Single vs nested components

I have a block (component) with four identical threaded holes.
There are four instances of this block in my model.
My preference is to make the block and 4 threaded holes all as one solid, not a block with 4 nested component instances of the threaded hole.

When block and threaded holes are all one integral piece it is a solid.
If the block is a component and the four holes are nested components nothing is a solid. The block component has face holes and the threaded holes components are just a bunch of faces with two surface borders.

Editing holes is easier if they are components - but I don’t like not having solids.
And yes, this is a lesson in making it right the first time - I try, but I’m human.

I uploaded skp showing the single component (solid) as well as showing the two stages of making nested.

How would you do it? Or is this just a matter of personal preference?Block with Nested threaded holes.skp (2.2 MB)

As to how to handle your blocks, it kind of depends upon what you want from them. I’d be inclined to make the threads as part of the block instead of separate component as long as you can keep the entire block as a solid.

I would integrate the four threaded holes as part of the geometry of the block component directly. That way SketchUp would be able to confirm the entire block is Solid. If you expect to modify those four threaded holes for a bit, you might as well do that while they remain their own component definition, before exploding them into the block component.

The resource savings from keeping one threaded-hole component definition with four component instances per block are not likely to be significant in the overall scheme of your model.

Note that even after exploding the four threaded-hole component instances, the threaded-hole component definition remains (invisibly) in the model. If you use the Components browser window set to In-Model, you should see the definition for the threaded-hole component in the list. That way you can create new instances of that same threaded-hole geometry elsewhere in the model (and possibly explode those instances into their new context). However, be careful with a component definition that has no instances in the model. If you do a Purge, the unused definition will be deleted. For that reason, in my development model files, I usually keep a sample instance of such utility component definitions sitting on the side somewhere so that a Purge does not inadvertently delete the definition.

Thanks. That’s my usual approach. Just wondered if others had specific reasons for maintaining the component method.

TDahl, Thanks. I appreciate the insight. Every thread form I create is kept as a component in its own file in a separate folder. So yes, I’ll always have a copy available, outside of my current model. Some of the threads I have (the ones in the uploaded model for example) were created using downloaded extensions. I’ve become dissatisfied with the extensions (for a variety of reasons) and have reverted to creating my own thread forms (with the support of other extensions for helix creation). Updating a model had me second guessing my approach. I’m sticking with the integrated threaded holes, and now learning faster ways to make the necessary edits.

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.