Solid inspector2 says
Everything is Shiny, but the volume is not showing in entity info for the group ?
335 dune.skp (182.7 KB)
Any ideas ?
It looks like the reason SketchUp doesnât recognize the group as solid is due to an edge on each side that is shared by 3 faces.
Make an adjustment there so that area would be printable and the group will show as solid and youâll get a volume.
I pulled those small horizontal faces up 1/4 in. and erased some internal edges.
2 Likes
Oddly it does report as OK, but itâs NOT a Solid because your have some edges supporting more than 2 faces - the strict requirement for a âsolidâ - see the screen shot with XrayâŚ
A minor adjustment of the form should avoid this issue and make it solidâŚ
1 Like
Dave and Tig,
TY ! I did not know about the edge and 3 face issueâŚ
Is there a tool to help identify this in more complicated drawings ?
I would refer to that as SketchUpâs requirement, not the requirement. As long as all edges bind an even number of faces, whether itâs 0, 2, 4 etc, there is a defined volume inside of the mesh. Too bad SketchUp doesnât acknowledge it.
1 Like
But in the model in question, there are three faces.
@hersratings, You might try TIGâs Solid Solver but there will always be cases where it takes human eyeballs on it.
It is 4 faces, two horizontal and two vertical.
I donât really want to argue with you @eneroth3, but the areas that both @DaveR and @TIG have referenced only have two vertical faces and one horizontal face all coming from a single edge.
I remember this particular layout being somewhat problematic when Thomthom first released the extension.
If you select all the geometry and run this snippet it reports there are edges with 2 and 4 faces.
Sketchup.active_model.selection.grep(Sketchup::Edge).map { |e| e.faces.count }.uniq
You can also see with a section cut how one of the mention areas actually only have âconventionallyâ solid edges binding 2 faces, and the other has a central edge binding 4 faces.
Julia, I donât know of any software that will âacknowledgeâ two conjoined cubes in a single grouping, as a single solidâŚ
if they are two groups that happen to have an edge in exactly the same position, then many see that as solidâŚ
however, even that is a relatively new concept in slicer softwareâŚ
john
Two cubes that meet in an edge have a defined inner volume. I donât know how you define âa single solidâ though. Would two separate cubes in the same group be a single solid?
Huh?
Box, I would say that there are four faces coming from that single edge.
Basically SketchUp doesnât handle all solids (although simple to understand in real life) as should. See the example in next image (a block with a hole pushed through):
The left solid block shows no volume, the right one does. But both would clearly be solid in real life.
The left one was created by moving the green edge to merge with the one on top (red, not visible yet), with now four faces attached to the red edge.
SketchUp needs some improvement on this point.
p.s. in the original uploaded model select the questioned edge (equal to mine in red) > right click to get its context menu > Select > Connected Faces. Entity Info goes from one entity to five, which is one edge and four faces.
3 Likes
in 3d software Manifold [often called âSolidâ] essentially means âManufacturableââŚ
what possible manufacturing/construction technique can create the zero depth join?
either you have a thickness or a gap [ even if microscopically small ]âŚ
without a material bridge at your intersection of four faces, the object will be prone to failureâŚ
it not just SU that expects only two faces per edgeâŚ
john
1 Like
I see that as technical language getting in the way of modellers who are not manufacturers.
For the purposes of SketchUp modelling, the object with the zero depth edge is a solid logically.
Besides, manufacturing is changing, and this object could be printed now.
1 Like
John, I see your point and I even thing we have discussed this very issue in the past. But let me ask you, can manifacturing/construction technique create faces that are as flat and smooth as software can? Iâm not talking about thickness but mean all possible vetices on the face on one and the same plane? The answer is no. But still we use these faces. The only obstacle I see is for software to get it programmed.
1 Like
âsolidsâ were added to SU for 3d printer output, and at the time even overlapping independent âsolidsâ were not recognised by many âslicerâ softwaresâŚ
at least that has improved and untidy unions arenât even required by many these daysâŚ
if SU had decided to go against convention and allow more than two faces, I doubt anyone would be using SU for 3d printing todayâŚ
current slicer software that accepts these âjunctionsâ, actually repairs them, adding thickness with an additional offset edge, but is it where you want itâŚ
by âfailingâ the item, SU allows you to remodel adding thickness where you wantâŚ
john
1 Like
Understood.
My point is about pure modelling vs translating that model into a manufacturable item.
In any 3D modelling space - logic dictates that the object in question is a cohesive volume - call it a U shape. Not everyone who models that object is considering how or if it can be manufactured or cares - so in general, logical understanding in the SU modelling space is seeing objects as simple geometry / volumes.
When required, translate away into the appropriate manufacturable shape for your specific use case.
ok, this I can understand; to get things printed.
I just added 0.1mm just to get the volume. Not printable yet I guess
0.1 mm should be fine for titaniumâŚ
0.001 mm for dental ceramicsâŚ
if you can afford itâŚ
john
1 Like
sorry, empty.
2 Likes