Oh, I was using Keepass2Android as a password vault, but was a little frustrated with it because occasionally it’ll forget to synchronize with the file before adding an entry and leave a “conflicted copy” I have to deal with manually. If KeepassDX will also do TOTPs that sounds perfect.

Do you have a replacement you would recommend?

The “idiot” part comes in where I encountered this problem, and didn’t even stop to consider whether this might be specific to this model, or even try something as basic as turn the model on the print bed, which wouldn’t have fixed the slicing, but would have told me my assumption about how the “bridging angle” setting worked was wrong. Instead, I leapt straight from “huh, this model sliced in a weird way” to “this basic slicer feature is designed in a bizarrely poor way and I’m the first one to ever notice,” and posted about it on social media.

So I appreciate the sentiment, and I’ll leave the post up as it I agree it’s a mildly interesting and counterintuitive result, but I still maintain I acted kinda dumb. :)

That wasn’t the issue for me–my bridging angle was set to zero (the default). The issue was that the anchors for these bridges ran into one another, which made the slicer treat them all as one single unified bridge, and choose one angle for the lines across them all, rather than treating them as separate bridges (which is how I was thinking of them, because they crossed different gaps). I put the text below the images on this link before I understood what had gone wrong, but the images are still useful for illustrating the error: https://imgur.com/a/VjUTVaq

I was being an idiot. It does bridge correctly, it just got confused because the bridges were close enough together that it thought it had to make them one single bridge. Thanks!

I was being an idiot. It does bridge correctly, it just got confused because the bridges were close enough together that it thought it had to make them one single bridge. Thanks!

Oh, you’re totally right! I knew I was a little braindead today. Thanks so much! It absolutely already does the thing I’m asking for, it just got confused because the edges of the bridges were close enough that their anchors overlapped.

Bridging working normally: https://imgur.com/a/U7yqZU3

Thanks!

I’m using PrusaSlicer, and in PrusaSlicer there is a specific setting for this, which is called “bridging angle.” But my point is that bridges are already specifically identified by the slicer as a specific category of print area needing specific settings, and in this case it should be possible for the slicer to choose an optimal bridging angle on a bridge-by-bridge basis, rather than requiring the user to choose a single global angle. You’re right that it would be less catastrophic for the bridging to be 45 degrees off than to be 90 degrees off, but it’s not obvious why this should be a global setting at all, rather than tailored to the needs of the local geometry of the bridge. It could even be something fairly simple, like just drawing lines parallel to the perimeters of the bridge, similar to what “concentric infill” does. I haven’t really looked in to what the best way to implement this feature would be, I’m still at the point of trying to work out how to even describe the issue.

Basically this: https://imgur.com/a/VjUTVaq

The blue sections have no support material below them and are printing as bridges, but in the default behavior, PrusaSlicer just uses the single, global “bridging angle” setting to decide which way to print layers on top of these sections. The perimeters on these sections are printed correctly to make the shortest path across the gap, but the rest of the lines making up those bridge layers are printed to match the “bridging angle,” which here means that two of the bridges are printed so they are supported only by those two perimeter bridges themselves.

Please ignore the details of the print itself, as I’m a little braindead today and this is a print that won’t actually fold together correctly as designed. But the issue of bridges orienting poorly is more general than this particular design.

Oh, cool! I didn’t know about that. I might actually check it out once that’s released.