Was about to start my most ambitious 10 hour print with gyroidal infill. Chose gyroidal on the basis that it looked cool. Decided to watch your video before I began. Changed to Cubic based on your results and saved 3 hours on my print time. Thank you sir for the tip. This was S-Tier UA-cam content.
Awesome. I did 25% honeycomb on a print and immediately vowed to never do it again. Watching my M5C blasting along wobbling about 3mm side to side at 30mm a second was like the least efficient thing I’ve ever seen.
One of the patterns you thought was just in there, I actually have a specific but incredible use for. On the concentric pattern, I actually have two uses. One is purely aesthetic, on transparent filaments sometimes you don't want the infill to show and strength isn't paramount. The second use is more functional. On TPU prints, flexibility is always needed, but it can vary in how much flex is desired in one axis. I find the concentric infill makes for a very strong vertical strength but very weak lateral resistance. This is super useful if I don't want to spend hours in CAD to do the same.
very good points. I used to use lightning infill for transparent prints and it looked pretty good. but for "full" transparency I recon concentric is better indeed
I like how the video doesn't waste time with lengthy testing recordings and just talks about the results. Also, I like cubic too though I go for grid when strength doesn't matter much as it's faster.
Yeah, but that's because we already know Thomas is good at testing from previous videos. If it were a newer UA-camr, I'd definitely want to see their methods before I trust their results. All the sciency 3D printing youtubers made a lot of testing methodology mistakes early on, and they keep learning and improving.
Concentric, Hilbert curve, archimedian chords and octagram spiral are great for top/bottom infill. They usually create a better looking surface finish than the standard linear infill. Octagram spiral with a silk filament on a smooth sheet give amazing results. Hilbert curve on top infill makes for a surface comparable to a bottom layer on a textured sheet - helps to make both sides look similar in PETG.
Agreed. The only way I can get a perfect surface on production ASA parts that cannot have defects is to use hilbert curve on a powder coat bed. Saved my life. Absolutely nothing else worked.
A silly problem with cubic is that you can often see the infill pattern slightly through the outside in daylight and it makes the parts look cheap where with gyroid the inside looks fuzzed out.
you talked alot about the strength and efficiency of the print head movement, require to print the pattern. but i think those dubius pattern or any fractal based pattern existsted beause they are easier to callculate and able to fill iregular shapped print volume while also maintain great contact surface with the wall of the print.
i was cheating on gyroid with 3d honeycomb until orcaslicer 2.0 update made it official with the upgraded version then crosshatch came out and i left 3d honeycomb
So glad you did this in PETG. i make a line of products for the hair industry and primarily use PETG.This video has changed how I will be utilizing infill differently now. Thanks again.
The amount of data and research you have done on this is amazing and very valuable for many of us who 3DP. Thank you for creating this video and helping to teach us all more about infill and strength of printed parts.
Another vouch for the concentric, hilbert, archemides, and octogram is that as they're completely free of any isolated pockets and can be taken advantage of when you want to fill in the void fraction of a 3d print to further strengthen them. Such as as filling them in with resin. You can't do that with a lot of the other infill options.
This is the case with gyroid as well. This also means hot air can be trapped in those pockets which creates pillowing occasionally. Good to know the different options for different use cases.
One advantage that Gyroid has is that it allows the print to be filled internally to add weight or possibly with foam for strength. I've printed some tall sculptures that I've added sand in the base to make them less "tippy". The closed patterns won't allow the sand to flow beyond their individual chambers. I also like Gyroid for it's multi-directional support.
@@tuliagz5329 Is the vase used for liquids or just used with dry plants or flowers (or nothing at all). Usually, you would drill a hole in the bottom of the object and use a funnel to fill the infill portion of the print - or at least partially at the bottom - then use something like a mixture of 5-minute epoxy and sand to plug the hole. You may have to roll the object around to distribute the sand or whatever you're using. If the vase is easily accessible from the top you could put the weighted media in from the top - sand or plaster or lead shot and seal it with a layer of epoxy. There are a few ways to do that, but without knowing the structure of the vase it's hard to make sure recommendations.
Another good use for gyroid (and 3D honeycomb as well) is exposed as drip trays for plants, coffeemakers, etc. Because of that open pattern, liquids flow between the cells.
Concentric and archimedian chords have some use for flexible materials when you want a more flexible infill. It still provides support for top layers, but it doesn't make the part as rigid as something like cubic would.
It's not often you can finish watching a video and immediately start using that information. Literally my very first print after watching this video was where I got to use this knowledge. With a complete enough understanding of the subject I can quickly make good choices. How I look at that dropdown has completely changed. Before this video I would "play around" with various settings. I can still play around. But now I know what to look for. I know what to choose, what to watch out for, and what to expect. This is really good stuff. Oh, and nice shirt!
I wish a slicer would implement a feature to be able to draw internal walls in parts. You can trick the software to do it, but it doesnt always work great. You could tie features together with thick walls, and use a low infill everywhere else.
I use the cubic pattern as it's the strongest from my experience. I had printed an extender to connect 2 monitor posts 6 inch in length. While this worked initially... after about 3 months the print snapped dropping the monitor. I had used 100% infill. When I used the cubic at 50%... it did not snap it just eventually started to lean and then show failure at the same stress point as the solid peice... thanks for your tests, helps confirm what I already know
Agree. Tests without Cross Hatch are "incomplete at best", since it combines the pros of gyroid with the higher speeds of non-gyroid infills. It has become my default infill type on all my machines because of that reason.
This aligns pretty well with my theories and experience. I generally used cubic wherever I wanted maximum strength and a faster to print infill where I just needed support. I also tend to rely on more shell thickness any time I want a part to be robust. Thanks for all the testing!
He may have only been using Prusa slicer. I don't think Prusa slicer has cross hatch but I could be wrong. It would have been cool to see him try it though.
Hilbert curve on a powder coat textured bed gives a flawless first layer with ABS, ASA and some others. Straight lines on parts that catch light will show through in many circumstances. Hilbert is my go-to first layer for anything that has to be perfect.
Another problem with the self intersection of grid, triangles, and stars is that the self intersections always happen at the same X/Y coordinates (3 lines thick for triangle!) This can lead to a noticeable bump forming that can catch on the nozzle tip much worse than cubic. It can also make a REALLY nasty rattling sound as it drags along.Found this out the hard way after building my Mk3S all those years ago and the included GCode for the Nefertiti bust failed several hours in from the buildup (and probably not perfect adhesion to the build plate). Honestly it amazes me that grid is still the default pattern in PrusaSlicer (I don't know about the other forks) after all these years. As you've shown here, and as I've seen over thousands of print hours, cubic and it's direct derivatives, perform as good as or better than grid in most situations.
