I need to 3D-print this model and I’ve spent 5 hours trying everything such as optimizing and building it over from the scratches.
But I can’t make it work, if sb could help me out of this, It would mean a lot to me…
3D-Print.skp (1.2 MB)
1 Like
Post deleted.
2 Likes
To print the model must be solid. To do that it needs to be a component which it is not:
The model has some extraneous geometry far removed from basic model and they are located at orgin;
The model should be moved to orgin once those are removed.
After all those corrections the model is not solid yet and thus not printable.
For the model to be solid you can look at as needing to be water tight.
Download and install solid inspector and ThomThom’s cleanup tools from the 3d extension ware house both of which will help you make those corrections.
In addition Trimble has a free program that will check model for you. I do not have link for that and will have to get it for you, Surprised if its not on the 3d print forum
Before doing that you need to spend some time at the help center and read what they have on this subject.
You should also download and install TIGs solid solver which will some times fix model for you.
Get back for further help you will probably need it: smile:
Link Printables for 3D Warehouse - SketchUp - SketchUp Blog
1 Like
I was hoping model correction would take short time but, sadly there are so many problems it will take very long. In my humble opinion the inference engine is new to you but that must be used or you will have cases of: coplanar; stray; misaligned; etc. lines which can lead to many non planar faces all of which I am seeing. You probably need to spend short time in help center and then redraw. In mean time I’ll try to find quick way to fix model but chances are probably two of that ; Slim and none:anguished:
2 Likes
Well I hate to nit pick a SketchUp Sage but I created and printed dozens of drawings before I even knew what a component was in SU. Being a component is nice but not required in order to generate an STL file.
If you make a group or component-instance of your geometry etc, and then select it, then hopefully it reports as ‘solid’ in Entity Info.
That is a good indication [although still not foolproof] of its suitability for export and use in 3d-printing.
Although exporting a seemingly ‘perfectly-solid’ model [without this reassurance] as STL will often work, but at that step how do you truly know that it is a ‘solid’ ?
1 Like
PS:After a little research…
The OP has already published a very similar model/problem elsewhere [!], and he been well advised about all of the aspects of ensuring it’s a true solid and suitable for 3d-printing…
If I may recap…
If you have a collection of entities which you make into a group or component-instance, and when selected it reports as a ‘solid’ in Entity info, then it still might not be 3d-printable … the usual cause is face orientation or intersecting volumes.
To address these [if any]
Edit the ‘container’.
To address the first case, select an outwardly oriented face and use the context-menu > Orient to make all faces match…
To check the second case, select-all, context-menu > Intersect with selection: if you exit the edit and it no longer reports in Entity Info as a ‘solid’, then you need to fix it [see below]…
Otherwise you are good to go…
If it doesn’t report as a ‘solid’ it is unlikely to be 3d-printable - although some commercial printers might now accented ‘nested containers’…
To recap the requirements for SketchUp’s own ‘manifold solid check’…
A ‘solid’ [container] must only contain geometry [edges and faces].
That means no nested groups or component-instances, or text, dims etc - although guide lines and points are ignored they are also best avoided…
So with a container with only edges and faces in it…
Every edge must support exactly two faces.
No more, no fewer.
So that means:
No faceless edges
No edges which support only one face - e.g. around a ‘hole’, an edge of a ‘flap’ or ‘shelf’ or ‘plane’
No edges which support more that two faces - e.g.internal ‘partition’ or ‘shelf’ faces, where some of their edges will support three or more faces; or otherwise seemingly solid volumes sharing an edge - e.g. two cubes sharing an edge which then has four faces…
And of course the foregoing comments about ‘nested’ and ‘intersected’ objects still apply…
1 Like
Yeah, that makes sense - group or component. so “Being a component is nice but not required”
It’s fun being right every now and then! (Don’t tell my wife though)
The issue is to give the OP the best info you can and hopefully assist in making them successful . The purpose is to not claim correctness at all cost to that goal.
STL files do not contain the original reference geometry to reconstruct
the solid and will at the very best result in an approximation. What
happens is the resulting surfaces have many control points (both
along and across) that are exponentially more complex and degraded. As
a number of these poorly defined surfaces are used to construct your
model process gets time consuming, inaccurate and unstable.
As the user as long as any approach meets your requirement then use it.
However, your approach my not meet the OP requirements since I asume his professor will also look at the model and grade accordingly.
I said right up front it was a nit pick. I just have a thing for detail. You are not the only one it annoys. Mom said I’m special that way! 
I am also; Used the OP file ; exported to Collada aka, dae, aka dynamic exchange format; then applied a filter to remove non-manifold faces. I have tested SU in the past using collada files used for conformance test verification and have reasonable confidence it is still good .There are 38 null faces, 580 un-referenced vertices and when the non-manifold faces where removed the model was almost destroyed. So assuming what is done in the past wiithout knowing the details may mean it will not work for this case. The OP stated he added thickness to all the faces. I’ll be askingfor his a model before that. I want to know what was doneif that’s possible:smile:.