Hi,
The problem area is 2mm wide, so 1.2mm shell walls would have overlapped. Apparently the shell thickness is locally reduced to 0.8mm. This leaves a space of 0.4 mm which I think could be filled without a problem. However it isn't.
If I move the "hole for top clamp" (see OpenSCAD code below) 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm and 0.3mm to the right, increasing the problem area width to 2.1; 2.2; and 2.3 mm, then the space between the shells does become filled, but with green line, no yellow.
If I move the "hole for top clamp" 0.4mm to the right, increasing the problem area width to 2.4 mm, then a bit of yellow fill-in/top appears.
If I move the "hole for top clamp" 0.1 or 0.2 mm to the left, reducing the problem area width to 1.9 and 1.8 mm, there is again no fill between the shell walls and no top layer.
The width of the skinny area you saw is 1 mm and there the shell wall is further reduced to 0.4 mm, leaving a space of only 0.2 mm. But in this tiny space fill-in and a top layer are present! With a width of the problem area 1.8 mm we have a space of the same 0.2 mm, but in that case no fill-in and top layer...
It looks like local reduction of shell thickness and filling/top layer are inconsistently handled and I wonder if this can be qualified as a bug.
Below is the OpenSCAD code I used to make this part.
difference(){
union (){
// base
translate([0,-12,0]) cube ([17,32,3]);
// support
translate([0,-12,0]) cube ([17,5,5.6]);
// pole
translate([0,0,0]) difference() {
translate([0,0,0]) cube ([13,8,7.2]);
//hole for top clamp
translate([2,1.5,2.9]) cube ([8,5,8]);
}
// side guide
translate([12,-12,0]) cube ([5,5,10]);
translate([12,-12,0]) cube ([5,18,7.2]);
// top clamp
translate([-20,-2,0]) cube ([12,10,3]);
translate([-17.9,1,0]) cube ([7.8,4.8,7.2]);
}
// recess for pcb break bridges
translate([5,-3.5,3]) cube ([4,4,10]);
translate([8.5,-8,5.6]) cube ([4,5,10]);
// screw hole 5mm
translate([10,16.5,-1]) cylinder (h=11.5,r=2.5,$fn=100);
}
Best regards,
Simon