[Plugin][EVAL] TIG-CutNfill
-
I do have an old version [v2.0] which is compatible with v8.
However, it's not as good as the newer version which are incompatible with v8.
I could PM you an EVAL [10 uses] version RBZ if you want it.
There is a v8 licensed version RBZ too, but for that I need proof of you buying it... -
@tig said:
I do have an old version [v2.0] which is compatible with v8.
However, it's not as good as the newer version which are incompatible with v8.
I could PM you an EVAL [10 uses] version RBZ if you want it.
There is a v8 licensed version RBZ too, but for that I need proof of you buying it...That'd be great TIG, I've DM'ed you my personal email in case it can't be sent on here.
cheers, Nigel -
I've PM'd you the old EVAL RBZ...
-
Here's the EVAL version v4.0
https://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=TIG-CutNfill
Following feedback...
Reconfigured & re-signed for newer versions.
Options added for results 'colors', layers/tags, +/-ve clarified etc.A licensed version is now available for purchase/download from the SketchUcation Shop.
If you already have a licensed version, then downloading and installing the EVAL version will update your installation to v4.0... and your existing license will still work...
-
Hi all trying to cut and fill this split level into a site any one help as to why its not working, novice sketchup here the tool looks amazing once I get it going it will be invaluable for calcs!
-
Your groups are not 'solids', therefore it's impossible to subtract one from the other.
Add a 'skirt' to the 'EXTG' group.
It needs to report as 'solid' in Entity Info...
SolidInspector² can report and perhaps fix issues if it's not solid.
When it is solid make a copy of that group, move it off to the side.
Name the copy 'Proposed'
Now add the changes to the terrain...
Relocate the two groups over each other, using the lower parts of their skirts to ensure snapping...
Now you can select both of them and then CutNfill should calculate the differences...Note that your model as presented contains several reversed faces - you should only see the off-white front-faces, never the blue back-faces.
Whilst reversed faces in themselves should not adversely affect 'solid' operations, they are poor practice, and later on they can mess up 3d-printing and many rendering apps... -
Hi Tig just to thank you for your advise.
I found if I had blocked the EXTG earlier and then blocked the proposed later it wouldn't work. However each time I modify my proposed I simply just explode the EXTG and block each one individually with out moving them in the screen. this seems to work every time then.
-
Always get 0, 0 for the results. If this is an inherent problem with sketchup, then this plug-in is useless
-
If you follow the simple steps that are explained in the usage notes... and the Proposed and Existing forms are both solids, and they have a difference in their volumes, then the results should not be 0|0
If you post a simple example model where you are having issues, then perhaps helpful advice will result...
-
@tig said:
As explained in some earlier posts, it is possible to contrive two solid surface forms which when subtracted do not result in solid object [a limitation of SketchUp itself], so then the result has no volume - simply because it's not a solid.
You can get this result using the native tools rather that this specialist version of it - which actually uses the native tools via the API...Obviously start with two solid existing and proposed groups...
To try to avoid these kinds of issues then ensure that their skirts coincide exactly.
The tool has a built-in skirt adder tool...Next ensure that the existing and proposed groups have difference in their surfaces that are sensible.
A few mm difference in the elevations of their surfaces' faces is likely to result in a subtracted form with holes in it - because SketchUp can't create edges < 1/1000" long during the intersection and 'solid-tools' operation, so then faces that would have used those skipped tiny edges fail, and then the resultant form is not a solid and therefore it has no volume.
Remember that you are considering earth movement here, and accuracy to a few mm is not practical anyway, so be 'bold'...Hey, @Tig this sounds exactly like what I'm experiencing with my grading project. Solid inspector and entity info show solid groups for EXTG and PROP, but not getting a solid result from the cut n fill calculation.
Hoping you would be able to take a quick look at the file attached and give any guidance on how to avoid these tiny discrepancies.
Thanks!
-
I think your problem is as you suspect...
The two surfaces are incredibly detailed, so the chances are that you'll get tiny differences in the subtraction results, where tiny edges get auto-omitted and no face forms - rendering the result non-solid with 0 volume...
Since cut-and-fill is in reality an inaccurate science on site, can I suggest you try with a less subdivided mesh to start with...
The rogue out-liner might also suggest that the two forms' skirts are not coincident, which can have awkward results...You will get the equivalent result [non-solid 0] if you use the basic 'solid' subtraction on the two forms...
