Feature request: simple fix for the Gradual infill steps

[dsvilko 0]

The problem with the current implementation:

The "gradual infill steps" option has a lot of potential to save huge amounts of filament and significantly speed up the print but unfortunately, as it's currently implemented, it's basically useless for all but very simple geometries (completely flat roofs). The problem is that the current algorithm is extremely simple and almost always tries to add new (higher density) infill lines in mid air.

 

Proposed solution:

The infill line should always be extended (from the currently computed span) in both directions to the object's inside walls or to the nearest previously printed infill lines. This would insure that it never starts or stops in mid-air, something that is currently basically guaranteed to happen.

 

Result:

Such simple modification would enable printing of large complex shapes that could be almost completely hollow, with next to no plastic or speed loss to infill while still providing extremely solid internal support for any possible roof geometries only in the exact places that it's needed. 

[nallath 1,117]

Well, it might sound simple if you explain it like this, but I don't think it's as simple as you think it is to actually build it.

Anyhow: Feature requests are best done here: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/new/choose

[dsvilko 0]

Unfortunately, it seems that there already was a similar request on github with a reply from developers that as this would only fix some of the infill patterns, it's better to leave it as is and to nothing 😞

This is a very weird argument as it would be enough to have a single functional gradual infill pattern. When using gradual infill steps you are most interested in internal supports and not with using infill to provide structural strength.

Different infill patterns already have different options so I see no reason why not add a additional boolean switch to linear and zig-zag patterns to insure that the printed lines are supported as per the proposed simply algorithm.  

[nallath 1,117]

14 hours ago, dsvilko said:

Unfortunately, it seems that there already was a similar request on github with a reply from developers that as this would only fix some of the infill patterns, it's better to leave it as is and to nothing 😞

This is a very weird argument as it would be enough to have a single functional gradual infill pattern. When using gradual infill steps you are most interested in internal supports and not with using infill to provide structural strength.

Different infill patterns already have different options so I see no reason why not add a additional boolean switch to linear and zig-zag patterns to insure that the printed lines are supported as per the proposed simply algorithm.  

Well, we can be argued with. Just because we feel / felt a certain way, it doesn't mean that we can't be convinced that our opinion should change. So, by all means, discuss why you feel that the previous statements are wrong in the original feature request. We don't have the full truth and we can make mistakes. We want people to discuss these things with us, which is why our issue / feature tracker is public.