I’ve been at it for hours with no success. Tried both dovetail and planar but constantly showing manifold error. The model itself is only a few mm thick and cutting in two to fit the bed totally destroys it. If anyone has an idea about how to do this I would really appreciate the help.
Welcome to the community.
The issue you’re facing is a result in the original model not being a solid body. Once you cut it, the slicer sees an opening or hole in the model that must be stitched up. Although this can be done in CAD if it’s your design or can be repaired using free meshmixer from Autodesk, the slicer has a repair feature. You should have seen it in the bottom right side where it warned you of the open manifold but in case you missed it, you can access it via the right click on the model and select “Fix Model”. This will stitch up any holes.
Have you tried rotating by 45º so it goes from top left to bottom right?
It might just fit.
If you share the file I can cut it for you.
The original model was exported from sketchup as a solid component. Somewhere in the translation its getting corrupted. I assumed BS would have been able to repair but it just wasn’t working out. Is there a command that shows whether the model is solid or not? that would be helpful.
My first thought was to upload the model, but cant seem to figure that out either, forum is only allowing uploads of image files.
Thought about it, but it might be a ton of support no?
File→Save to create the .3mf project file.
In the reply editor, upload with
1 Like
1 Like
Switch panel for print.3mf (61.2 KB)
Unfortunately your original model file has serious issues and cannot be repaired or cut. Best to remodel it in two pieces which fit on the bed.
Just an addendum from studio plus studio should be able to fix manifold errors , uptil recently it still could , you may need to remove the split parts from the cutting tool first
Studio (Windows) can fix the non-manifold edges, but it also closes up the rectangular openings.
Stand the model up on a long edge and it will fit on the plate in one piece.
Tree supports painted manually on the back side will keep it stable during the print.
Switch panel on edge.3mf (426.8 KB)
While fixing the non-manifold edges in the design program, I would also consider another change. If it is acceptable, a small fillet or chamfer inside the long edges and outside the switch openings will eliminate the need for many supports.
2 Likes
@JonRaymond is being too kind. In technical terms, this model is FUBAR from the start.
I understand that we all want to use the tools we are most familiar with but SketchUp is NOT the right tool for 3D printing as you just learned the hard way. It is at best a tool for architects to sell their design concepts to a potential client by offering a visualization of the end product. Sure, there are plenty of YouTube Videos showing how one can use Sketchup for designing furniture and conveniently leaving out the parts that showed how many trial and error attempts it takes just to make a friggen box. Those are the same people who put up videos showing how to make a drill into a table saw. Just because you might be able to do something doesn’t mean you should.
Here is a split copy of your model.
Switch panel for print split.3mf (210.9 KB)
You should head the warnings that the slicer is giving you. This geometry was never solid to begin with.
I was able to split it apart after converting. The yellow arrows point to a split model but as you can see, the Geometry is all fubar.
This is even more obvious when we look at it in wireframe mode. There was never a solid geometry to begin with. Look at all those open triangles.
What’s more, even before I cut it, the model wasn’t solid to begin with.
Garbage In Garbage Out.
If like Sketchup, try out Windows 3D Builder, although not the same as Sketchup it uses the same paradigm. Its free and hopefully you downloaded it before Microsoft removed it from the Windows Store. It does 90% of what sketchup does but for what it does do, it does it correctly.
If you didn’t download it in time. Here is a video that claims to have found an installation workaround. It is a free program.
wow, thats quite an eye opener. I have to say sketchup. has served me well for years, but your certainly right, I’ve used it primarily for architecture. Bad on me that I assumed it would convert to a proper solid for printing.
Anyway, help is much appreciated. I think a redesign is in order and I will. take a stab at some new software.
Well, if you want to go down the right path and are willing to take on new software, I might be able to save you some time and trouble.
Just know that what I’m suggesting is parametric CAD systems which are a very different paradigm from Sketchup and require some different thinking. But as a SketchUp user, you might find familiar footing here. For me, coming from a much outdated understanding of 2D CAD, it required adjustment. Note, I use Sketchup for floor planning so I can appreciate its merits, just not well suited for 3D printing. I have on my system, FreeCAD, Fusion360, SolidWorks but I choose OnShape above all of those. First, it runs inside of the browser and hosted on cloud making your desktop hardware irrelevant. Second, I found it’s approach to be very 3D Printer friendly. Not as smooth as Fusion’s direct print to Orca but it’s a download an STL or STEP and import function.
But don’t take my word for it. View this video from YouTuber Michael at Teach Tech Channel. He’s the high school teach we all wish we had and has a true gift for explaining the complex in everyday terms. Disclaimer: OnShape is an enterprise-class CAD system, however in the free version, all your files are publicly accessible. So the way I hide them is by naming my models with ambiguous terminology, like if I designed a bracket for my table saw I would label it something like: “BRKT_TBL_S”. Even if someone searched the file, they wouldn’t understand the design intent.
This video is his survey of the different CAD choices. Note, he is a 3D enthusiast so his video are decidedly from the community were are in.
If you agree with his advantages and disadvantages and decide to use OnShape, then simply follow his lessons in order. I was up and running by less 3 and never really felt I needed to go past lesson 7 but he’s got a lot of really great tutorials. I still go back to his videos for review.
Here’s a design I did that I intentionally shared. You can view it and copy it into your workspace after you signed up for a free account. This is a keyless chuck adapter.
Keyless Chuck Adapter - OnShape
Here’s the model on Printables. If you find it on MakerWorld, let me know as that is a violation of the rules.
Well Olias thanks for pushing me down a new rabbit hole.
Got going with the Onshape and had some success, although it was much more sophisticated than you lead on too. At least for a guy my age, always stressed about learning a new platform. Anyway much appreciated as I can see the merits of the parametric cad for parts design. BTW printed out my first test piece and came out beautiful.
1 Like
That’s a beautiful piece of CAD work and thanks for circling back and letting us know of your success. 
My apologies if I made the learning curve sound trivial. As you discovered, it is not. However, compared to many other CAD packages it is like the difference between climbing Mt Kilimanjaro vs climbing Mt Everest but neither is an easy climb.
The important thing here is that you now have that skill that will separate you from the mass of folks who simply have to consume what they find on MakerWorld vs being the “Maker” behind the “World”(pun intended). Nobody can take that away from you.
1 Like