Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:45 pm

Re: Dense Infill to support Top Solid Layers

Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:51 am

wirlybird wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:44 am

Now, if the feature for a dense layer adds items such as-
path direction/angle so you could set a unique angle and not just default to the solid infill angle.
Extrusion width
bounding perimeter(s)
expand past default size like in bridging.

Things like this might make it an actual functional feature rather than just another way to do what can already be done easily.

Some thoughts.
Great ideas being added! I love it. I'll be adding these to my documentation of this feature request for our development team to review.

Thanks everyone!
"A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song."

Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:15 pm

Re: Dense Infill to support Top Solid Layers

Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:28 am

Silly question, but why can't you model a hollow cavity under the problem area? Eg. see my attachment below, in Fig. 20 I added a hollow slot inside the solid model I was printing, forcing support material where I needed it to be in an otherwise empty/low-fill portion of the print.

You can use variable settings wizard already to ramp up the density for the few layers preceding a large top floor; but if the feature is only a small portion of the model, that might be wasteful.. would it be more wasteful then what I did?? Debatable! :P

Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:12 pm

Re: Dense Infill to support Top Solid Layers

Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:21 pm

So far it was all just words, and I wanted to demonstrate this, so I ran a test. Test consisted of a 50x50mm cube printed 5mm tall. I printed it with two perimeters. I duplicated it, and set up different processes so I could test two of these cubes side by side during the same print.

All layers were .2mm high.

Test 1:
one cube printed with 10% infill, 4 top layers
one cube printed with 10% infill, 3 layers of 30% infill, 4 top layers

Test 2:
Same as above but 5 top layers for both cubes

Test 3:
Same as above but 6 top layers for both cubes

Looking closely at the test cubes, I'd estimate that the ones where I added three 30% infill layers before the top were about two full top layers ahead of the cubes where I just printed top layers over 10% infill as far as establishing a good, solid top layer with little to no trace of underlying infill. Had I gone with a 40% infill for three layers instead of 30%, it would have been more dramatic a difference. I may run another test and just print the same cube with three layers of 40% over the 10% main infill and four top layers just to see how it comes out. Due to lighting and using a cell phone to take these photos, the effect can be somewhat exaggerated in the photo, but even at four top layers, the cube with the 30% infill before the top has the underlying infill texture very visibly yet in terms of the actual surface texture, it's very faint differences in the surface, whereas the cube where the four tops printed over 10% infill the centers of those cubes where the infill is are far more undulating and bigger actual surface differences.

This was all done in PLA. If I'd used PETG the differences would have been far more dramatic, since bridging of the top layers over the infill would have taken an extra two or three layers to firm up.


Return to “Feature Requests”