Bridging Angle=0 (Automatic) doesn't bridge properly with narrow bridge by long dimension
I have a short bridging length (about 5mm) that is about 200mm wide.
When I slice with 'Bridging Angle=0' (i.e. Automatic), the fill is perpendicular to the bridge -- i.e., it doesn't bridge at all.
To get the bridging to work as expected, I need to *Manually* set the angle to 90 degrees.
Here are some pics:
1. Layer before bridging
2. 1st Bridge Layer (Angle = 0)
3. 1st Bridge Layer (Angle = 90)
So, why isn't the bridge detected and filled automatically???
RE:
There are many open issues relating to bridging angle choice on the PS github.
For example
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/10533
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/10286
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/10086
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/243
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/8770
There are more. It is detected automatically and filled, its just not choosing a direction that makes sense to you (or possibly anyone with a brain). It seems no matter what they have tried it doesn't always work and there is always someone unhappy with it.
RE: Bridging Angle=0 (Automatic) doesn't bridge properly with narrow bridge by long dimension
There are many open issues relating to bridging angle choice on the PS github.
For example
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/10533
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/10286
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/10086
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/243
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/8770There are more. It is detected automatically and filled, its just not choosing a direction that makes sense to you (or possibly anyone with a brain). It seems no matter what they have tried it doesn't always work and there is always someone unhappy with it.
At the risk of oversimplifying, when the "bridge" is between two straight parallel features, how hard is it to say that the bridge should be PERPENDICULAR to the parallel supported bridge ends rather than PARALLEL.
Making the bridge infill parallel to the supports is absolutely the WORST choice.
I can understand that there may be complexity when the bridge ends are non-parallel or non-linear or when there are more than 2 supporting ends along the bridge perimeter ... but my case is as simple as bridging gets -- two long, straight, parallel supported ends separated by a uniform rectangular gap.