Basically 90% of the video explored the "best" infill type to use. And the last 10% told us that the best infill to use is NOT to have an infill at all (and use the material for the perimeters instead), which makes pointless the first 90% of the video. Fantastic!! Actually, the only reason to have some infill is to support the top layers and resist to compressive loads (and side walls buckling). But unfortunately the infills were NOT tested to resist compression, but bending (where clearly they do not contribute significantly, being by definition around the neutral axis of the section). And theoretically the best infills to resist compression are the 2D types (certainly not cubic!). I have always used rectilinear, ~5%. Which also prints as fast as you can go and gives a clean top surface. This video confirms I was right!!
Awesome to see that the pattern I've emprically has gravitated towards, aligned rectiliniar, gives the "best" top surface look. Even though I only ended up using that, since it was the combination of fastest and non-crossing that I've tried. I only print for "looks" as in terrain for wargames and such.
I'm a noob to 3d printing and I'm happy to learn that my intuitive choice of adaptive cubic with less infill and thicker shells is such methodically proven 😀
Orca Slicers new Cross Hitch infill pattern is GOATED. You def have to give that a try. It's a cross between Gyroid and Aligned rectilinear and its amazing.
from what ive tested in a very unscientific ooga booga bend until it breaks and crush it, its a tad less strong than gyroid in the bend and quite a bit less strong in the crush test, but it prints much faster and it doesnt shake the house, so adding one extra wall with it has worked fine for mee, but it does seem less consistent than gyroid, like sometimes it wont join well with the outerwall but that could just be me
For thicker infill use infill line multiplier (as named in cura) so each layer is double thick. This is for strength as it add rigidity to an otherwise flexible thin wall. Half the infill and double the multiplier. Speed and material use-age are similar, but strength is better
I’ve been playing around with infills and shell thickness, trying to figure out what cases need which one. Thank you for saving many late nights! As always great video.
Personally I use rectilinear for its clean prints and very minimal internal wiping, it also prints nicely on both bedslingers and core xy alike. One thing I find it particularly useful for is checking that bridging and general extrusion is in point when I’m switching filaments for different prints as if it is off even slightly you see it won’t connect at walls or sags in the infill and is really easy to see. Top layers are nice due to the even square finish if you want top keep top layers to around 4 instead of going higher and using more filament :)
Good Video... in aerospace we use thin honeycomb and skins. The load paths are, as you suggest, only in the skin which takes all bending and direct tension/compression. The infill is only for out of plane or transverse shear but also can prevent skin buckling in a compressive or bending load. Honeycomb core has no bending strength and flexes just like you demonstrated in the video.
CNC kitchen did a pretty deep dive on this issue a while back, at least in respect to shell thickness and strength. Infill has relatively little impact on part strength even when it's set pretty high. I usually run 4-6 perimeters with as low density possible with lightning infill to save on material since infill contributes relatively little even in different use cases. The only con of lightning infill is slow print times though.
The problem with infill in regards to bending strength is that the infill contribution to the cross section's moment of inertia around the neutral axis is extremely low. Extra top and bottom layers put material where the majority of normal bending stresses occur.
I use rectilinear and aligned rectilinear when I need to use a really high infill percentage. Also, hilbert curve has its application with about a 95-100% infill. That is when it shrinks due to cooling, the stresses from it go into the many curves in the hilbert pattern itself instead of into lone direction that cause the layers to peel up.
I believe cubic is still the pattern that produces the most fully sealed cells / air pockets, correct? It's a pretty rare use case, but this would be important for insulating properties.
In the animation at 5:25 you can see the problem with Gyroid as it can happen that none of the surface connects with the infill if you are unlucky with your design. that leads to weak spots in terms of infill strength. I think that the crosshatch pattern gives the best compromise but it's not widely available in all slicers.
You did bending tests, but not compression or modulus tests which is where infills like cubic really shine. Adaptive Cubic is awesome and generally what I use for a lot of my parts. Tri-Hexagonal is the strongest infill I have found on the xy axis.
Hilbert curve is super useful in both infill and top/bottom layer patterns when a part is prone to warping. I use it to print PP or PETG-CF parts that would otherwise require an enclosure or a massive brim.
My favorite infill currently is the 3d cubic subdivision, basically just cubic but the cubes get small on the outside and huge on the inside especially if there actually is a larger open space, it supports everything well, can be applied to any geometry and uses filament efficiently by getting more of it toward the shell, if I really want alot of strength though just making a thick shell is always best, main thing you need to look at there is having a small percentage infill that's enough to prevent buckling fi you are going for efficency, same way the "skeleton" under an airplanes shell does you can design similar structures outright and have the printer do it but that's alot of effort (as in actually modelling your supportive structure and having your wallthickness as thick as your part is) Looking at your supportcubic the cubic subdivision I use is very similar but much much more extreme in its scaling the largest cubes are multiple times larger than normal cubic on similar infill percentages and can be almost as big as the volume to be filled
For the multiple nozzle sizes in same print, try upping the extrusion multiplier by 1 or 2% on the nozzle that prints the infill. I find it helps with adhesion between perimeters/shells and the infill.
I do not own a 3d printer but I've watched a reasonable amount of 3d printing content just because one day I will own one... This info may be out dated by the time I own one but I must -MUST- watch this video because the thumbnail is just that cool.
Depending on the application of our print, appropriate strength should be considered. For example, if it is going to be compressed a lot or carry some load, will it experience shear or bending forces. Even if this research covers a few cases, it still was very insightful.
Great video, I like how detailed all the tests are (especially with the data). Interesting on this topic would also be, how the infill change the damping/vibration/stiffness in parts. This would be great information for many mechanics (as an example when you build a printer like a Voron). Proper test would probaly be some measurements on the eigen modulus and frequency. Or are there already some tests with proper data on that (didn't find anything like that yet).
I think your thumbnail was one of the main reasons you got 50K views in one single day! -It's just perfect! 😃 -Anyway, I'd like to put a note up that I've used 1.2mm wall thickness for more than 2 years and I've gotten quite good results with both PLA and PETG. I'm using and old, old version of Cura and won't change anytime soon, so I'll not have the benefit of getting cubic infill (which I'd like to use). [I never see any infill-artifacts on the surfaces, because I use so thick walls - except from of course when I use translucent filaments]. Excellent video; I could watch from start to finish without falling asleep (most YT-videos make me fall asleep nowadays). 😃
Going into this video rooting for my beloved cubic subdivision, excited to see the results! Edit: Hecc yeah, let's go cubic! Glad to see you mentioned cubic subdivision as well in the end, even if it wasn't tested. If you ever return to the subject and make another vid comparing the physical attributes of the few best infills in more detail, I'd gladly watch!
