burtoogle

Hi @Babaganoosh, can you please attach the project file for your example?

You will need to set combing mode to "no skin" and also set max comb distance with no retract to a value > 0, typically 10 or 20.

Generally, I think the bridge skin lines need to be orientated parallel to the unsupported edge. Of course, the strategy is difficult to achieve if the skin area has multiple unsupported edges in different directions.

Hello @CalebPetersenPhD, this feature has been programmed but hasn't yet made it into Cura (see https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/pull/4561).

Hello @phaedrux, you have rather overloaded me with feedback there, I'll try to answer your questions. It is simply a multiplier that is based on whatever the flow would otherwise be. So 100% simply means use the flow that is normal for the walls/skin (as defined elsewhere) and any other percentage just scales the flow as expected. It probably should have it's own fan speed override. I now consider overhangs and bridges as separate problems with separate solutions. Reducing the skin removal width fixes this. As you have observed yourself, one of the problems here is that you have set top skins to 2 which tends to break up skin regions into segments (some of the skin has other skin on top and some doesn't) so you are getting narrow skin regions that will not print very well. Personally, I think Cura's top skin feature causes more problems than it solves so I rarely use it. Also, you have set the bridge skin support threshold very high which will make more skin areas be printed using bridging that you probably need. Reducing that value does appear to simplify the print. I guess it could but that would then cause slowdown for all small areas of skin which is not ideal. Personally, I think it would be better in this case to make a small change to the model. Just add a two layer thick, 1mm wide brace at the 12 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions to tie the top of the thin feature to the walls near to it. Or maybe just one at 3 o'clock would be sufficient. I don't think they would stop the hinge operating and would hardly be noticeable. They could be cut out afterwards easily enough I should think.

Hello @Babaganoosh, here's an object I have used for testing the bridging. To ensure that the skin areas are aligned in the radial direction, they must not meet in the centre so that each skin area remains separate. Obviously, you can't do the same trick with the object you show above. Note that this is a very old image, the skin in the centre doesn't look right but the other skin areas look OK.

To completely avoid those lines you need to: 1 - set combing mode to no skin 2 - use z-hop Also, setting the max comb distance with no retract will help reduce oozing while combing.

Hi @phaedrux, I have a new Cura build that adds a bridge setting called Bridge Sparse Infill Max Density. When infill has a density less or equal to that, the first skin layer above it will be considered to be unsupported as far as bridging is concerned. Hope this does what you want. Even if multiple bridge skin layers are enabled, only the layer immediately above the infill is affected. I didn't think it would need the layers above to be given the bridge treatment. If you think otherwise, they could be included too.

Hello All, the problem of the support brim being printed before the other skirt/brim has now been fixed and 4.1 should behave as expected.

Hello @Babaganoosh, thanks for the comment. Yes, my Cura, Uranium and CuraEngine forks have mb-master branches which are the latest "released" branches. My builds are always from those branches. Personally, I have always achieved better results with a reduced skin density for the first bridge layer, having the lines too close together always caused them to get tangled. Can you achieve a greater flow rate by reducing the speed proportionately so that the extruder rate doesn't increase? Anyway, I will see if it possible for the bridge skin density to be > 100%.

Yes, that's a shame. The ancient Mac Book I have can build Cura but the releases always crash now. I don't have any other use for the Mac Book so it's not worth me buying a replacement. Mind you, all of my changes are on github so there's nothing stopping anyone else building releases for OS X.

Yes, bridging settings are not used for skins over infill or support. I can investigate adding a threshold for the infill density so that when the infill density is lower than the threshold, the skins are printed using the bridge settings. Thanks for the idea.

OK, good luck!

Hi @phaedrux, I have added A & J settings for bridge walls and skin. Linux build now on Dropbox, Windows build uploading and will be available soon. Please let me know if this works OK for you.

Hello @kRz, I can think of two solutions to your question: 1 - use infill meshes to "beef up" the infill in the critical areas. You can use whatever pattern or density you wish within the infill meshes. I think infill meshes are really good for modifying the infill in specific regions. I use them for reinforcing areas where fasteners pass through the print. 2 - install my latest Cura release (sorry, Linux and Windows only) and that now automatically adds infill walls below the edges of skin as briefly described in https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/pull/5595 You can find my releases at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0

It is straightforward to add accel and jerk settings for bridge walls and skins. Do you really need separate A & J settings for the upper bridge skins or will one pair of A & J values be good for all of the bridge skins? I don't mind adding those settings and if you use my releases they could be available soon but the Cura devs seem to have pretty much given up processing contributions so I can't say when (or even if) the new settings would be available in an Ultimaker release.

I reduced the size of the photo (was less than 3M so I don't know what the problem was), it shows the bottom of the cube, you can see a very slight bump where the bottom skin layers are but nowhere near as bad as you show above. This was the worst side, the other sides were better.

Hello @V3DPrinting, I printed the bottom of the E model using Tough PLA with a CC 0.6mm nozzle on an S5 and it doesn't show any signs of bulging at the bottom. I am now printing the bottom of the cube and see how that comes out... The bottom of the cube is a little wider than the layers above, the difference is about 0.1mm but it's quite hard to detect by eye. Nothing like your example above. I wonder whether the problem is that your extruder is not calibrated correctly? I have tried to upload a photo here but the forum keeps giving an error on the upload.

No, what would you like to see changed?

Yes, set the infill line distance explicitly rather than letting it be set automatically from the density.

The Mach3 g-code flavour uses A but I don't know if it is otherwise compatible with your printer.

Hello @carlosgalvezp, yes, it's a plugin and you can install it from the Cura marketplace dialog.

Isn't that one of the reasons that we print a skirt or brim ? Also, even if the retract didn't happen, your nozzle is going to dribble some filament out so it's always going to be a bit empty.

Oops, silly me, you're right. Sorry.

It's there right now...