It says it's a Solid Layer. Which is interesting considering the other reply:Can you change the coloring on the preview to the Feature Type and repost the above image to see what type the squiggly line is.
I changed top and bottom solid layers both to 2 (from 3) and it largely did away with the weird infill, but not entirely. Is it considering a layer "solid" based on a thickness? If I have two perimeters on a sloped surface, why would that not be sufficient enough to count as two solid layers?...and that is S3D is maintaining a number of solid top (or bottom) layers on a sloped surface by using infill.
dkightley, if I am not mistaken this seems related to a thread we both commented on recently, viewtopic.php?f=9&t=13796&p=52184#p52168. What changes would you suggest we make to the way this is handled currently? The change we made was in 4.1.0 but resulted in many complaints of top layers being too sparse so the behavior was backed off a bit to ensure top layers filled fully. Are you suggesting this Top Layer behavior is now too aggressive?dkightley wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:48 pmThat's okay. There was a change in the processing of top/bottom layers in v4.0 that didn't quite work right...and it was corrected in v4.1.1
What you seem to have is another slight side-effect of the same set of coding changes...….which I think S3D need to take another look at.
S3DJake/Alex/Chris.....please take note.
I can at least comment on my experience - it does seem too aggressive. The print that led to me creating this post was one of many I had done recently, and I see it happen on models where it seems unnecessary. I checked out that thread you linked, and while I can see its usefulness in situations such as that one, it seems like a less common use case.The change we made was in 4.1.0 but resulted in many complaints of top layers being too sparse so the behavior was backed off a bit to ensure top layers filled fully. Are you suggesting this Top Layer behavior is now too aggressive?