# SketchUp Make and Unions?



## flanajb (27 Sep 2013)

I downloaded Sketchup Make and started having a play, but when I create 2 overlapping rectangles and then try to do a union I get a pop up telling me the objects are not solid or are locked. I googled this error, but nothing comes up and the documentation hints that this is a pro only feature. If so, I am surprised the feature is listed on the menu

Anyone seen this and figured out what the issue is?


Thanks


----------



## nev (28 Sep 2013)

I'm new to it too, what are you trying to do?
where is 'make union' in menu?
if i draw 2 overlapping rectangles and make group or component then they cannot be stretched, but if you overlap and then erase the internal lines then the outer shape becomes one and can be manipulated.


----------



## nev (28 Sep 2013)

EDIT:
found union 
it seems to only work with components. e.g square, pull, select all, make component. copy, paste, move to overlap, select all and then union and voila!


----------



## weekender410 (28 Sep 2013)

You might find this useful information. You should look at this, too. The Solid tools only work on "Solid" components and groups.

Union is one of the Solid Tools, which is only available in the Pro version of SketchUp. When your 8 hour trial period runs out, those tools will go away as SketchUp reverts to Make unless you buy the license.


----------



## flanajb (28 Sep 2013)

Thanks Nev. It was because I had not turned them into components. Once I did that that the Union function worked. But as Weekender says, it is a pro feature so will be removed very shortly when my time runs out.

Thanks again


----------



## RogerS (8 Oct 2013)

Components ....components.....components.

These are the way to SketchUp Nirvana.


----------



## aideym (8 Oct 2013)

Have to agree. Components are the future


----------



## weekender410 (9 Oct 2013)

There are still some who don't believe.


----------



## aideym (11 Oct 2013)

weekender410":36o6juqt said:


> There are still some who don't believe.


Why doesn't that surprise me


----------



## RogerS (5 Jan 2014)

I recommend this excellent tutorial aimed at woodworkers. Yes, I know I've plugged it on another thread but IMO it is one of the best intro's for woodworkers.

http://www.tauntonstore.com/fine-woodwo ... 67125.html


----------



## markblue777 (6 Jan 2014)

You can just also make each a group and it will have the same effect (components are more useful for repetitive pieces that may need a uniform change in my opinion, such as for a table leg). Just my two pence worth though.
Cheers
Mark


----------



## RogerS (6 Jan 2014)

markblue777":rmlmqe8k said:


> You can just also make each a group and it will have the same effect (components are more useful for repetitive pieces that may need a uniform change in my opinion, such as for a table leg). Just my two pence worth though.
> Cheers
> Mark



A fair comment, Mark.

All I would add is that when the guy started creating the SketchUp tutorials where he advocates groups so much, my understanding is that he had had only about three weeks experience of using SketchUp. Not really that much, IMO, to start telling people the best way to use i it.

I have come across a fair few people on this and other forums who have really struggled with groups. However, if it works for you then that's good, as well.


----------



## Lord Kitchener (3 Feb 2014)

I use groups constantly, only ever use components if anticipate needing to edit a bunch of the same parts, but as that never happens, I never use them.


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

I firmly believe that components are the best way forward but, hey, if groups work for you then ..........


----------



## Lord Kitchener (4 Feb 2014)

RogerS":1wmhv7ka said:


> I firmly believe that components are the best way forward but, hey, if groups work for you then ..........




Any particular reason? What sorts of things are you drawing?


----------



## Brentingby (4 Feb 2014)

For drawing furniture as I do, I can think of many advantages to using components and absolutely none for using groups. A few in no particular order:

Components can be saved for later use. No need to draw hardware or mouldings or doors, etc. more than once.

Components are kept in the In Model component library. If you accidentally delete a component and only discover it later, you can pull in a fresh copy from the In Model library. There is no such library for groups. If you delete a group and don't discover immediately, it's gone and you'll have to redraw it.

