Internal bridge is critical, it needs its own settings.... Density, Speed, Flow, Fan speed. Its a primary line type for god sake!

[PhilBaz]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
A clear and concise description of what the problem is. Ex. I'm always frustrated when [...]

Internal bridge is a critical feature, and a primary line type like bridge, solid infill, perimeter etc..

Depending on model and material it can have very different requirements. Bad internal bridges lead to missed edges and create surface artifacts with burnt discoloration.

I've tested this extensively in Cura that has full internal bridge settings.

Internal bridge needs its own settings.... Density, Speed, Flow, Fan speed

Which printers will be beneficial to this feature
E.g. Voron/Klipper based printer/etc...

All

Describe the solution you'd like
A clear and concise description of what you want to happen.

Internal bridge settings....Minimum is density, Speed, Flow.

Describe alternatives you've considered
A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.

No options currently. Though I'll have to use Cura for models and materials that have critical internal bridging needs.

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

I really feel this is a must. Its like not having a setting for other primary line types like bridge, solid infill, perimeter etc. Internal bridging can be make or break, and is best not left up to chance. I hope this will make it in. People underestimate how critical it is.

[AnhDuck]

I totally agree. There should be more settings for this.

This is especially important for trickier to use plastics like ABS, Nylon, etc. Even when I'm printing something like PETG I want absolute control over the cooling parameters.

I don't need the fan speed to kick up to 100% on an internal infill bridge.

[Lesta99]

I also have several complications printing an basic rectangular shape, with two (≈10°) slopes on top that are going inwards and meet in the middle of the object. Just like a "v" if you look at it from the front, only that the "v" is cut out of a rectangular block.
It's nearly impossible to get smooth ans regular layer-lines leading up fron the center on both sides just because it seems that the Infill is being bridged over insufficiently, leading to blobs, wavy layer-lines, generally just anything but a homogeneous slope, just as my way cheaper ender 3 pro via cura printed every time, but my 3x more expensive Qidi X-Max 3 now really struggles with because I choose to support Orcaslicer!
But if this won't get any attention soon, I am pretty much forced to switch back to Qidi Slicer.
In case there would be any wish to receive the object file just get back to me!

[Amoulier]

The ability the be able to set the internal bridge direction is needed. is incredible that this simple option is not there to be set! look this examples!

[rbq]

I also have several complications printing an basic rectangular shape, with two (≈10°) slopes on top [...] It's nearly impossible to get smooth an[d] regular layer-lines leading up fron the center on both sides just because it seems that the Infill is being bridged over insufficiently, leading to blobs, wavy layer-lines, generally just anything but a homogeneous slope [...]

I think your problem is not the lack of settings, but the fact that Orca doesn't use internal bridges for those slopes at all, see: #636

[igiannakas]

Internal bridge flow parameter has been added in 1.8.1+ In addition the option to disable thick bridge for internal bridges has been added. These two options have the largest impact on external top surface quality.

[PhilBaz]

It will still be good to have:

1. Internal bridge density
2. Internal bridge fan speed
3. External bridge fan speed.

I agree that it would be nice to have some control over the internal bridge direction. Slightly counter intuitive is that it should cross the longest edge. This is because (in line with my testing) internal bridges tend to turn into a surface artifact when they fail/miss the connection to an external wall. Then the hanging end curls up which can 'snow-ball' into a full on charred surface artifact. I've done most of my testing with ABS. the logic may be totally different for TPU.

[Wyllio]

I'll add that on my large prints, where the infill is finished and moves to internal bridging, which uses the default external bridging fan speed settings, it causes the corners and edges to warp on my ABS/ASA prints. The blasting fan spends more time in the corners while trying to over-cool the internal bridges.

[PhilBaz]

@Wyllio

Yeah, Im an ABS guy too. I imagine people who print PLA must think we are crazy for wanting this level of control, but with ABS it is the difference between success and failure. 100%

[Eldenroot]

It will still be good to have:

1. Internal bridge density
2. Internal bridge fan speed
3. External bridge fan speed.

I agree that it would be nice to have some control over the internal bridge direction. Slightly counter intuitive is that it should cross the longest edge. This is because (in line with my testing) internal bridges tend to turn into a surface artifact when they fail/miss the connection to an external wall. Then the hanging end curls up which can 'snow-ball' into a full on charred surface artifact. I've done most of my testing with ABS. the logic may be totally different for TPU.

Yes, needed... anyway we are closer, v1.8.1 added many improvements for this. I hope we can get this soon :)

[sleewok]

What about the way Cura handles multiple layers following a bridge? This has a huge impact on bridge quality when printing at higher speeds and acceleration. Going from a bridge to 300mm/s on the next layer is brutal on the bridge.

Here are the settings:

More details here: https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/22195-introducing-the-experimental-bridging-settings/

Is this related, or should I start another thread?

[FaintandFuzzies]

I would like to add that the number of wall loops, top shell layers or bottom shell layers shouldn't effect where a bridge is truly needed. The ultimate for me would be able to paint where bridges are needed (if exposed) similar how manual supports can be painted.

[ArahnDoberman]

I would love the option to have at least two layers of internal bridging.
With one perpendicular to the other, to have a better anchor for the following layers.

This would come in handy with low infill rates.
Currently, some islands printed on the internal bridge, get knocked over, as they are only anchored in a single direction

[ElForastero]

My point is that we need at least:

1. Internal bridge angle
2. Bridge first (second/third) skin layer speed

Combination of these 2 parameters would lead to better top surface quality.
Right now I have to use 6+ 0.2 layer for top surfaces to mitigate quality issues.

[PhilBaz]

Just want to bump this as I'm currently working on a project that requires additional internal bridging control and so I have had to revert to using cura.

Density and angle for internal bridging are critical settings especially for ABS in my testing.

[kmarty]

1. Internal bridge density
2. Internal bridge fan speed
3. External bridge fan speed.

Separate settings for "internal bridge fan speed" is must.
Especially when printing ASA/ABS you really don't want cooling of "internal bridges". At least not at the same power as "external bridges". Unless you want to have bowed print results.

[jKawka-ITV]

Bumping this up as well, this does matter when dealing with ABS/ASA and it seems a bit silly that external and internal bridges have the same fan speed since I'm obviously going to need a fair bit of fan to try bridge 3cm over open air while I don't think internal bridge cooling ever an issue for any infill >= 15%.

[mattsiri]

Bump. I'm trying to get good top layers in PC atm. The current issue to poor internal bridging. The external bridges look fantastic when using thick bridges at 50% density. It would be really helpful to be able to set the internal bridge density to 50% as well.

[gilly991]

Bumping.... and me - looking for options to define bridging line type and angle for better outcomes on counterbored holes. The rectilinear line pattern is not the best option. In the example showing three bridging areas, two sides are not optimum as not running tangential to the hole circumference + the bridging line type is 'turning' over the void and the third side is ok but would be improved with just simple line pattern.