Internal Bridge Infill Selective Perimeter

[second-pair]

Feature Request: Internal Bridge Infill Selective Perimeter

Version: SuperSlicer 2.3.57.12 internal-bridge-infill-mre.zip

Background Info

Internal Bridge Infill often prints onto thin air, as mentioned in Issue #1185. A number of solutions were proposed:

1. Using Supporting Dense Layer is undesirable, as this uses substantially more filament, where a single perimeter line to anchor the Internal Bridge Infill to would suffice. In my mind, this setting has its own place, where this layer needs to be printed with a high quality.
2. Setting infill_anchor_max and __infill_anchor__ to high values (such as 10000) doesn't solve this, as the Internal Bridge Infill is often printed before the Internal Infill's perimeter. This would typically use more filament than Solution 1 anyway, unless I were to painstakingly apply this to only the relevant layers.
3. This would use much more filament than Solution 1 and wouldn't completely solve the issue if using __fill_pattern__ == Gyroid.

Demonstration

The attached project is, I believe, the Minimum Reproducible Example for this behaviour and will consistently demonstrate this behaviour:

3D View

Bridge Infill

Large 'infill_anchor'

Infill Perimeter Printed Second

The Solution I'd Like

I would like to request a setting to selectively print perimeter lines for the Internal Bridge Infill to anchor to. I believe this would solve my issue while requiring the minimal amount of filament to do so. It would make sense to me for such lines to extend beyond the edge of any Internal Bridge Infill, to ensure it is itself supported correctly - I've tried to demonstrate this in this Paint mock-up:

Solution Mock-Up

Thanks!

[supermerill]

The solution mock-up is already here, as this is the rectilinear-with-perimeter infill pattern (used for supporting dense infill). But currently, bridge infill is forced to use the rectilinear.

I can add an option to change the pattern of the internal bridge infill pattern to rectiWithPeri. Is it enough?

[second-pair]

Yes, I think that would be perfect!

On 28 Apr 2022, at 13:21, Merill @.***> wrote:

 The solution mock-up is already here, as this is the rectilinear-with-perimeter infill pattern (used for supporting dense infill). But currently, bridge infill is forced to use the rectilinear.

I can add an option to change the pattern of the internal bridge infill pattern to rectiWithPeri. Is it enough?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.