Ive been using rectilinear with combined layers (infill combination) for a long time in Bambu Slicer. Its fast, doesn't waste material and doesn't print over itself. Its fine for anything that doesn't need a lot of strength. If its just for support I can go down to 5% infill in many cases without issue.
Good info, thanks! I wish slicers would offer infills designed for strength. For example, by using thick double lines to draw the familiar old patterns. Or triple or quadruple lines.
Another thorough and useful test Thomas. You are a gentlemen and a scholar my friend. I have been using the Voxel PETG + for a few months now and it has been performing great on my XMax3. I was hesitant to believe the claims it works on high speed printers but it certainly does. It sands much easier than PLA as well.
Before the video I used cubic subdivision (I believed it was the more geometrically tough pattern). Now I'll still use it but with a great video to support my choice. Thanks Tom.
The "dubious" infills are often good for translucent materials. There are some aesthetic things I make with TPU, because you can print at almost any speed without affecting clarity. When I do this, I use concentric, because the clarity is relatively even in all x/y directions. So you can adjust your walls and infill to adjust the depth.
Gyroid has been my go-to for the longest time now. Great strength to weight, reasonably quick printing, and minimal external surface artifacts. Another benefit is that if you do need to fill the print, all of the airspace is contiguous, so filler materials (resin, plaster, sand etc) flows fairly easily to fill the space.
Fantastic. This is what I have been wondering for a while as I print mainly for structural rather than decorative use. I felt that more perimeters were the better option and defaulted to 7, but I also added more infill for parts I really wanted to be very strong and often hit 70% . I think a little experimentation similar to yours is called for on the infill density impact
Exactly what I am preaching in discussions forever now: use rectiliniar/triangles as it is fast, efficient and provides decent strength. For more strength use more walls. And for non mechanical parts lightning can be a valid option to support top layers/internal structures. One topic that wasn't covered: using infill for aesthetic reasons, e.g. I've used hexagon infill without top/bottom layers as radiator grilles, roof racks, etc. for my 3d printed RCs
There is one issue I've been having with Cubic as opposed to Gyroid. And that issue is that my prints with Cubik had a lot more issues with warping and coming off the bed where my Gyroid prints had zero warping.
my experience : lightning for lost pla/abs molding (low residual patterns). gyrod : make sure every holes walls (for screws) and also every corner of top surface get enough internal support. lighting for lost pla/abs molding. hilbert for abs (not warping pattern) especially archimidian for big circular models (best un warping pattern and fastest with minimal retractions).
From an engineering perspective a 3D print is basically a torsion box. As such, the infill should only be strong enough to prevent the surfaces from buckling before they break in tension, and not a bit more. Your perimeter-vs-infill results reflected this accurately, with the additional note that you can go pretty low before buckling becomes the dominant failure mode.
Fascinating stuff. I'm definitely going to try aligned rectilinear next time I have a purely aesthetic print with a broad, flat surface on top. It's a niche use-case, but far from an unrealistic one.
All that to say that you validated my intuition that shell thickness is critical to strength. I can’t think of any place where I’d use more than 10% infill. A small lever arm, for example, would be solid with enough perimeters. Infill is mostly there to support the top layers
mostly used default grid pattern since it prints fast and is good no matter the orientation, shape or size of your part. over 30%/35% infill was never bringing me any additional benefit and sometimes even decreased strength and quality. below 10% infill (about a 1cm bridge distance) part strength as well as top support is about the limit. A good default is 10% (1 or 2 shells) for fast prints 15% (2 shells) for everything or 20%/25% (2 or even 3 shells) for strong. honey comb is kind of good for strength but very slow for big models even on old printers. most patterns are a wast of time and material or highly situational at best. 3d rotated patterns tend to have bad layer adhesion in some cases which may even harm strength.
I occasionally use patterns from the "dubious" category, typically Octogram Spiral for either the Top or Bottom (or both) surface pattern. When I do this it is purely for cosmetic reasons, they can add a nice subtle surface appearance. Hilbert and concentric also work well for this. For infill itself, on typical prints I almost always use Gyroid or Cubic at typically 15-20% along with 3 walls, 4 if I am concerned about strength.
I take how the part will be used into consideration when selecting the infill, but speed is a consideration. As a result I tend to use grid or gyroid a lot, but I'll be giving cubic a shot now as well.
Gyroid gives the maximal infill *area*, and also avoid any strait lines in any direction. Its good for a couple things - TPU prints that need to flex and squish, and for thinks like biologic filter medium where you want good flow through with very high area.
I really like printing with alternating Wall counts. So the infill is well attached. For parts where weight is a concern, printing with 2.5 walls is not significantly weaker than printing with 3.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of Tom's videos. I print a lot feet for air compressors, leveler feet for freezers, dish washers, workbenches, et al. My main concern is compressibility/axial loads and my default infill is gyroid.
honestly, i think gyroid is a great pic in your case since it performs quite evenly across all directions. I feel like it therefore does very well to not collapse if twisted/bent in a particular way.
I’m fairly new at printing but I use gyroid for parts that need to resist deformation in many different orientations. I had assumed it would be decently fast (even with input shaping) since it doesn’t have many sharp corners to start/stop. One thing I was thinking for thin parts with 100% infill might be to use concentric so your nozzle isn’t bouncing around. Hilbert curve might be a good one for flexible/semi-flexible filament in parts you want to bend- in the sideways direction.
most surprising result is the quality of aligned rectilinear, very cool. There should be some setting where you can just make the last few layers of a print before the top aligned rectilinear and then the rest cubic. Overall, excellent video!
The patterns octagram spiral, concentric, and hilbert are best for top and bottom solid infills, NOT volume infill. Octagram spiral creates a nice starburst effect, and concentric makes radial light reflections, especially with metallic silk PLA. Hilbert is kind of strange but it's useful for preventing warping. For infilling volume, my go-to is always adaptive cubic or gyroid. Aligned rectilinear is most useful for printing clear "glass" from transparent filament because it eliminates trapped bubbles when printing at low speed.
I like the idea of printing thicker infills to save time. I think delamination occurs as separately printed structures have time to cool and therefore don't adhere to one another. I have recently printed small-ish parts that needed some strength and wall-to-infill ratio made very little difference. I found the biggest gains in strength by lowering printing speeds altogether.
One type of failure i've had most with my prints is the holes for screws or threaded inserts. i've never managed to break a part in half by sheer force yet but i did melt/drill/screw through too thin walls or just broke the printed hole away from the infill so that's something i always try to take into consideration, not just the strength of the outside of the part but also the strength required to keep the walls from moving under load.
Nice review. My infill is "default" because I never give it much thought. If I need a stronger part, increase the shell and infil percentage. Otherwise, I don't mess with the pattern.
