Solid Inspector 2 Vs. Entitiy Info, Which Is Right?

More along the lines of how to troubleshoot a component that should be a solid but that SU refuses to recognize as such. This is the dilemma: (Thanks for your help)

H2.skp (178.3 KB)

Your model contains a component. Explode it and then, while everything is still selected, create a group.

Entity info will show it as a solid group.

1 Like

It’s interesting that works, since groups and components share the same implementation behind the scenes. I wonder if it has more to do with explode and regroup causes SketchUp to reevaluate its assessment of solid.

Not quite sure I understand. It is a component. If I open for edit, there is only one entity. Are you suggesting there is another component within the first component. My goal was to obtain a solid component. Okay, so I explode and then create a new component, and it is a solid. I guess my real question is why without exploding SI2 indicates a solid, but entity info does not.

I’m guessing but since exploding the original component and then remaking the component creates a solid, your suggestion has merit. But again, why does SU require an intermediate explode to re-evaluate the state of the component. This does not inspire confidence in SU’s ability to analyze geometry correctly. On the other hand this example gives SI2 more credibility.

To add to the mystery, I initially ran Edge Tools, CleanUp3, Purge and Fredo Tools with no reports of any problems. I also used “Dave’s Method” (x100) and rechecked with the same tools, no errors. Again, siding with SI2.

Solid inspector doesn’t find everything.
You can see here a duplicate face which when removed leavess you with a solid.
I found this very quickly by eye using monochrome mode, it showed as a reversed face.


A good tip is to use SolidInspector2 in conjunction with its older sibling SolidInspector1. The latter will almost always highlight the discrepancies between what’s reported by SI2 and Sketchup’s Entity Info. Faces stacked on top of each other (a bug in Sketchup) is caught by SI1, but not SI2.


Does the solid inspector in SketchUp Shop detects them?:wink:

Wow, your attention to detail continues to impress. I will add “visual check in monochrome” to my workflow. Also taking @CAUL suggestion and adding SI1 to complement SI2. Now, the pendulum swings back to restoring confidence in Entity Info and SU, but still using SI1/SI2. Still of interest is how tiny errors like this creep into models. I had difficulty finding this and I knew where to look. Also curious why exploding and re-creating the component fixes this error. Thanks.

If you open your component, select-all and intersect-with-selection, it fixes the overlaid faces issue and reports as a ‘solid’; however Solid-Inspector will spot the one reverse face and prompt you to fix it… this does not affect ‘solidity’ per se but can confuse 3d-printers… hence the ‘fix’.

On a side issue… this component contains over 5000 entities, tour curved parts, holes etc could be modeled at a much lower level of detail.
It looks like a pressed metal tie-down connector and as such I don’t see why you need to model it in such detail - I imagine you’re not intending to 3d-print it in bulk ! It could even be a simplistic collection of 2d surfaces and still be useful for detailing or ‘taking-off’.
You are not detailing parts of a jet-engine that need such precision.
Falling into the trap of modeling everything in the tiniest detail is seductive [ we’ve all been there ! ].
If you were manually drawing it with a pencil a few lines would suffice !
But why take time and effort to make something that’s all-but useless, in the context in your model and in the information you extract from it for others to use…

1 Like

Just for education, I exploded the model, re-created the component. Entity info reported a solid as expected. But, the error is still there, still a mystery.

Tried your suggestion and confirmed your findings. One question, why before the intersect-with-selection, SI2 did not recognize the error, but evidently SU Entity Info did?

I simplified the component to a 2d folded form with 173 entities - rather that ~5000 !
It could be even simpler with no loss of essential detail…
It’s probably just as useful - I can’t see the purpose of an ultra-detailed 3d solid version ???
H2-simplified.skp (33.2 KB)

1 Like

You are absolutely correct. I would not use a high-poly model like this in everyday work. Just trying to understand how to troubleshoot problems with 3D Warehouse models. On the surface this one looks reasonable from a file size standpoint, but contains some other surprises. And, it was provided by the manufacturer, which improves credibility. Lesson learned, user beware.

1 Like

Manufacturers use detailed 3d models - which in understandable given their production processes.
But they can be somewhat cavalier in giving these away to ‘users’ who expect them to be ‘useful’ !
A collection of simplified folded 2d shapes would be far smaller and just as useful to most users.
Perhaps they need to start having a fully-detailed and a just-useful collection !

1 Like

Doing a detail model I’d use a 3d version–or at least a “2d” version with some offsets and insertion point to make it easy to overlay the adjacent faces without z-fighting. But yeah, no need for slavish complexity or accuracy.

1 Like

To 3D print any object, not only do all faces have to be “normal “, but they must have depth. Besides using Solidispector i also set reversed face color to something glaring, such as bright red, yellow green or orange, making it so I can’t miss them. You set the reverse color in the STYLES menu under EDIT.

3D Warehouse objects, while being terrific visual drawings are often useless for printing without extensive editing.

I do my 3D printing with a resin printer capable of high resolution. What it’s not capable of is producing a real world object with surfaces with zero depth. They don’t exist in our world. Many drawings that would have sheet metal surfaces are drawn with just the surface and no or little extrusion. I work in 1:48 scale, so a free standing surface to have any chance of survival has to be 0.032” or thicker. Much thinner than that it comes out like paper and simply cannot be handled. It takes a lot of effort to go through the model and thicken all the parts that wouldn’t print, but it’s still faster than drawing them from scratch.

1 Like