But based on my example, the "should" would have been better. Shorter span distance=better, right ?
Maybe its best for ABS ? But PLA sagging allot.
But based on my example, the "should" would have been better. Shorter span distance=better, right ?
Maybe its best for ABS ? But PLA sagging allot.
You're example is incomplete, where are the "supported" areas, and where are the unsupported areas? Kinda bit of important information that is only in your head and not in the picture.
https://www.youmagine.com/designs/dual-extrusion-mounting-aid
If this object is printed as it is pictured, then my example picture would give you good idea of a bridge am having problem with. You have 4 bridges there if the model is printed as its pictured.
Once cura makes up the perimeter at the top of any of those holes, then it would start filling it in at a strange angle instead of going 90degrees for shorter [wall to wall] distance.
I still think that when you have a rectangular bridge, you gotta go 90degrees from wall to wall that are closest to each other, but in this new version its the other way around.
Recommended Posts
Daid 306
"some version back" is a bit unspecific.
I did change the bridge detection algorithm a bit to be less broken (as bridge detection is a complex problem). But that was more then 6 months ago... so a few releases back...
The idea is to span bridges by printing in the direction of the bridge. This works great, as it's pretty much the only way you can print in the air.
Link to post
Share on other sites