Never messed around much and stayed cubic - I‘m fine with that and now I know why 😁. But one thing I learned: I will not push the density over 30%. I sometimes cranked up to 50% for rigid parts.
In my experience, Gyroid is far less likely to cause a failed print than cubic. Due to the lack of overlapping lines, it's less likely to tug on previously printed infill than cubic is. On my printer, if printing fast enough, cubic will sometimes cause a tiny bit of friction with the nozzle that you can hear during travel moves (due to innacuracies in laying previous infill down and any mess up in the infill over the course of a print, which gets worse exponentially)
Here is a long description of my experience probably not many people have so I want to share in case someone finds it usefull. Recently I have been printing very large molds for someone who then makes a thick fiberglass master model in them for further finishing and polishing by hand. The final serial production negative molds get then made on this polished master model. The printed molds therefore need to survive a single wet lamination process and usually get destroyed during the extraction of the very rigid master model out of them. The designer of the molds maxed out the size of my 500x500x500 Rat Rig on some of them (he designed the sectioning of the mold arond the size of my printer). Finding settings that would produce the required parameters was interesting. Requirements are smooth surface, enought stiffness and no warping. I ended up using 4 perimeters with 0.4mm nozzle and 0.2mm layer height. This gives decent surface smoothness and some wall thickness in case imperfections need to be sanded down. For most of the parts I used 4% gyroid infill. This gives enough support to even very gently curved walls to hold their shape while having the resing squeezed out of the fabric by some rollers. In areas where M6 bolts are used to join multiple sections of the mold together I used 20% infill to better resist the compressive strength of the bolt. Gyroid got picked over cubic because in my experience the more long straight lines you have in such huge print the more it wants to lift its corners off the bed (or bend the bed off the magnet) and then some sections of the mold no longer fit together. Since PETG was requested this can be a serious issue on such big prints. Not as bad as ASA would be but noticeably warps more than PLA would. Gyroid with its waves does not pull on anything as the cooling extrusions contract. And as it turns out when they need to destroy the printed mold to get the master model out then gyroid seems easier to dig out with chisels in large chunks (not sure why). One time I used lightning infill because it was by far the fastest and did not compromise the mold where it would matter. This mold was basically almost 500x500 base with something resembling a flat top mountain coming out of the base. All the functional walls wer curved in various directions relatively sharply and just the top enclosing the volume needed support to print cleanly. With 4 perimeters and lightning infill set to 20% it saved about 24 hours of printing and 1kg of filament compared to 4% gyroid. And all the curved surfaces where fiberglass was to go were still perfectly shaped and rigid enough. It is a rare case but here lightning was the best despite this beeing a technical functional print.
Hilbert curve is perfect for vacuum forming, as you have high infill for vertical mechanical strength without internal stress (high temp materials on open bedlinger printers)
The dubious patterns just look great when they print, getting factual data about their strength is quite nice 👍I mostly use the gyroid pattern though, because most of my parts do not need much strength.
I use Gyroid because its more silent than the crossing of cubic, it also doesn't wear the nozzle down as much. And for me the time difference isn't even that much, maybe on a coreXY but on a bedslinger? nah fam, they are practically the same speed. On another note, gyroid is really good for making TPU parts that need to have a uniform pressure/deformation resistance and the non 3d infills can make TPU stronger in one direction but more bendy in another if you want that.
I'm ride or die for adaptive cubic! Use it for everything, and I mean everything, it's just my standard infill, mostly cosplay/display props but also helmet/armour which are like 2-3mm thick infill space, and even large miniatures.
Great work, also I like to see my intuitions validated by your experiments. I believe the main value of cubic is that it breaks the geometric anisotropy pf most parts well while keeping straight lines with all their (structural and printing) benefits (unlike gyroid).
Personally I print with my infill set to .8 line width on a .4 nozzle. Cuts down on print time and makes parts stronger. Will use more filament in exchange(at same densities). With a thicker infill line, you can get away with lower infill % often
even for some of my most intense use cases like a rotary tool bench vise or a wall clamp made to hold up a shopping cart by the front door i didn't need anything close to 50% infill or 5 perimeters. for the bench vise i used gyroid at 20% with 3 walls and for the wall clamp i used cubic at 40% infill and 4 perimeters. Granted the overall design is also a factor but even then the rotary vise has been working without issue for 3 years and the wall clamp is going strong 7 months in.
My standard infill is gyroid, mostly printing mechanical parts. But I have a delta-printer and my assumption is that deltas have less a problem with the wavy structure.
I think compression strength on a disk would yield another very interesting set of data, although I expect honeycomb to win here in its preferred direction. Still, maybe there are some surprises especially when we do three cubes of each side by side and load them in three different directions. It might already be enough to put them on a scale, a small plunger on top and then the tube from the top as the lever
if you do this test ever again, please also try Cross Hatch in Bambu Studio. It is basically a mix between Grid and Gyroid and is supposed to have a good strength while maintaining a good print speed. It is also quieter than gyroid.
Will watch this later, literally just popped in to say that's an S-tier thumbnail.
Yep, concentric and gyroid brain.
Was about to start my most ambitious 10 hour print with gyroidal infill. Chose gyroidal on the basis that it looked cool. Decided to watch your video before I began. Changed to Cubic based on your results and saved 3 hours on my print time. Thank you sir for the tip. This was S-Tier UA-cam content.
Thanks for the tip, too!
What was the print?
Cubic is just slowing down everything on both my 4 2.4 Vorons
Awesome. I did 25% honeycomb on a print and immediately vowed to never do it again. Watching my M5C blasting along wobbling about 3mm side to side at 30mm a second was like the least efficient thing I’ve ever seen.
One of the patterns you thought was just in there, I actually have a specific but incredible use for. On the concentric pattern, I actually have two uses. One is purely aesthetic, on transparent filaments sometimes you don't want the infill to show and strength isn't paramount. The second use is more functional. On TPU prints, flexibility is always needed, but it can vary in how much flex is desired in one axis. I find the concentric infill makes for a very strong vertical strength but very weak lateral resistance. This is super useful if I don't want to spend hours in CAD to do the same.
very good points. I used to use lightning infill for transparent prints and it looked pretty good. but for "full" transparency I recon concentric is better indeed
I appreciate the hours/days spend doing this massive comparative evaluation
I like how the video doesn't waste time with lengthy testing recordings and just talks about the results. Also, I like cubic too though I go for grid when strength doesn't matter much as it's faster.
CNC Kitchen wants to know your location.
Yeah, but that's because we already know Thomas is good at testing from previous videos. If it were a newer UA-camr, I'd definitely want to see their methods before I trust their results. All the sciency 3D printing youtubers made a lot of testing methodology mistakes early on, and they keep learning and improving.
