3DPrinting

15782 readers

271 users here now

3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.

The r/functionalprint community is now located at: or [email protected]

There are CAD communities available at: [email protected] or [email protected]

Rules

No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
Do not create links to reddit
If you see an issue please flag it
No guns
No injury gore posts

If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is ![](URL)

Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Bridging direction should be geometry-dependent (lemmy.ca)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Bear with me for a moment, because I'm not sure how to describe this problem without just describing a part I'm trying to print.

I was designing a part today, and it's basically a box; for various reasons I wanted to print it with all the sides flat on the print bed, but have bridges between the sides and the bottom to act as living hinges so it would be easy to fold into shape after it came off the bed. But when I got it into PrusaSlicer, by default, Prusa slices all bridges in a single uniform direction--which on this print meant that two of the bridges were across the shortest distance, and the other two were parallel to the gap they were supposed to span. Which, y'know, is obviously not a good way to try to bridge the gap.

I was able to manually adjust the bridge direction to fix this, but I'm kinda surprised that the slicer doesn't automatically choose paths for bridging gaps to try to make them as printable as possible. I don't remember having this issue in the past, but I haven't designed with bridges in quite a while--it's possible that I've just never noticed before, or it could be that a previous slicer (I used to use Cura) or previous version of PrusaSlicer did this differently.

Is there a term for this? Are there slicers that do a better job of it? Is there an open feature request about this?

Basically just wondering if anyone has insight into this, or any suggestions for reading on the subject.

Thanks!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting, it took me a while looking at your images to figure out why the original design didn’t work. The problem was that there was no solution that could avoid at least one extremely long bridge, and that bridge also forced the adjacent bridges to be “wrong” (though maybe if it printed the super long bridges first, it could’ve made the rest short).

I don’t have much to add besides being surprised the problem was more interesting than it first seemed…and I don’t accept that you were being an idiot because it want immediately obvious to me either. Or I am one too :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

The "idiot" part comes in where I encountered this problem, and didn't even stop to consider whether this might be specific to this model, or even try something as basic as turn the model on the print bed, which wouldn't have fixed the slicing, but would have told me my assumption about how the "bridging angle" setting worked was wrong. Instead, I leapt straight from "huh, this model sliced in a weird way" to "this basic slicer feature is designed in a bizarrely poor way and I'm the first one to ever notice," and posted about it on social media.

So I appreciate the sentiment, and I'll leave the post up as it I agree it's a mildly interesting and counterintuitive result, but I still maintain I acted kinda dumb. :)