Top Layer has not enough overlap over the Infill.

[dkightley]

This factory-file is for me without any issue.

The reported issue IS there....you need to look carefully to see it.

The green solid fill only supports the dark blue outline. It doesn't go under the light blue additional perimeter.

If you increase the perimeters to 4, then the green solid layer will support the dark blue outer perimeter and two of the three additional perimeters....and not all of them as I and others would expect to happen. Also look closely at the images in my last post...you'll see the same thing happening there for the v3 software...and even worse in the pre-v3 software, where only the dark blue perimeter is supported...and none of the additional perimeters.

[JoeJ]

Yes, but the infill also draws an additional outline where it intersects the perimeters. So this seems like the best case scenario, since the walls now create a strong bond with the infill and perimeters below it.

[horst.w]

Issue or not issue,
a really stressed object like this holder to print with only 2 perimeters (0.84 mm) and 3 top- and bottom-layers (0.6 mm) is like wrapping the infill in a newspaper.
Print it with 6 or 8 perimeters and 6 to 8 top- and bottom-layers and all will go well. S3D will do its best.

horst.w, GER

[andre]

You mean this topic?

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1809&p=8831&hilit=boss#p8831

Looks like it was locked.

Regardless, v3.0 didn't fix my issue with bosses on the bottom. In my example, the inside of the boss continues to fill at a 30% infill. I would rather have the first three solid layers (the blue that you see getting applied) fill in the boss' completely for a stronger bond.

When this part prints, I can snap the bosses very easily with my fingers.

[jimc]

that seems right to me. there is no reason it would print bottom layers on the bosses since they are the same part as your model. they have no bottom. if you want it to print those differently then either apply a separate process at a certain layer or slice the bosses in your cad software and make them a separate piece so you can make a specific process just for the bosses. then they will have a bottom and you can set it however you want.

[andre]

The bosses' bottom layer has already been printed (in this example), I understand that. But, there is no reason why a new "bottom layer" couldn't be printed across the entire part once it got to the layer shown in the image. This would provide additional support for the boss. Any other method is additional work to make this idea. I understand I can add more shells, but an option to enable/disable for new "bottom layer" like this would be advantageous.

that seems right to me. there is no reason it would print bottom layers on the bosses since they are the same part as your model. they have no bottom. if you want it to print those differently then either apply a separate process at a certain layer or slice the bosses in your cad software and make them a separate piece so you can make a specific process just for the bosses. then they will have a bottom and you can set it however you want.

[hairykiwi]

This factory-file is for me without any issue.
The center-area, where the cylinder will be build, has no top-layers and that seems normal for me.

The last top-layer:


The first layer builds up the center-cylinder:


Following layers:

If this is a stationary ornament I might be persuaded to agree.

If on the other hand it is designed to rotate and or flex about that central hole, the part strength would almost certainly be improved by continuing the 'last top-layer' further under the subsequent wall. In fact I couldn't be happier if S3D defaulted to making top layers 'all the way to next inner wall feature if it exists' over the current approach.

I also disagree with your later suggestion to use 6 - 8 perimeters to coerce S3D to be more generous with extent of top layer under walls: It's needlessly wasteful of material and time. Except as a means by which to get S3D to provide more 'top layer under wall', 6-8 perimeters has been unnecessary for any 3D printed part I made in the past four years; if ever I needed such solid walls I've needed a solid part.

From the posts I've read there's plenty enough discussion noise and polite requests being made to bring the matter to the attention of S3D dev team. I even made time to initiate a feature request here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3820 ~ 1.5 hours earlier than this thread kicked off, but not one comment there yet ~ I don't care, but I do care for a solution.

To help those searching and cross referencing of this topic by all its possible descriptors and tags, I'll repeat what I asked for in the thread I initiated: Please implement 'Solid Layer Extra Inflation Distance', much as in a related way S3D v3 introduced 'Bridging Extra Inflation Distance'.

[hairykiwi]

OK, here's what I sent to s3d tech support in June this year:

Code: Select all

Hello Joey,

I attach a factory file that illustrates the problem.

The solid layer on top of the "arms" of the part stops immediately
underneath the perimeters of the central boss. I believe it would be
much better if the solid layers extended beyond the perimeters well
into the central area. Indeed, if the raised item isn't actually very
big then the solid layers should go all the way across. As it is, the
part is very weak because when it is flexed, the solid layer breaks
away from the perimeter of the raised boss.

What you are doing at the moment is:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx||
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx||
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx||
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It should be like this:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx||
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx||
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx||
xxxxx---------------------------
xxxxx---------------------------
xxxxx---------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Where x = infill, - = solid layer and | = perimeter.

The solid layers should extend far enough into the infill
region so that they cross at least one infill filament before
finishing. That gives the solid layer filament a chance to "grip" on
something rather than just stopping in mid air (in the gaps between the
infill filaments) like it does at the moment. Paradoxically, using
larger infill diameter (say 200%) makes the problem worse because the
gaps in the infill get larger. The solid layers should take that into
account and reach the far side of the infill "diamond" before stopping.

If you don't think that everyone would like that, why not add a
parameter that specifies how far solid layers should project into
infilled regions? Then we can tweak it to our satisfaction.

A related area which I think S3D gets wrong is that it puts infill
below small raised features like this:

               --
               --
---------------xx-------------
---------------xx-------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Doing this means that the top layers are segmented and that produces
visible smears and changes in texture which detract from the look of
the part. I believe it would be far better if it simply did this for
small raised features:

               --
               --
------------------------------
------------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That way, the solid layers can be printed in larger pieces (obviously
depending on what other features are present) and the visual quality of
the part is improved.

Attached are the s3d factory file and an image of what slic3r does.

Joey said:

Thank you for sending that in, I will discuss this with our development team.

I completely agree with smartavionics on both the issues raised in his email to S3D tech support - and his proposed solution.

[hairykiwi]

This issue did have some work done on it in v3. Edo, what version are you running?

The issue was that where there was a vertical wall above a top surface, the top surface was stopping short of the next layer, leaving a weak edge. The changes in v3 were to extend the top surface so it underpinned the perimeters of the layer above. I can remember the thread on the subject...but have no idea how old it is and what it was titled, so it'll probably be hard to find.

This topic from May 2015 perhaps?
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2628&start=10#p11727
@JoeJ highlights with a couple of nice images the 'only available solution' that @jimc appears to be describing in the next topic I link to below.

Later, in July 2015, @barsam initiated and @jimc refers to a problem where the only available solution is to increase wall thick thickness to achieve (equivalent) extra inflation under wall, but by doing so must otherwise unnecessarily using extra material in the wall.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2942&p=12427&hilit=extend#p12437

...And there needs to be an error reported that the fix already done doesn't quite work as it ought to.....because the infill falls one perimeter (at least) short.

Agree.

[EdoHamburg]

Any news regarding this bug?