Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

arcs won't generate if they're needed in the same area 2 layers in a row. #59

Open
Nathan22211 opened this issue Oct 15, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@Nathan22211
Copy link

Sliced this https://www.printables.com/model/337021-low-poly-kyogre/files with prusa and found that it doesn't generate the arcs as it should
image

@nicolai-wachenschwan
Copy link
Owner

Hey, sorry for the very late answer! Thank you for this test case, will try to implement it :)

@SamuraiNinjaGuy
Copy link

I noticed this as well and had a bit of time tinkering with the script... It seems like when you add the specialCoolingZdist layers that you prevent the process from running correctly on those layers.

I have had difficulty following the code, but a thought did occur to me for how to fix this without (I hope) a massive rewrite.

Right now it looks like it starts searching from the bottom and when it finds a bridge infill, it replaces it with an arc, and then replaces a few layers above it with special cooling layers. This makes subsequent searches for bridge infill of layers that have the special cooling layers fail to work properly (I found a work around to keep the old bridge infill by preventing the special cooling layers from being added, but this method required me to rerun the script multiple times and had significant warping obviously...).

So for my idea, rather than starting at the bottom and searching for bridge infill, why not start at the top? That way when you modify cooling layers for the area over the arcs, you would be modifying layers that already were checked for bridge infill?

The alternative, as I see it, is to store the cooling layer information and resume the normal search recursively from that point onward. merging the changes if they require an additional arc... I don't think that is easier, but I could be wrong.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants