Unwanted transparency

All I did was convert all of the groups to components, made those brackets solid, and deleted some superfluous edges.in the brackets.

he didn’t soften smooth. The edges are still showing through at a distance. Not sure but I think the soften/smooth function just hides the edges. It doesn’t really change the shape.

"made those brackets solid"
Care to elaborate? I’ve been confronted with that for months, and Solid Inspectors (I or II) have proven to be a dead-end. I often wind up with groups or components that don’t show up in entity info as “solid”, seemingly without rhyme or reason. I’d sort of given up on the whole thing, but maybe you’ve got pointers?

I don’t know what to tell you. I selected one of those bracket component and ran Solid Inspector 2. It told me what was wrong and gave options to fix them. I let it do that and moved on. There are some problems Solid Inspector can’t fix so you might have to fix them manually but at least it’ll highlight where they are.

OK, thanks…
I guess I’ll have another go at the extension, or plug-in. Another stab at it might to the trick.
-A veteran noob…

entity info says the brackets are solid. I noticed before there were some loose segments inside. I didn’t see any holes…but I don’t have inspector yet.

OK, finally got the Solid Inspector 2 to work, thanks…
One last thing, if I may; How does one find/identify superfluous edges within, say, a solid component?

I look for coplanar edges and delete them. They often occur due to the method some folks use to make 3D components. It’s usually possible to avoid them but when they occur, it’s best to erase them immediately.

1 Like

By what methods, or tools? I’ve tried Fredo’s edge inspector, which didn’t detect anything untoward.

ThomThom’s CleanUp3 will get most of them but I still inspect the model for ones that might have been missed. Looking at the way faces are shaded can provide clues. Another simple way to check is to erase the suspected edge and see what happens.

Okay, thanks.

I’m curious about how you came up with the dimensions and shape of the bracket.

Coming from a Sage, that’s kind of a flattering question…
Once I had the three groups positioned (lid, outer ring and adaptor), I used Paste in Place on the surfaces I needed to connect.
From these, I push/pulled volumes and used the arc tool for trimming.
Thanks again.
Feel free to ask for details, should this not be clear…

OK. So you didn’t have a bracket to measure from?

I’m following a YouTuber’s construction of a log cabin, and modelling by guess-timating dimensions from his videos. By using screen caps from many angles, I can get a pretty good sense of how complicated parts fit together.
This chimney cap was the thorniest part to get down, but I got there eventually.
Since I seem to remember we’re not allowed to post links here, I’ll point you to the site I’m working from, which is called “My Self Reliance”, by Shawn James. This maniac works without power tools…
I’m glistenUp in 3DWarehouse, where you can see the result of this, although the part we’re discussing isn’t yet included in the latest upload, titled Reliance log cabin. I’ve still got a few pieces to knock together before I make a final upload.

1 Like

This description makes me think the issue is not with how the model geometry is constructed, but with how SketchUp renders models for viewing. Thin walls (such as sheet metal) will hide what touches or is in close proximity to their back surface when viewed from fairly close distances. But when zoomed further and further away, SketchUp will effectively visually collapse the two surfaces of the modeled wall and reveal other items that are on the far side of the wall. This is just how SketchUp draws models in the viewport. It is visually ugly and a bit disappointing, but does not represent anything amiss with the model geometry.

1 Like

Yeah, I gave up threading bolts and making knurls for a somewhat similar behaviour in SU…
Putting small details close together makes them turn into black spots when viewed from afar.
You basically have to stick to a certain range of fineness of detail when building large and/or complex models.

I’ve been making detailed models (including somewhat threaded holes and some threaded fasteners) in SketchUp for a few years, and I’ve been happy enough. As an example see the following post:

One thing that can make SketchUp’s renderings really “fuzzy” is when the current Style has endpoints enabled. This places a small black X or cross at each and every endpoint in the model. With a threaded hole that might have 2000 endpoints in a small volume, the visual result can be a black blob. I never have endpoints enabled in the styles I use.

Neither do I…
I must admit I haven’t spent enough time exploring the possibilities of the “Styles” panel, nor played around with scenes or the fine points of component editing. SU is a lot of fun, but a bottomless pit once you get started.
Can’t wait to get back to working with Dynamic Components as well.
Nice work on the scooper-duper, by the way…

This topic was automatically closed 183 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.