The name of each mesh could be used to create separate solids, each with the name associated to the corresponding mesh “mesh.name”, or at least the option of customizing the standard name could be provided (there is one for the file name, but the solid name is hardcoded).
Do you think this would be an acceptable change/improvement?
Hi, it will not be enough, because this “hardcoded” name is outside the for loop, it is need to be inside. Even if I put it inside and use mesh names, later when I imported the stl file in a different app or program there was only one object Everything was merged on import even if I didn’t see this option
But maybe I did something wrong
Let’s ping @Pryme8, STLExport creator
@MarianG the reason why everything is merged into one solid is that there is only one solid/endsolid group that contains all the information.
To separate in multiple parts, each mesh should be mapped to a
// other stuff here
My question was more along the lines of “will I break anything if I make a change like that” and open a PR?
The exported STL you shared is actually working correctly, with solids split, in paraview and in my application too. I suspect the STL reader of the CAD you used does not consider separate solids from STLs (which would not be the first time for a CAD ).
Paraview shows nine solids, each identified with its own color: