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

Slicing inconsistencies between 1.41.2 and 1.42.0 Alpha #1784

Closed
cosmith71 opened this issue Feb 5, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Slicing inconsistencies between 1.41.2 and 1.42.0 Alpha #1784

cosmith71 opened this issue Feb 5, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@cosmith71
Copy link

cosmith71 commented Feb 5, 2019

Version

1.42.0 Alpha 5 (also present in other 1.42.0 versions)

Operating system type + version

Windows 10 Home

Behavior

This file is sliced differently (and looks worse) by 1.42.0 vs 1.41.2. The file is admittedly challenging, but it used to work fine. Other objects in this design show similar results.

File attached.

Hub_90mm_v1.0.STL.zip
1.41.2

1 41

1.42.0 Alpha 5

1 42

Project File (.3MF) where problem occurs

Hub_90mm_v1.0.3mf.zip

@cosmith71
Copy link
Author

EDIT: This is an older version of the stl than is currently posted. The new version doesn't have these problems, but the slicing difference on the old version is still noteworthy.

@bubnikv
Copy link
Collaborator

bubnikv commented Mar 1, 2019

There was a change introduced into Slic3r 1.42.0 series to fix issues #520 #820 #1029 #1364.
It was found out, that there are many STLs out there with thin cracks, gaps and slits, that the Slic3r 1.41.3 and older closed without asking. In the upcoming Slic3r 1.42.0-alpha5, we reverted to the old behavior with the default closing radius of 0.049mm, while providing a new parameter "slice_closing_radius" to satisfy the needs of #520 #820 #1029 #1364.

Closing.

@bubnikv bubnikv closed this as completed Mar 1, 2019
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