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

Possible bridging or bridge detection regression #2636

Closed
Vicious-one opened this Issue Feb 6, 2015 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@Vicious-one
Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 6, 2015

Strange bridge region detection was encountered when trying to bridge the fins:
bridge-detection-fail-fins-120

1.2.0 binary (bridges detected, but regions are too grown):
bridge-detection-fail-120

Current(right bridging region not detected at all, but accidentally the infill is more appropriate):
bridge-detection-fail-127

STL and config:
http://vserv.sinp.msu.ru/temp/bridge-detection-fail.tar.gz

There is also no way to force bridge detection completely off to work around the issue using this particular model, and "detect bridging perimeters" option also has no noticable effect.

Please note that both 1.2.0 and 1.2.7-dev versions are clearly faulty, but in different ways.

May be related to #2618, #2635 and #2646

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicious-one

Vicious-one Feb 16, 2015

Contributor

When trying to avoid the problem by shifting bridges to different layers, I've also noticed that bridge infill pattern angle is not applied to the bridges besides the left (first processed?) one:
bridge-detection-fail-127-3
bridge-detection-fail-127-2

Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 16, 2015

When trying to avoid the problem by shifting bridges to different layers, I've also noticed that bridge infill pattern angle is not applied to the bridges besides the left (first processed?) one:
bridge-detection-fail-127-3
bridge-detection-fail-127-2

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 19, 2015

yunofix

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicious-one

Vicious-one Feb 26, 2015

Contributor

Seems that bridging infill angle is applied only to one of the bridges:
bridge-detection-fail-127-4
bridge-detection-fail-127-5
bridge-detection-fail-127-6
bridge-detection-fail-127-7

Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 26, 2015

Seems that bridging infill angle is applied only to one of the bridges:
bridge-detection-fail-127-4
bridge-detection-fail-127-5
bridge-detection-fail-127-6
bridge-detection-fail-127-7

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicious-one

Vicious-one Feb 26, 2015

Contributor

Processing bridge at layer 46:
Angle -1.000000:
Processing bridge at layer 46:
Angle 1.570795:
Processing bridge at layer 106:
Angle 1.396263:
Processing bridge at layer 106:
Angle -1.000000:

BridgeDetector::detect_angle() sets angle to -1 which results in applying default infill angle for current layer.

A little poking revealed that somehow BridgeDetector constructor support check reports missing bridge support.

Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 26, 2015

Processing bridge at layer 46:
Angle -1.000000:
Processing bridge at layer 46:
Angle 1.570795:
Processing bridge at layer 106:
Angle 1.396263:
Processing bridge at layer 106:
Angle -1.000000:

BridgeDetector::detect_angle() sets angle to -1 which results in applying default infill angle for current layer.

A little poking revealed that somehow BridgeDetector constructor support check reports missing bridge support.

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicious-one

Vicious-one Feb 27, 2015

Contributor

@alexrj -- please revert 379cde3 so everyone can have proper multiple bridges again!

Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 27, 2015

@alexrj -- please revert 379cde3 so everyone can have proper multiple bridges again!

@alexrj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexrj

alexrj Feb 27, 2015

Member

I fixed that regression. Thank you for reporting it :-)

Member

alexrj commented Feb 27, 2015

I fixed that regression. Thank you for reporting it :-)

@alexrj alexrj closed this Feb 27, 2015

@alexrj alexrj added the Fixed label Feb 27, 2015

@alexrj alexrj added this to the 1.2.7 milestone Feb 27, 2015

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicious-one

Vicious-one Feb 27, 2015

Contributor

Thanks, now it seems to be working as before.
One question remains, though: the calculated angle seems strange, doesn't it?
bridge-detection-fail-127-8
bridge-detection-fail-127-9

Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 27, 2015

Thanks, now it seems to be working as before.
One question remains, though: the calculated angle seems strange, doesn't it?
bridge-detection-fail-127-8
bridge-detection-fail-127-9

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicious-one

Vicious-one Feb 28, 2015

Contributor

Okay, having seen the best angle calculation algorithm, the angles do not seem strange anymore, but the fact that they are not symmetric still does.

Never mind though, I'll just play a little with detection method.

Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 28, 2015

Okay, having seen the best angle calculation algorithm, the angles do not seem strange anymore, but the fact that they are not symmetric still does.

Never mind though, I'll just play a little with detection method.

@Vicious-one

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicious-one

Vicious-one Feb 28, 2015

Contributor

I've changed line interval to 1/4 extrusion width and consistently getting more sane results.

(double line_increment = this->extrusion_width/4.0; BridgeDetector.cpp:116)
div4-1
div4-2
div4-3
div4-4
div4-5
div4-6
div4-7
So maybe increasing the "line test" resolution is not a bad idea.

Contributor

Vicious-one commented Feb 28, 2015

I've changed line interval to 1/4 extrusion width and consistently getting more sane results.

(double line_increment = this->extrusion_width/4.0; BridgeDetector.cpp:116)
div4-1
div4-2
div4-3
div4-4
div4-5
div4-6
div4-7
So maybe increasing the "line test" resolution is not a bad idea.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment