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

Infill is not generated when "Ensure vertical shell thickness" is on #14

Closed
flannelhead opened this issue Nov 4, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

Comments

@flannelhead
Copy link
Contributor

Version

Version of Slic3r used goes here
git master @ 3fc57ba

Operating system type + version

What OS are you using, and state any version #s
Arch Linux

Behavior

  • Describe the problem
    Infill is not generated when the "Ensure vertical shell thickness" option is on.
  • Steps needed to reproduce the problem
  1. Load STL
  2. Select "Ensure vertical shell thickness"
  3. Select infill <100 %
  • Expected Results
    Infill is expected to be seen in preview.
  • Actual Results
    Infill is not seen in preview.

The infill appears again after unchecking "Ensure vertical shell thickness" and changing infill density to trigger regeneration of infill.

Reverting 61d82b0 fixes the issue.

STL/Config (.ZIP) where problem occurs

Upload a zipped copy of an STL and your config (File -> Export Config)
config.zip
STL: http://www.thingiverse.com/download:648838

@bubnikv
Copy link
Collaborator

bubnikv commented Nov 4, 2016

Sorry, I cannot reproduce the problem with g3fc57ba, built from scratch on a build server for win64.
Maybe you need to do a fresh rebuild? Or is the problem specific to some sequence of steps? Would you please provide screenshots?

@bubnikv
Copy link
Collaborator

bubnikv commented Nov 4, 2016

By the way, ensure vertical wall thickness is a competing feature to the extra perimeters when needed. I think of the two as exclusive or.

@flannelhead
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bubnikv Good to know that, thanks.

I also built the mentioned revision on Windows 64 from scratch. There I couldn't reproduce the issue no matter how hard I tried..

On Linux I also built from scratch and even created an entirely new profile. Still I could reliably reproduce the issue.

Here's one screenshot that might be of interest. It seems the solid infill between the perimeter and sparse infill is generated.
2016-11-04-162336_1366x768_scrot

@bubnikv
Copy link
Collaborator

bubnikv commented Nov 4, 2016

Thanks, I will try with Linux then.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Sakari Kapanen [email protected]
wrote:

@bubnikv https://github.com/bubnikv Good to know that, thanks.

I also built the mentioned revision on Windows 64 from scratch. There I
couldn't reproduce the issue no matter how hard I tried..

On Linux I also built from scratch and even created an entirely new
profile. Still I could reliably reproduce the issue.

Here's one screenshot that might be of interest. It seems the solid infill
between the perimeter and sparse infill is generated.
[image: 2016-11-04-162336_1366x768_scrot]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/5001906/20008990/5cd3ac38-a2ab-11e6-8bb5-b8c000e2830a.png


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#14 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFj5I5cjLxlG4OI5RfGNo5f_Yf0DAYRqks5q60CNgaJpZM4KpSU-
.

@flannelhead
Copy link
Contributor Author

Still testing further. It appears that compiling with C++98 standard enabled (env CFLAGS='-std=c++98' perl Build.PL) the issue doesn't exist. So it might be something related to the CPPVER >= 11 code.

@flannelhead
Copy link
Contributor Author

flannelhead commented Nov 4, 2016

Ok, the traces seem to lead to this method. Disabling it seems to resolve the issue.

@bubnikv
Copy link
Collaborator

bubnikv commented Nov 4, 2016

Thanks a lot! Thinking about it, this construct does not make sense and the compiler has no way to know about the ownership of the pointers stored in the array. The correct solution is simply to delete this function. Thanks again.

bubnikv added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 4, 2016
A to_polygons(SurfacePtrs &&) method does not make sense as
the ownership of the Surfaces stored in the pointer array is not known.
Thanks to @flannelhead for precisely pinpointing this issue.
@bubnikv
Copy link
Collaborator

bubnikv commented Nov 4, 2016

Fixed, thanks to @flannelhead
89cf290

@bubnikv bubnikv closed this as completed Nov 4, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants