Ksanto

If you mean together with normal support, I would not know how (could not find an instance where anybody got it working) but you could modify a support blocker to only add support on a small area with tree support enabled.

Now you get silly, I simply wanted to communicate how irrational your statement can seam. In gemany, when a comparison is bad, we say it is limping (The comparison is misleading). Once I saw someone in a Forum with this in his signature: Not everything that limps is a comparison. I give you that this was not very precise, what I meant was "A bridge sitting on something below is called road. So directly below, not far below. A bridge in the technical senses (3D printing is very technical, is it?) is known for not touching the thing it is bridging over (expect the occasional leg/piller) A bridge is not "on" a lake, it is over the lake. The bridge is not touching the rails, that would be a disaster. now you mixing things up, that is not a comparison anymore That are both not Bridges in the technical sense. I was telling you all the time that wenn this is this what the developers decided to do I can work with it. I only wanted a confirmation because it seem very irrational compared to the definition of a bridges by Ultimaker by my understanding of it. It seems you assume that it is working as intended because it is making something the can be interpreted as bridges. Thats a circular argument. Im right, because Im right. "far too simple" ther is an explanaiton/evidence for your assumption/statement! This is something I would trust you to judge better. One could have a conversation on this basis. Bye

Thank you for the additonal Information. When I sad that I "did never see any difference in flow" I meant in Curas Flow Color Scheme. I do not have the Matrix sighte/eye/vision as you have. (A Yellow, A Brown and a Red Benchy) 😄 Suddenly it works, so as Slashee_the_Cow said : I think I expect to see the change from the sides, but did not realise the the walls surrounding the rise bottom layer still not belonging to them and keep there values and so also there color indipendently. Regards Ksanto

I really would like to agree with you, but you still do not understand my point and your second replay while I'm writing this lines is the biggest evidence for this. You simply do not get it, and this is a problem with the you you. The Personal you. I do not need an analysis of the Statu Quo, I need evidence the this behavior will persist for the long term. As I already stated before: So, yes, this possibility was there all along, and yes, I did already consider something like that. But that is and never was the Point of the Question. I did repeat myself many times in many ways during our ongoing conversation, but this is the clearest example of it. This is informative, thank you, but it doesn't matter in the context of the question. That you do not understand nor value the secont halfe of the statmen is a core problem with us. Even if it is lacking *two small* words I did miss due to fatigue, repeating myself like a broken record, over and over again: yes I do, I did state specifically "... fits the definition of shortest path over unsupported area best". In my understanding of the defineiton of bridges, the "...the infill breaking up the large horizontal area" shuld never be toched in this manner by bridges as they never bridge any bridging area. To make it clear, again, yes, the algorythem ist filling the whole area uniformly, but this does not mean that this is making fully sense, nor that shis is intenden as is. But I also not in a position to demand change, I will happily adapt if it is confirmed to be as intended. A bridge with something below is called road. Yes, I only know of one bridging pattern (at the moment). Yes that's the status quo, and I could deal with that, if I can relay on it not changing in the long terme. If it is not a problem with reading/writing comprehension (from your side/my side) I think what we have her is a "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail" Situation. Your analytical way of problem solving does not allow you to say that you can not help in this situation but you also can also not refrain from trying. That seems to be what fueled my initial perception of you as a Fanatic in the first place. Regards Ksanto