-
@tig said:
I think your problem is as you suspect...
The two surfaces are incredibly detailed, so the chances are that you'll get tiny differences in the subtraction results, where tiny edges get auto-omitted and no face forms - rendering the result non-solid with 0 volume...
Since cut-and-fill is in reality an inaccurate science on site, can I suggest you try with a less subdivided mesh to start with...
The rogue out-liner might also suggest that the two forms' skirts are not coincident, which can have awkward results...You will get the equivalent result [non-solid 0] if you use the basic 'solid' subtraction on the two forms...
Great feedback thank you! I got it working now! The most important things were:
taking down the detail of the mesh. I got it working with approx. 4' grid which is a good accuracy range for earthwork I think.
closely analyzing and repairing topo line connections with TopoShaper
I also found that it's okay to grade the edges of the mesh with the artisan brush as long as you hold shift to lock the vertex adjustments vertically, so that you don't mess up the mesh boundary.Awesome plugin, thank you so much!
-
Hi TIG
I purchased the license for CutNFill for $20 but I only have Sketchup Pro 2015 and and Sketchup Make 2017.
Can I get a legacy copy that will run on SKP 2015 Pro?
Cheers
John -
I've PMd you about legacy versions...
-
Hello,
I am trying to work on the cut and fill tool but it shows fill not solid?
All the group are identify solid then.
How to solve this?
-
Hi TIG,
I used the cut and fill tool and also use the solid inspector to make sure it is solid but it still shows fill not solid? How to solve this issue?
-
To do any cut and fill operation - either with this tool or manually using the solid tools - the two solids which are to be used can be contrived in such a manner that when one is subtracted from the other the resultant form fails to be a solid.
To be a solid an object needs to have only faces and edges, and every edge must have exactly two faces - no more no less.
SketchUp has a tolerance of 1/1000" built-in and unchangeable.
If two points are within that tolerance SketchUp assumes they are coincident and merges them.
This can result in the tiny edge that they defined not being made, and as a consequence the related face is not supported either. With that face missing the form is no longer a solid and reports 0 volume.To avoid this I suggest that you make sure that any proposed and existing surfaces are clearly different in their surface's heights/planes, almost coincident point or facets can lead to tiny edges and the related failures to report a volume other than 0.
Another way involves some scaling and editing of the reported forms' text...
This method involves making a group containing the proposed and existing solid forms.
Scale group that up by say 10 [or more - see below] from a diagonal corner.
Edit that group and run CutNfill on its contents.
Because the once tiny edges created might now be big enough to survive the solid-tools operations, a real volume might be made and reported as text [although it'll be reported as 10x10x10 too big!]
Exit the group-edit mode.
Re-scale the containing group down by 1/10 [0.1].
Explode the containing group unless you want to keep it...
It should keep the two solid forms, even though there are now some tiny edges - such tiny edges can exist but can be created !
Now edit the text part and adjust the reported volumes by the appropriate factor of 1/1000 [0.001]
Entity Info might also be used to give these volumes and avoid calculators.
If the 10 scaling up still fails try scaling up the containing group by 100 etc and 1/1000000 [0.000001] for the text reported volumes... etc... -
I got the same problem: Cut = 0 Fill = 0 Cut not solid, fill not solid. It generates the cut / fill solids, but states they are not solid and 0 volumes.
Have tried scaling it up 1,000 times but still no joy.
In reality this is not practical as you state below:
"make sure that any proposed and existing surfaces are clearly different in their surface's heights/planes,"Most people need to compare two contour terrain models, you can't change the contours just to make the volume plugin work as the design is set...
So for me I have paid $20 and can't get any useful results from it with using contour created terrain mesh solids
cheers
-
If you try to do this manually using the native solid-tools you will get the same result.
If your surfaces are within 1/1000" vertically then SketchUp assumes they are coincident and so edges/faces get omitted and 'solidity' is lost.
So then no proper volume is formed.
So, by any means available you cannot get a volume by subtraction if the two objects are not reasonably different...
Sorry, but it's a simple SketchUp limitation - and it's not this tool's fault... -
I'm doing everything correct but the plugin fails to calculate the two solid groups.
I've attached the model, if anyone can please help.
Advertisement