Concentric, Hilbert curve, archimedian chords and octagram spiral are great for top/bottom infill. They usually create a better looking surface finish than the standard linear infill.
Octagram spiral with a silk filament on a smooth sheet give amazing results.
Hilbert curve on top infill makes for a surface comparable to a bottom layer on a textured sheet - helps to make both sides look similar in PETG.
Yup, fuzzy skin and hilbert curve with 0.9 flowrate on top surface makes everything fuzzy :)
concentric my beloved
Depends if you use aligned rectilinear or not.
They're good for squishy tpu
Agreed. The only way I can get a perfect surface on production ASA parts that cannot have defects is to use hilbert curve on a powder coat bed. Saved my life. Absolutely nothing else worked.
A silly problem with cubic is that you can often see the infill pattern slightly through the outside in daylight and it makes the parts look cheap where with gyroid the inside looks fuzzed out.
Valid point!
aint the point of 3d printing to make things you dont need (low poly pikatsus or race boats) and have them on demant at cheap?
@@TommiHonkonenyeah, but it doesn’t mean it needs to look cheap just becuase it is
@@TommiHonkonen Not me. Almost everything I print is functional, including car parts in engine bays.
Just bump up your wall count and this issue disappears.
Cubic was my first love...
gyroid gang
you talked alot about the strength and efficiency of the print head movement, require to print the pattern. but i think those dubius pattern or any fractal based pattern existsted beause they are easier to callculate and able to fill iregular shapped print volume while also maintain great contact surface with the wall of the print.
what about adapt cubic ?
.. and it will be my last. 🎶🎵
i was cheating on gyroid with 3d honeycomb until orcaslicer 2.0 update made it official with the upgraded version
then crosshatch came out and i left 3d honeycomb
So glad you did this in PETG. i make a line of products for the hair industry and primarily use PETG.This video has changed how I will be utilizing infill differently now. Thanks again.
The amount of data and research you have done on this is amazing and very valuable for many of us who 3DP. Thank you for creating this video and helping to teach us all more about infill and strength of printed parts.
Another vouch for the concentric, hilbert, archemides, and octogram is that as they're completely free of any isolated pockets and can be taken advantage of when you want to fill in the void fraction of a 3d print to further strengthen them. Such as as filling them in with resin.
You can't do that with a lot of the other infill options.
This is the case with gyroid as well. This also means hot air can be trapped in those pockets which creates pillowing occasionally. Good to know the different options for different use cases.
One advantage that Gyroid has is that it allows the print to be filled internally to add weight or possibly with foam for strength. I've printed some tall sculptures that I've added sand in the base to make them less "tippy". The closed patterns won't allow the sand to flow beyond their individual chambers. I also like Gyroid for it's multi-directional support.
Hilbert and other open variations are even better for pumping the model full of PU resin/foam, gesso, concrete or what have you.
Do you pause the print to fill it up or how do you do it? I printed a cool tall vase for my mom but it keeps falling 😢
@@tuliagz5329 Is the vase used for liquids or just used with dry plants or flowers (or nothing at all). Usually, you would drill a hole in the bottom of the object and use a funnel to fill the infill portion of the print - or at least partially at the bottom - then use something like a mixture of 5-minute epoxy and sand to plug the hole. You may have to roll the object around to distribute the sand or whatever you're using. If the vase is easily accessible from the top you could put the weighted media in from the top - sand or plaster or lead shot and seal it with a layer of epoxy. There are a few ways to do that, but without knowing the structure of the vase it's hard to make sure recommendations.
Another good use for gyroid (and 3D honeycomb as well) is exposed as drip trays for plants, coffeemakers, etc. Because of that open pattern, liquids flow between the cells.
Concentric and archimedian chords have some use for flexible materials when you want a more flexible infill. It still provides support for top layers, but it doesn't make the part as rigid as something like cubic would.
It's not often you can finish watching a video and immediately start using that information. Literally my very first print after watching this video was where I got to use this knowledge. With a complete enough understanding of the subject I can quickly make good choices.
How I look at that dropdown has completely changed. Before this video I would "play around" with various settings. I can still play around. But now I know what to look for. I know what to choose, what to watch out for, and what to expect.
This is really good stuff. Oh, and nice shirt!
I wish a slicer would implement a feature to be able to draw internal walls in parts. You can trick the software to do it, but it doesnt always work great. You could tie features together with thick walls, and use a low infill everywhere else.
I use the cubic pattern as it's the strongest from my experience. I had printed an extender to connect 2 monitor posts 6 inch in length. While this worked initially... after about 3 months the print snapped dropping the monitor. I had used 100% infill. When I used the cubic at 50%... it did not snap it just eventually started to lean and then show failure at the same stress point as the solid peice... thanks for your tests, helps confirm what I already know
What’s with cross hatch? Orca Slicer.
Agree. Tests without Cross Hatch are "incomplete at best", since it combines the pros of gyroid with the higher speeds of non-gyroid infills. It has become my default infill type on all my machines because of that reason.
This aligns pretty well with my theories and experience. I generally used cubic wherever I wanted maximum strength and a faster to print infill where I just needed support. I also tend to rely on more shell thickness any time I want a part to be robust. Thanks for all the testing!
Also what about cross hatch, was it too late to include it? Looks very promising, aligned rectilinear meets gyroid 😅
yeah, i switched from only using gyroid to only using cross hatch, with PETG, would have been a perfect thing to include
He may have only been using Prusa slicer. I don't think Prusa slicer has cross hatch but I could be wrong. It would have been cool to see him try it though.
@@oddball119 yep, but everyone should be using orca imho :)
I've also switched from gyroid to cross hatch. Makes my desk shake less. Gyroid is still my favourite to watch though 😅
@@riba2233 True. Thought Cura was the best until I used orca then I realized how confused I was.
I just started 3d printing and I'm working on my first project that involves modeling and slicing. This was incredibly comprehensive, thank you!
Hilbert curve on a powder coat textured bed gives a flawless first layer with ABS, ASA and some others. Straight lines on parts that catch light will show through in many circumstances. Hilbert is my go-to first layer for anything that has to be perfect.
Another problem with the self intersection of grid, triangles, and stars is that the self intersections always happen at the same X/Y coordinates (3 lines thick for triangle!) This can lead to a noticeable bump forming that can catch on the nozzle tip much worse than cubic. It can also make a REALLY nasty rattling sound as it drags along.Found this out the hard way after building my Mk3S all those years ago and the included GCode for the Nefertiti bust failed several hours in from the buildup (and probably not perfect adhesion to the build plate).
Honestly it amazes me that grid is still the default pattern in PrusaSlicer (I don't know about the other forks) after all these years. As you've shown here, and as I've seen over thousands of print hours, cubic and it's direct derivatives, perform as good as or better than grid in most situations.