If/when SketchUp or your computer crashes, you might lose the model in your drawing window. Groups will be gone but components will be in the In Model library. This is rare but I have seen it happen.

You say you never have multiple copies of parts in your models. Does that mean drawers have only one side? Tables only one leg? I'd guess not. If you have to modify the length of a drawer, you must edit one side (group) and then the other one. If they were instances of the same component, changing one would change the other. The same with table legs, case sides, shelves, bits of mouldings.

Insertion points of components can be set by the user. Groups don't get insertion points.

Component axes can be oriented to suit the part. This affects the dimension of parts as shown in cutlists since the bounding box dimensions are what is reported. When you make a group or a component the bounding box is aligned to the model axes. If your part is set at an angle, the bounding box will be much larger than the part. With a croup you can change the axes so they align with the part. This also makes it easier to apply materials if you want to do that.

There are other reasons components make more sense than groups.

Give us some good reasons why groups are better than components.


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

This article is one of many that explains why components are the better approach. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/231 ... n-sketchup

But I'm not going to enter into an argument with you! If you are happy with using groups then that's OK by me.


----------



## RogerS (4 Feb 2014)

Or how about these courtesy of Dave Richards


Working with small things--chess pieces in this example--the ability to scale up a copy to work on it while leaving the original in place. This would apply to drawing things like knobs and other small hardware. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/109 ... mall-parts

Modifying a model. Working efficiently in SketchUp. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/107 ... n-sketchup
I got the impression from his post and from others that he doesn't understand that things like left and right drawer or bookcase sides can be copies of the same component. I wonder if he draws the one side and then draws the other side separately.

More efficiency--don't draw the same thing repeatedly. Save the component for future use. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/107 ... able-screw

More efficiency--left and right and top and bottom counterparts: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/105 ... hup-part-i

More of the above: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/105 ... nd-drawers

More components for later use: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/580 ... our-models and http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/574 ... -dovetails

Adjusting component axes: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/475 ... s-and-flip Can't do that with groups.

Exchanging one component for another. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/418 ... components Can't do that with groups, either.

Inserting components: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/416 ... -insertion

If you want an exploded view and an assembled view of a model, put them both in the same SKP file. If you need to make a change to the model, modify one and the other gets modified, too. Not with groups, though. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/408 ... oded-views

Applying materials to parts in the model. Open one component for editing and apply the materials to the faces (where they should be applied) and all copies get the same treatment. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/372 ... -materials Doing that with groups means you have to hit each group separately. Apply the material to the outside of the group or component and you forfeit the ability to adjust the grain direction.

Again, modifying a model: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/362 ... ng-a-model

Modifying the parts. http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/356 ... d-chamfers In this blog post I was adding stopped, curved chamfers to a parts of a hayrake table. Because I used components instead of groups, I was able to make copies of them and move them away from the rest of the model for editing. Then I deleted the copies leaving the edited originals still in place. Copying a group for editing does nothing to the original of the group so you aren't any farther a head.

You can more easily give components names compared to groups. Components get unique names by default (Component#1, Component#2, etc.) Groups are all called 'Group'. That's really handy in a cut list to have all of the parts with the same name. I imagine a cooking show where the chef says, measure out 2 tsp of stuff and put it into a bowl. Stir in one and a half cups of stuff and beat it until fluffy. Next add one small packet of stuff and fold that in gently...

Adding materials properly, again: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/237 ... your-model


----------



## Lord Kitchener (4 Feb 2014)

Brentingby":3hkelrl6 said:


> Give us some good reasons why groups are better than components.



I would certainly never claim that! I haven't bothered with components much because I haven't needed to, and I can draw the stuff I want to draw quickly and easily. But I'll have a read through of your reply and the others, and delve into the subject further.

This is what can happen when one uses software for a specific task in a business setting, one gets to the point where the required output is achieved and then it's on to some other business task, no time for further experimentation and learning. But I will make an effort next time I get some spare time.


----------

