, rather than logic.

But both cases CAN exist in SketchUp, and Unioning or Outer Shelling will result in the same thing afterward… Sorry… I am still confused about what could change here.

In the group on the left, I would like to be able to group the two cubes, with the result being a solid group, which then could be acted upon as any simple solid.

If I understand this right, I might second the feature request: Any object that resolves as a a solid should act as one.
This is my pet peeve. The group on the left is a solid. Then I put in a niche as a cutting component. The whole is still watertight but it is not a solid.


And when I use a section plane, the second one won’t fill:

SketchUp doesn’t have collision detection nor a concept of ‘assemblies’ or higher level organization.
It’s just raw geometry (edges and faces) within the ‘model context’ or when grouped, in that group or object’s context.
So you need to enter the group with nesting to be in the right ‘context’ and perform the solid action you need.

SketchUp doesn’t have collision detection nor a concept of ‘assemblies’ or higher level organization.

I’m aware of this. I’m asking for a reconsideration in the coding of the grouping of solids, or at least options when grouping.

In your example is the niche still a separate component? So it’s really two components we are seeing, one with a hole in it and one with no front face? I would not expect that to be solid. Maybe I’m misunderstanding?

One component with the “cut opening” property enabled is put on a face inside a group. I know that according to current rules the result isn’t a solid unless I explode the component, but IMO it ought to be, and also, section fill ought to work when parts of the cut edge loop belong to different objects. Anything that would facilitate non-destructive editing of models would be welcome.

I know, but recoding the solid tools is just a band aid on the wound…

Ahhh. I get it. any closed loop of geometry should generate a section fill, regardless of hierarchy. Hmmmm… I’ll have to think about that, maybe a good idea.