But surely while having roughly the same proportions. Having a long bridging edge where support is needed otherwise while having two smaller areas divided by infill. But it was never the point to validate the behavior in special but in general, if the bridges are intended to extend (in whatever case) over the whole layer in this manner. Nether you nor I can tell, because we are not involved in the development. The examples in the "Introducing The Experimental Bridging Settings" thread suggest something different. You have a point in me not communicating the Material preset, but it does merely change the general temperatures. Only people who getting cocky while missing the point. I Specifically made clean through my writing style with the slashed "wrong" and the following correction to "not right" (totally different statements in this case) that there can be different viewpoints on the same topic and that I accept your point of view. Hence your point of view is that this could be a isolated case, but my viewpoint is that it seems strange this is even intended in general. That's why I made clear before I listed the points that the following would be pointless. I appreciate your efforts, but you should focus your energy to other things then shooting around the target. It did not. Maybe I missed the point because I'm not a native english speaker, but your text came across as an accusation followed by an lecture after the cocky and point missing "Need I go on?". Never did I expect to see this sentence out of my perspective, but yours. It just seems like you're obsessively trying to defend/explain decisions/processes that I had not questioned at all at this point. An overreaction that is usually attributed to fanboys. The algorithm is obviously working like this now/at the moment, but is this behavior intended? But in the given context I will refrain to use the term Fanboy/girl and use the more neutral term Fanatic (not in the context of being a fan to sth/sb anymore but in the general therm as fan comes from fanatic), if at all. After all, I'm kind of a fanatic myself in that I want to make it clear to you that you are fighting a battle that has no enemy. Furthermore I apologize for my assumption that you were a bubble-filtering snowflake. That was based on the assumption that you were also a Fanboy/girl in combination with the misunderstanding of the quotet sentence. No I expect nothing from you, beside maybe refer me to examples or statements that were given/made anywhere else and to accept that you can not do anything in this case as you personally cannot answer the question if this behavior is intended. Everything you have achieved is to lay out why it is bridging like it is, but not if this is intended. As I have already stated, I did not questioning how it is doing what it does in the first place. Only did I react to your assumptions/statements and gave my own assumptions. If this is how it's intended to work in the long term I can work with that but I would be mad if I adapt to it and in the next version it is working totally different. This was not a criticism, I only wanted to clarify that I adopt your wording as a common language within this thread. But Bridges are not Skin and Cura it is capable of for example printing Infill right next to Skin. As established just a suggesting assumption opposing your Statement. It does not help me to understand why it does this more than understanding what it does if I can not assume that it is intended what it is doing. What would help me is to know that this is intended although it seems irrational to ME. But (a) is still shorter than (b) and following along (a) fits the definition of shortest path over unsupported area best. Still just a suggesting assumption opposing your Statement. yada yada yada This area was never up for debate. It is in any way the shortest path (b) over the unsupported area. yada yada yada Even while I think that you are correctly presented its superficial workings this does not preempt any possible that this is not a unintended outcome. Your attempts at explanations honor you, but unfortunately they don't help me to decide whether I put up with it or whether I get more worked up over it (it's escalated quite a bit now) than here / what was originally planned. That was my way of trying to tell you that it could be quite offending in it selfe to call the bridging algorithm stupid. You have to read and Understand (quote! to) the sentence together with the sentences that where following to keep/understand its meaning.Im some kind of a developer myself, more on the mechanic/electric side but you need some code to wake the ghost in the machine. So I would be offended by someone labeling my algorithm stupid (beside myself) if is does what it is intended to do. I do not know how to make myself more clear about my intentions/asking. Regards Ksanto

Will look into that tomorrow, I did never see any difference in flow over support when bumping up the flow only for bottom layers. Thank you for confirmation. Regards Ksanto

I would like to chime in on this, for ages I've been looking for a way or explanation why Cura doesn't interpret the layers above the support / support interface (after the z gap) as bottom layers, since I like to set the flow on the layer(s) directly (after the z gap) over the support/support interface. Regards Ksanto

Hi Justin, as I don't have an ultimaker nor an other printer with core xy, my experience are not directly applicable, but what I would suggest, under the assumption you prefer quality over reliability (likelihood of failing the print), I would suggest to print it with the blade up. As I stated, I have no experience with standard Ultimaker Profiles, but I have my profile tuned in enough that I would trust it to hold the hilt till the support graps the cross-guard. From there on it should be stable enough and the potential ugly area would be minimised to the tip of the pommel and the underside/hand side of the cross-guard. Alternatively, it would be more reliable to print parts like this lying flat or raised and or diagonally if they are to long to fit the build plate in XY direction. With good support there should be an acceptable loss of quality to only one side of the part. PS: Cura warned me that the part has errors in its structure, if Cura is not able to fix them sufficiently this could be the bigger problem. Regards Ksanto

