Simplify3D User Forum

I've seen a couple other posts on here about this same issue, but nobody has really explained what it is or how to prevent it. I never used to see this in my slices, now it's on all of them. It jacks up my print time fairly significantly, and is also just unnecessary. Is this something that S3D added in an update or is this a setting that can be turned off?

It'd be great to get a real answer to this, as I know I'm not the only person experiencing it. You can see a recent model sliced in the image below, with two outer perimeters as expected and then the weird infill along part of the perimeter.

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. That will help diagnose what it is.

Without seeing exactly what your shape is and what the feature types are , I can only hazard a guess......and that is S3D is maintaining a number of solid top (or bottom) layers on a sloped surface by using infill.

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.

It says it's a Solid Layer. Which is interesting considering the other reply:

...and that is S3D is maintaining a number of solid top (or bottom) layers on a sloped surface by using infill.

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?

Just for fun, I increased it to three perimeters, and that didn't make a difference at all.

If I set top and bottom solid layers to 1, then it almost entirely disappears except for very tight curved areas, and also two or three layers from the very top.

It might be adding that material to give the infill something to attach to. I see this frequently on other models before the infill goes in

Radruss….what version of S3D are you using?

I'm using 4.1.2.

That'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.

dkightley wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:48 pm That'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.

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?

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?

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.

I personally never had any complaints before this feature was introduced, but I also don't think I would have needed it too often. I do appreciate you responding to the thread!