Basically 90% of the video explored the "best" infill type to use. And the last 10% told us that the best infill to use is NOT to have an infill at all (and use the material for the perimeters instead), which makes pointless the first 90% of the video. Fantastic!!
Actually, the only reason to have some infill is to support the top layers and resist to compressive loads (and side walls buckling). But unfortunately the infills were NOT tested to resist compression, but bending (where clearly they do not contribute significantly, being by definition around the neutral axis of the section). And theoretically the best infills to resist compression are the 2D types (certainly not cubic!).
I have always used rectilinear, ~5%. Which also prints as fast as you can go and gives a clean top surface. This video confirms I was right!!
Great tests and a perfect way to present the results.
Also, I have say that your ad integrations are very smooth without being annoying - love that!
Awesome to see that the pattern I've emprically has gravitated towards, aligned rectiliniar, gives the "best" top surface look. Even though I only ended up using that, since it was the combination of fastest and non-crossing that I've tried. I only print for "looks" as in terrain for wargames and such.
Rectilinear my very first pick, it is Zig-Zag in Cura. Have to switch to aligned rectilinear..
I'm a noob to 3d printing and I'm happy to learn that my intuitive choice of adaptive cubic with less infill and thicker shells is such methodically proven 😀
Orca Slicers new Cross Hitch infill pattern is GOATED. You def have to give that a try. It's a cross between Gyroid and Aligned rectilinear and its amazing.
Such a shame you didn't test Bambus new "Cross hatch" infill pattern as well
from what ive tested in a very unscientific ooga booga bend until it breaks and crush it, its a tad less strong than gyroid in the bend and quite a bit less strong in the crush test, but it prints much faster and it doesnt shake the house, so adding one extra wall with it has worked fine for mee, but it does seem less consistent than gyroid, like sometimes it wont join well with the outerwall but that could just be me
Or the new 3D honeycomb from Orca.
@@woodcat71803D honeycomb is included at 4:40?
For thicker infill use infill line multiplier (as named in cura) so each layer is double thick. This is for strength as it add rigidity to an otherwise flexible thin wall. Half the infill and double the multiplier. Speed and material use-age are similar, but strength is better
I’ve been playing around with infills and shell thickness, trying to figure out what cases need which one. Thank you for saving many late nights! As always great video.
Personally I use rectilinear for its clean prints and very minimal internal wiping, it also prints nicely on both bedslingers and core xy alike. One thing I find it particularly useful for is checking that bridging and general extrusion is in point when I’m switching filaments for different prints as if it is off even slightly you see it won’t connect at walls or sags in the infill and is really easy to see. Top layers are nice due to the even square finish if you want top keep top layers to around 4 instead of going higher and using more filament :)
Good Video... in aerospace we use thin honeycomb and skins. The load paths are, as you suggest, only in the skin which takes all bending and direct tension/compression.
The infill is only for out of plane or transverse shear but also can prevent skin buckling in a compressive or bending load.
Honeycomb core has no bending strength and flexes just like you demonstrated in the video.
CNC kitchen did a pretty deep dive on this issue a while back, at least in respect to shell thickness and strength. Infill has relatively little impact on part strength even when it's set pretty high. I usually run 4-6 perimeters with as low density possible with lightning infill to save on material since infill contributes relatively little even in different use cases. The only con of lightning infill is slow print times though.
The problem with infill in regards to bending strength is that the infill contribution to the cross section's moment of inertia around the neutral axis is extremely low. Extra top and bottom layers put material where the majority of normal bending stresses occur.
My favorite infill for 90% of my prints is the new Cross Hatch infill! Its faster than Gyroid but has similar strength.
I use rectilinear and aligned rectilinear when I need to use a really high infill percentage.
Also, hilbert curve has its application with about a 95-100% infill. That is when it shrinks due to cooling, the stresses from it go into the many curves in the hilbert pattern itself instead of into lone direction that cause the layers to peel up.
I believe cubic is still the pattern that produces the most fully sealed cells / air pockets, correct? It's a pretty rare use case, but this would be important for insulating properties.
The thumbnail is just the best. Very informative.
In the animation at 5:25 you can see the problem with Gyroid as it can happen that none of the surface connects with the infill if you are unlucky with your design. that leads to weak spots in terms of infill strength.
I think that the crosshatch pattern gives the best compromise but it's not widely available in all slicers.
You did bending tests, but not compression or modulus tests which is where infills like cubic really shine. Adaptive Cubic is awesome and generally what I use for a lot of my parts. Tri-Hexagonal is the strongest infill I have found on the xy axis.
Hilbert curve is super useful in both infill and top/bottom layer patterns when a part is prone to warping. I use it to print PP or PETG-CF parts that would otherwise require an enclosure or a massive brim.
nice tip!
That Prusa XL looks so cool. A lot of asthetically pleasing touches to this video. Thanks for not printing the tests in yellow and red.
My favorite infill currently is the 3d cubic subdivision, basically just cubic but the cubes get small on the outside and huge on the inside especially if there actually is a larger open space, it supports everything well, can be applied to any geometry and uses filament efficiently by getting more of it toward the shell, if I really want alot of strength though just making a thick shell is always best, main thing you need to look at there is having a small percentage infill that's enough to prevent buckling fi you are going for efficency, same way the "skeleton" under an airplanes shell does you can design similar structures outright and have the printer do it but that's alot of effort (as in actually modelling your supportive structure and having your wallthickness as thick as your part is)
Looking at your supportcubic the cubic subdivision I use is very similar but much much more extreme in its scaling the largest cubes are multiple times larger than normal cubic on similar infill percentages and can be almost as big as the volume to be filled
For the multiple nozzle sizes in same print, try upping the extrusion multiplier by 1 or 2% on the nozzle that prints the infill. I find it helps with adhesion between perimeters/shells and the infill.
I think "infill anchor " is the right parameter to use instead, to keep other geometry intact. but I don't have multi heads to test... 😅
I've seen a few others do these same tests. Different methodologies for each. I'm glad the tests continue, often showing the same results.
I do not own a 3d printer but I've watched a reasonable amount of 3d printing content just because one day I will own one... This info may be out dated by the time I own one but I must -MUST- watch this video because the thumbnail is just that cool.
Depending on the application of our print, appropriate strength should be considered. For example, if it is going to be compressed a lot or carry some load, will it experience shear or bending forces.
Even if this research covers a few cases, it still was very insightful.
Great video, I like how detailed all the tests are (especially with the data). Interesting on this topic would also be, how the infill change the damping/vibration/stiffness in parts. This would be great information for many mechanics (as an example when you build a printer like a Voron). Proper test would probaly be some measurements on the eigen modulus and frequency. Or are there already some tests with proper data on that (didn't find anything like that yet).