Not that it does have any meaning, as it was and is a general question of it being working as intended: NO unknown Variables: I specified the version and so the question was specifically about 5.4.0 the question was generally on the intention of the behavior, I do want to print other things, not only this model for the rest of my life I did state the type of my printer (Anycubic i3 Mega) I did state that I choose the standard normal profile for my printer and have bumped up the Bridge Skin Support Threshold to 95% see above no, you should consider being wrong not right I cant wait but I never said it was a bug or anything "wrong with 5.4.". If I had done this, I would have said so. However, I deliberately asked if it behaved as intended before filing a bug report, before claiming that it was a bug. From this point on, I consider you a Fanboy. Block me if you want, my special snowfalke. Isn't this the purpose of bridges. Bridging between layers/areas over thin air? aka unsupported? fair enough, technically I agree. but I found that the contrast between lines and air did not come out very good with yellow to grey and the distinction between line types was preserved. So far I would agree. exactly this is my problem Again: no support=bridging=works as intended. However: The shortest route between two best supported areas would still be all "vertically" as you phrase it later. Very informative, even if I do not understand what it has to do with support (are we still talking about bridges? - see definition above) nor what matching the skin means. Why would there not be a valid path from one side to the other when the "rectangular areas" between the infill and the wall would be filled first? Then there wouldn't be a valid path of the second bridging area also? What are your sources? I of course would expect it to make them all the same direction and would say it would be nonsense if it tried to attach vertical bridges to horizontal bridges. So fare, now for the all vertical lines solution: That would be the expected outcome under the given circumstances. What with the nonsense about the Support? See definition of bridging, it should not have any difference if there is something ot nothing underneath. What are your sources? Works as expected, still don't understand why supported area should have any influence. What are your sources? Changing Top/Bottom Line Directions is reported to do nothing in threads back as far as 2018. Beside I do like my Top/Bottom Line Directions for the other layers as is. The wall in vertical direction are also adjacent/parallel! One correction: the bridging is only as stupid as it's developer. 😉 In other words, I do not judge, this is the reason I phraised my question as is. I'm not in the position to criticise decision regarding code/development. Everything for nothing as nothing of this answers my core question: This question only can be or could have been direcly answered by somebody whith autorety by Ultimaker (Adminestrator for example) or somebody involved with development. My expectation was finding help at finding the answers somewhere by an official source or get answered by an official source. We only achieved to debate whether it is/would be better one way or the other. Nevertheless, thank you for your efforts. So why did I even bother to reply to you anymore? Well, You certainly made an effort and I even learned one thing or another (perspectives). But boy, you should find another enemy for yourself and accept the you can sometimes not fulfill every demand in the relative position you find yourself in. Sleep well Ksanto

It is indeed simple yes or no answer with no variables. But not for us both. Etherther developers intendet it to be the hole layer or not. But only they can tell. A third option for people not involved, like us both, is to say that one did not heard of anyone saying neither one thing nor the other, as I did to my self after failing to find anything regarding this behavior. I did deliberately not provide the project file because I could show that the problem can be recreated with on-board resources. It would be less hassle for you to add the printer and/or use the integrated profile to make sure there it is not a problem with my installation, wich could be translate to the project file, than me going through the process of downloading the installer file (which is a long way around as our company has restricted teh download oft executables) and installing it. But either way, here you have. Regards Ksanto bridging.3mf

Not the parallel installtion is the hassle, but the insall <old version>, not working -> next, insall <old version>, not working -> next ... there is a clear answer, is this intended or not. I'm not some kind of software archaeologist whos mission is to find the last version on which it works as he expected. It could also be the new way it works NOW. Regards Ksanto

Appreciate your efforts. I already tinkered with Mesh fixing resolution because of the protruding line bug. Also consideres to install a older versions but didnt want to go down the rabit hole to install/test multible verions (stopped with the behavior of hoarding old cura versions, somewhere on the way between 3 and 4, because it confuses preprocessing CAD programs alot).

Hey Folks, befor opening a Report on GitHub (Cura 5.4.0) I wanted to ask if anybody can tell me if this is the intended behavior: I try to force Cura to use bridging on a specific Part and have to bump up Bridge Skin Support Threshold to 95% (used the provided Normal Profile for Anycubic i3 Mega for my exampl) so bending of the Part would be easier / more stable. Thing is, the bridging direction is not uniform and I think I alredy understood why, see the picture: Because the bridging is happening inside the top Layer, the shortest distance between two walls is inside the top layers, so the direction follows a sub optimal Path for the intended bridging area. My understanding of bringing always was that bridging would happen only between two outer walls. So, is this the intended behavior? Regards Ksanto

Tested and Seems to be the solution, man I was blind, thanks.

Hi Waldwurm, ich habe den selben Drucker und keine vergleichbaren Probleme. Benutzt du das unmodifiziertze Normal Profiel? Hast du nach dem Teil mit Cura 5.4 nochmal das mit Cura 5.0 (neu gesliced) gedruck (ich gehe davon aus dass zwischen den gezeigten Drucken ein gewisse Zeit vergangen ist)? Grüße Ksanto