Trouble applying push/pull with option key to unsquare geometry

Recently I got help on this forum using push/pull with the option modifier key (control on Windows apparently), but now I’ve run into a case where it’s not working well. I understand this makes a new surface as you push, and up to now it has been helping me punch holes through walls with unsquare geometry.

In the screen recording you’ll see:

  1. using push/pull alone doesn’t push the surface in
  2. using push/pull with option allows the surface to be pushed in the desired amount (87mm)
  3. deleting unneeded geometry is really difficult

See attached sketchup file.
nonSquareWalls.skp (383.8 KB)

I’m only showing here a case that finally worked, with things speeded up 10x when deleting geometry – but I probably spent an hour doing this several times as I was trying to make a screen recording.

There must be a better way to do this – any advice?


PushPull from the top

1 Like

@mihai.s I agree that push/pull from the top is better in this case and the clean up is easier. But other than that it seems you are using the same method I was (option/control with push/pull). Thanks.

The beauty of sketchup is there are always many ways to do things and some are better in certain situations than others. There is never one correct way of doing things.
Here I have shown another option, it uses inferencing to draw in the faces you want, I even left in an error where I missed and had to undo and go back. I also use the Make Group option before even starting to draw as it isolates the geometry which can make it easier if you need to adjust something, you can move thing about without affecting the other geometry. Not essential in this case but I used it as an example.

1 Like

So, from the replies to my post I’m concluding:

  1. The method I’m using (push/pull with option key) is good, but choose the best side to push from
  2. Another method is using systematic inferencing within a group which is then exploded
  3. clean up is messy either way

I’m impressed with how systematic and general method (2) is. I must have watched the screen recording 10x – interspersed with trying it on my own – and learned several things.

But it seems to me the intersect faces part is not needed.

To demonstrate, see my screen recording.

This is an important point to me because using intersect faces makes me nervous when I’m working on a part of the model connected to all sorts of things, some of which may be hidden. When I select intersect faces > with model I’m worried those may mess up something I’m not aware of. So, I will often move the parts I’m working with way off to the side to avoid that possibility. This of course means a bunch of extra steps.

I really like the idea of doing all work like this within a group for the main geometry and a SUBgroup for the geometry to be subtracted. This protects the main geometry, except for the difficult and crucial steps where the unnecessary parts are removed.

Thanks again for the lessons – it’s not just for this problem, of course, but for all the future ones I’ll be enjoying :wink:

Intersect isn’t always needed but it is a useful tool that can help finish cutting through faces. The group also isn’t necessary but has advantages.
You mention that you have hidden things that you don’t want to interact with, that is true so you shouldn’t use Hide, you should use groups and Tags to hide things.
Once again, there is no one right way to do anything, learning all possible ways of working helps you to see the better option. If you weren’t using the free web version we would be telling you about using solid tool, but they aren’t available in free web.
I also notice on second look that your version loses the window, intersect would have retained it.

Thanks, I missed that

An example of using solid tools. I made the original geometry a group before doing the rest.