The phrase "Solid"

[Wo3Dan]

@sjdorst

Since it appears to have come from @Wo3Dan, I leave it to him to start a new thread in one of the feature request categories.

That’s how this started in the first place. And curiously you joined the (hijacked) thread 25 minutes ago.

[Wo3Dan]

@simoncbevans

The actual word matters little providing everyone understands it. If you get what you want (and I hope you do), you could say that the end result would provide an even better illusion of a solid. Only the uninitiated would be confused. For them, the rest of us would have to continue explaining that in Sketchupworld, a solid ain’t a solid. It’s more of a, well, more of a void really!

What could possibly get you inside a solid? 1) Edit mode or 2) a section plane that isn’t checked to fill its created loop.
I would rather explain multiple times that a SketchUp Solid is hollow but has a virtual material of the component (=feature request), making it have the appearance of a solid object as in real life, than explaining that all SketchUp Solids (or Boxes or manifold volumes) seem to be created of the same “material” (the assigned color of section planes) and that sums of volumes can be completely wrong.

Imagine an intersection of a wall with insulation between inner and outer layer. Should they all be filled the same? Or would you rather look at an (interactive) model where each solid has its own material applied by the intersecting plane’s loop? One thing is certain, there’s no need to look at the hollow intersections.

[simoncbevans]

Preaching to the converted, old son. As I said, I hope you get what you have asked for.

[Wo3Dan]

@simoncbevans

As I said, I hope you dget what you have asked for

I truly appreciate your support. I was merely trying to defend the choice of the word “Solid” for SketchUp’s solids.

[sjdorst]

As you yourself stated at the beginning of the highjacked thread:

@Wo3Dan

(The request is at the end! / fill with material)

it is perhaps understandable that people started talking about your “background” material instead of your actual suggestion. As part of that background material, my contribution (late in the conversation) about making the front and back faces have the same material doesn’t, in my opinion, rise to the level of “highjacking” a thread. Did it divert from your intention of your original post? Yes. I don’t dispute that. Was it inappropriate in context? No. Nor was the initiation earlier of discussion regarding front/back faces - since you included that as part of your background material.

[RTCool]

Rats! Now I’m hungry! Where’s my chocolate…

[simoncbevans]

Well, it may be in the first box, it is certainly in the second box, and it certainly isn’t in the last box (I already ate all that).

No, sorry, sorry, sorry, strike that. It’s in the middle right triangular prism! Or, given that this is SU we’re talking about, the middle solid.

[simoncbevans]

@sjdorst

the highjacked thread

I think you may have hijacked this thread by getting serious!

Incidentally, I think highjacking must be what happens to cars when they get their wheels stolen and left on bricks.

Have a good weekend!

[Wo3Dan]

Hi @sjdorst, see: Better Solids and (hopefully) better fill - #27 by Wo3Dan

(No hard feelings towards anyone here!)