Question Bridging: direction of bridging not optimal, can be changed?

[Dadkitess 19]

Hello there,

 

I realize that with the double nozzle of my Ulti S5 and the use of PVA, I never really cared about bridging, the ability to make suspended surfaces without support, when it is possible, with the benefit of saving time, equipment, and especially less trouble to dissolve this sticky PVA. 

 

I made a small test piece, which is in fact the simplification of an order I received, a guy who has only one nozzle and must therefore make a support in the same material as his piece, and as it is PA6-CF, well... Not easy to remove behind. So bridging seemed to me to be a good idea, as the part would allow it. 

 

Anyway, when I put all this in CURA 5.0, I apply support for a part that can't reasonably be printed without it, then a support ban for the central volume, I slice, and I get this, in order:

 

 

At the 143rd layer, I'm still printing the perimeter, and at the 144th, I have to cover the central pavement. Thanks to the support ban, I get the 3rd image, with less than optimal diagonals. From memory, in this case, Cura estimates by itself that it is a bridge, from one edge to another. As there are bridging parameters in Experimental, I think that this is where the magic happens, I check the box, leave the default parameters and I get the 4th image. You can see the finer lines that show the good taking into account of CURA, but... The same diagonals unfortunately. I didn't find any parameters that could influence this.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, we agree that bridging at the perpendicular of the start and finish edges would be more optimal as a first layer, in order to limit the length... Yeah ? 

 

If so, what can I do to solve this problem?

 

Oh, yes, by the way: I was sure I had already tested it, but I just did it again, if I turn the whole thing to 45°, the lines stay in the same alignment in the absolute and so... they end up making an optimal bridge in less distance, crossing the pavement in its small width! But it's not practical at all, especially if I can't orientate the piece in question because of its volume, other adjacent elements, etc etc.

 

BTW, this behaviour is not homogenous : if I scale down the piece to 50% (I tried coz' I thouht it might trigger something in case my initial 100% piece was actually too big to be considered as Bridge-Friendly), the direction of bridging is the same whatever the rotation I give to the piece. Weird...

 

Thanks in advance for your insights, feel free to ask for any advice related to bridging in general, beyond this issue! 🙂

 

Note : i've been told on the french forum (yeah, sorry if there is too many weird phrasing ^^) that Cura 4.20 used to have the correct behaviour. I can't test it by now as I need admin rights on my professionnal computer : is that right, and will this feature be fixed soon like in the next release ? Maybe 5.1 already fixed it ?

[verma01 0]

Did you get an answer to this problem?

[Dadkitess 19]

Nope, not proper one, except that bridging is not very well handled in CURA so far compared to some other software, IIRC.