I think your thumbnail was one of the main reasons you got 50K views in one single day! -It's just perfect! 😃
-Anyway, I'd like to put a note up that I've used 1.2mm wall thickness for more than 2 years and I've gotten quite good results with both PLA and PETG. I'm using and old, old version of Cura and won't change anytime soon, so I'll not have the benefit of getting cubic infill (which I'd like to use).
[I never see any infill-artifacts on the surfaces, because I use so thick walls - except from of course when I use translucent filaments].
Excellent video; I could watch from start to finish without falling asleep (most YT-videos make me fall asleep nowadays). 😃
Going into this video rooting for my beloved cubic subdivision, excited to see the results!
Edit: Hecc yeah, let's go cubic! Glad to see you mentioned cubic subdivision as well in the end, even if it wasn't tested.
If you ever return to the subject and make another vid comparing the physical attributes of the few best infills in more detail, I'd gladly watch!
Thomas, our 3D printing explorer. He goes very far away to safe us from mistakes. Thank you Thomas for your dedication 😍😍😍
Ive been using rectilinear with combined layers (infill combination) for a long time in Bambu Slicer. Its fast, doesn't waste material and doesn't print over itself. Its fine for anything that doesn't need a lot of strength. If its just for support I can go down to 5% infill in many cases without issue.
The thumbnail was one of the coolest ive seen in a while!
Good info, thanks! I wish slicers would offer infills designed for strength. For example, by using thick double lines to draw the familiar old patterns. Or triple or quadruple lines.
Another thorough and useful test Thomas. You are a gentlemen and a scholar my friend. I have been using the Voxel PETG + for a few months now and it has been performing great on my XMax3. I was hesitant to believe the claims it works on high speed printers but it certainly does. It sands much easier than PLA as well.
Before the video I used cubic subdivision (I believed it was the more geometrically tough pattern). Now I'll still use it but with a great video to support my choice. Thanks Tom.
Damn, I was hoping for cross-hatch and the updated 3D honeycomb to see how it performs
The "dubious" infills are often good for translucent materials. There are some aesthetic things I make with TPU, because you can print at almost any speed without affecting clarity. When I do this, I use concentric, because the clarity is relatively even in all x/y directions. So you can adjust your walls and infill to adjust the depth.
Gyroid has been my go-to for the longest time now. Great strength to weight, reasonably quick printing, and minimal external surface artifacts. Another benefit is that if you do need to fill the print, all of the airspace is contiguous, so filler materials (resin, plaster, sand etc) flows fairly easily to fill the space.
Fantastic. This is what I have been wondering for a while as I print mainly for structural rather than decorative use. I felt that more perimeters were the better option and defaulted to 7, but I also added more infill for parts I really wanted to be very strong and often hit 70% . I think a little experimentation similar to yours is called for on the infill density impact
Exactly what I am preaching in discussions forever now: use rectiliniar/triangles as it is fast, efficient and provides decent strength. For more strength use more walls. And for non mechanical parts lightning can be a valid option to support top layers/internal structures.
One topic that wasn't covered: using infill for aesthetic reasons, e.g. I've used hexagon infill without top/bottom layers as radiator grilles, roof racks, etc. for my 3d printed RCs
I have been happy with cubic and now I have some justification from your testing. Thank you.
There is one issue I've been having with Cubic as opposed to Gyroid. And that issue is that my prints with Cubik had a lot more issues with warping and coming off the bed where my Gyroid prints had zero warping.
my experience : lightning for lost pla/abs molding (low residual patterns). gyrod : make sure every holes walls (for screws) and also every corner of top surface get enough internal support. lighting for lost pla/abs molding. hilbert for abs (not warping pattern) especially archimidian for big circular models (best un warping pattern and fastest with minimal retractions).
From an engineering perspective a 3D print is basically a torsion box. As such, the infill should only be strong enough to prevent the surfaces from buckling before they break in tension, and not a bit more. Your perimeter-vs-infill results reflected this accurately, with the additional note that you can go pretty low before buckling becomes the dominant failure mode.
Fascinating stuff. I'm definitely going to try aligned rectilinear next time I have a purely aesthetic print with a broad, flat surface on top. It's a niche use-case, but far from an unrealistic one.
The color grading in your videos is gorgeous.
All that to say that you validated my intuition that shell thickness is critical to strength. I can’t think of any place where I’d use more than 10% infill. A small lever arm, for example, would be solid with enough perimeters. Infill is mostly there to support the top layers
mostly used default grid pattern since it prints fast and is good no matter the orientation, shape or size of your part. over 30%/35% infill was never bringing me any additional benefit and sometimes even decreased strength and quality. below 10% infill (about a 1cm bridge distance) part strength as well as top support is about the limit. A good default is 10% (1 or 2 shells) for fast prints 15% (2 shells) for everything or 20%/25% (2 or even 3 shells) for strong. honey comb is kind of good for strength but very slow for big models even on old printers. most patterns are a wast of time and material or highly situational at best. 3d rotated patterns tend to have bad layer adhesion in some cases which may even harm strength.
I occasionally use patterns from the "dubious" category, typically Octogram Spiral for either the Top or Bottom (or both) surface pattern. When I do this it is purely for cosmetic reasons, they can add a nice subtle surface appearance. Hilbert and concentric also work well for this.
For infill itself, on typical prints I almost always use Gyroid or Cubic at typically 15-20% along with 3 walls, 4 if I am concerned about strength.
I like using cubic subdivision in Cura, it becomes more dense of a pattern in narrower parts and less dense when filling large gaps
I take how the part will be used into consideration when selecting the infill, but speed is a consideration. As a result I tend to use grid or gyroid a lot, but I'll be giving cubic a shot now as well.
Gyroid gives the maximal infill *area*, and also avoid any strait lines in any direction. Its good for a couple things - TPU prints that need to flex and squish, and for thinks like biologic filter medium where you want good flow through with very high area.
I really like printing with alternating Wall counts. So the infill is well attached. For parts where weight is a concern, printing with 2.5 walls is not significantly weaker than printing with 3.
Thanks Thomas, for doing this tedious work more of us would have wanted to got done to get the results you showed.
I was hoping to see cross hatch versus gyroid as orca has recently made cross hatch the default in many profiles.
I never tried the cubic, but I love the gyroid. Its wavy shape saved many complex prints-it allowed the building of difficult bridges.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of Tom's videos. I print a lot feet for air compressors, leveler feet for freezers, dish washers, workbenches, et al. My main concern is compressibility/axial loads and my default infill is gyroid.
honestly, i think gyroid is a great pic in your case since it performs quite evenly across all directions. I feel like it therefore does very well to not collapse if twisted/bent in a particular way.
