Skip to content
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

Add setting for extra_infill_lines_to_support_skins #19446

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024

Conversation

Hello1024
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This is the config necessary for the fix of #19388

Type of change

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Printer definition file(s)

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested with Ultimaker/CuraEngine#2122

@github-actions github-actions bot added the PR: Community Contribution 👑 Community Contribution PR's label Jul 29, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Clang-Tidy found issue(s) with the introduced code (1/1)

resources/definitions/ultimaker.def.json Show resolved Hide resolved
rburema
rburema previously requested changes Aug 7, 2024
Copy link
Member

@rburema rburema left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi!

Again, thanks for the extensive contribution!

(Please also see my review of the engine part.)

Here, I'd like to disable it entirely for lightning infill. In my tests, it didn't change anything, and this feature doesn't make a lot of sense in that case, since that type of infill is already meant to address these issues on its own.

(I'm less inclined to want to change it for gradual infills steps, as it works, and makes a little more sense.)

For the rest, it seems to work quite nicely! I did run into something I think is at the very least a bit counterintuitive if I multiply the # of infill lines (see the pictures). I don't think this can do much harm, but OTOH, I don't think those lines are needed there.

three_infill_mult_effct

(how it is with this feature off, for comparison):

three_infill_mult_no_effct

)

@rburema rburema dismissed GitHub Actions’s stale review August 7, 2024 12:10

'There's something wrong with that bot.'

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Hello1024 Hello1024 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done. Please take another look

@Hello1024 Hello1024 requested a review from rburema August 8, 2024 18:39
@rburema rburema dismissed their stale review August 13, 2024 13:56

stale review

@HellAholic HellAholic merged commit c09fb02 into Ultimaker:main Aug 19, 2024
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
PR: Community Contribution 👑 Community Contribution PR's
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants