I’m printing a large size locking ring in ABS/ASA, and because of the large size and infill, warping has been difficult to tame. So, as an experiment, I’ve modified the model to (I think) resist warping by avoiding long continuous lines of filament (either as walls or as infill) by interrupting the long-lines with voids or by using arches to hopefully brace against shrinkage, as follows:
If it succeeds, though, my preferred outcome would be to fill-in the voids with some other kind of sparse infill and have both a bottom and a top on the voids so that it’s all nicely sealed up. I’m afraid that if I use the same gyroid infill as the rest of the print, the slicer will simply dissolve the walls on the voids, and then I’d be back to square 1.
@Olias showed in a different thread one way how it might be done using slicer primitive elements, but it would be hard to shape and size them to exactly fit the voids. Is there some other way to fill them in without losing their walls?
Good news! The print finished without incident and without warping, proving that this kind of anti-warping strategy using arches and voids actually works:
It worked so well that the print stuck flat against the build plate even though I didn’t use a bed adhesive–only Bambu liquid glue, which, if anything, is a release agent.
So, next up, I need to figure out @MalcTheOracle’s directions:
I used Fusion360 to create the print model. Therefore, I suppose I could also use it to create new print objects that precisely fit inside the voids. Is that what @MalcTheOracle is suggesting? I guess I maybe need to start with a simple case, like filling in a donut hole with a different infill pattern, all while somehow preserving the existing walls of the donut, to maintain structural integrity. If I can do that, then I should be able to do this more complex object.
Many of the more complex models available here include their own designed support which was built-in to the overall design rather than uses the automatic support generated by the slicer. The designer usually knows more than the slicer about the model.
What I am suggesting is the equivalent for the void issue you speak of.
As the designer, you are capable of creating far more complex shapes than the slicer is able to achieve with primitives to meet your specific needs.
You would design a part specifically for it to meet the needs of the voids you originally discussed and the tell the slicer what infill patterns and/or percentages to use. You are creating the ability to fine tune those settings by have a complex shape rather than a primitive.
It is an advanced solution to what seems like an advanced problem of fine-tuning.
Instead of making cuts in your cad program, make parts that intersect with your main part in the shape of the holes. Make them sub-components or otherwise assembled with the main part and import them into studio. Then convert the parts to modifiers and make a very low infill value. If you want to make walls around the modifiers, make the wall count more or less than the models wall count.