I’m fairly new at printing but I use gyroid for parts that need to resist deformation in many different orientations. I had assumed it would be decently fast (even with input shaping) since it doesn’t have many sharp corners to start/stop.
One thing I was thinking for thin parts with 100% infill might be to use concentric so your nozzle isn’t bouncing around.
Hilbert curve might be a good one for flexible/semi-flexible filament in parts you want to bend- in the sideways direction.
most surprising result is the quality of aligned rectilinear, very cool. There should be some setting where you can just make the last few layers of a print before the top aligned rectilinear and then the rest cubic. Overall, excellent video!
The patterns octagram spiral, concentric, and hilbert are best for top and bottom solid infills, NOT volume infill. Octagram spiral creates a nice starburst effect, and concentric makes radial light reflections, especially with metallic silk PLA. Hilbert is kind of strange but it's useful for preventing warping. For infilling volume, my go-to is always adaptive cubic or gyroid. Aligned rectilinear is most useful for printing clear "glass" from transparent filament because it eliminates trapped bubbles when printing at low speed.
I like the idea of printing thicker infills to save time. I think delamination occurs as separately printed structures have time to cool and therefore don't adhere to one another.
I have recently printed small-ish parts that needed some strength and wall-to-infill ratio made very little difference. I found the biggest gains in strength by lowering printing speeds altogether.
Thorough and "to the point" analysis, as always. Thank you for educating me!
One type of failure i've had most with my prints is the holes for screws or threaded inserts.
i've never managed to break a part in half by sheer force yet but i did melt/drill/screw through too thin walls or just broke the printed hole away from the infill so that's something i always try to take into consideration, not just the strength of the outside of the part but also the strength required to keep the walls from moving under load.
Nice review. My infill is "default" because I never give it much thought. If I need a stronger part, increase the shell and infil percentage. Otherwise, I don't mess with the pattern.
Never messed around much and stayed cubic - I‘m fine with that and now I know why 😁. But one thing I learned: I will not push the density over 30%. I sometimes cranked up to 50% for rigid parts.
In my experience, Gyroid is far less likely to cause a failed print than cubic. Due to the lack of overlapping lines, it's less likely to tug on previously printed infill than cubic is. On my printer, if printing fast enough, cubic will sometimes cause a tiny bit of friction with the nozzle that you can hear during travel moves (due to innacuracies in laying previous infill down and any mess up in the infill over the course of a print, which gets worse exponentially)
Here is a long description of my experience probably not many people have so I want to share in case someone finds it usefull.
Recently I have been printing very large molds for someone who then makes a thick fiberglass master model in them for further finishing and polishing by hand. The final serial production negative molds get then made on this polished master model. The printed molds therefore need to survive a single wet lamination process and usually get destroyed during the extraction of the very rigid master model out of them.
The designer of the molds maxed out the size of my 500x500x500 Rat Rig on some of them (he designed the sectioning of the mold arond the size of my printer). Finding settings that would produce the required parameters was interesting. Requirements are smooth surface, enought stiffness and no warping. I ended up using 4 perimeters with 0.4mm nozzle and 0.2mm layer height. This gives decent surface smoothness and some wall thickness in case imperfections need to be sanded down. For most of the parts I used 4% gyroid infill. This gives enough support to even very gently curved walls to hold their shape while having the resing squeezed out of the fabric by some rollers. In areas where M6 bolts are used to join multiple sections of the mold together I used 20% infill to better resist the compressive strength of the bolt. Gyroid got picked over cubic because in my experience the more long straight lines you have in such huge print the more it wants to lift its corners off the bed (or bend the bed off the magnet) and then some sections of the mold no longer fit together. Since PETG was requested this can be a serious issue on such big prints. Not as bad as ASA would be but noticeably warps more than PLA would. Gyroid with its waves does not pull on anything as the cooling extrusions contract. And as it turns out when they need to destroy the printed mold to get the master model out then gyroid seems easier to dig out with chisels in large chunks (not sure why).
One time I used lightning infill because it was by far the fastest and did not compromise the mold where it would matter. This mold was basically almost 500x500 base with something resembling a flat top mountain coming out of the base. All the functional walls wer curved in various directions relatively sharply and just the top enclosing the volume needed support to print cleanly. With 4 perimeters and lightning infill set to 20% it saved about 24 hours of printing and 1kg of filament compared to 4% gyroid. And all the curved surfaces where fiberglass was to go were still perfectly shaped and rigid enough. It is a rare case but here lightning was the best despite this beeing a technical functional print.
Hilbert curve is perfect for vacuum forming, as you have high infill for vertical mechanical strength without internal stress (high temp materials on open bedlinger printers)
The dubious patterns just look great when they print, getting factual data about their strength is quite nice 👍I mostly use the gyroid pattern though, because most of my parts do not need much strength.
I use Gyroid because its more silent than the crossing of cubic, it also doesn't wear the nozzle down as much. And for me the time difference isn't even that much, maybe on a coreXY but on a bedslinger? nah fam, they are practically the same speed. On another note, gyroid is really good for making TPU parts that need to have a uniform pressure/deformation resistance and the non 3d infills can make TPU stronger in one direction but more bendy in another if you want that.
I'm ride or die for adaptive cubic! Use it for everything, and I mean everything, it's just my standard infill, mostly cosplay/display props but also helmet/armour which are like 2-3mm thick infill space, and even large miniatures.
Great work, also I like to see my intuitions validated by your experiments. I believe the main value of cubic is that it breaks the geometric anisotropy pf most parts well while keeping straight lines with all their (structural and printing) benefits (unlike gyroid).
Personally I print with my infill set to .8 line width on a .4 nozzle. Cuts down on print time and makes parts stronger. Will use more filament in exchange(at same densities). With a thicker infill line, you can get away with lower infill % often
even for some of my most intense use cases like a rotary tool bench vise or a wall clamp made to hold up a shopping cart by the front door i didn't need anything close to 50% infill or 5 perimeters. for the bench vise i used gyroid at 20% with 3 walls and for the wall clamp i used cubic at 40% infill and 4 perimeters. Granted the overall design is also a factor but even then the rotary vise has been working without issue for 3 years and the wall clamp is going strong 7 months in.
ok fine 4 walls is close to 5 my point still stands, i agree with the video.
My standard infill is gyroid, mostly printing mechanical parts.
But I have a delta-printer and my assumption is that deltas have less a problem with the wavy structure.
That just depends on your acceleration
I think compression strength on a disk would yield another very interesting set of data, although I expect honeycomb to win here in its preferred direction.
Still, maybe there are some surprises especially when we do three cubes of each side by side and load them in three different directions.
It might already be enough to put them on a scale, a small plunger on top and then the tube from the top as the lever
Great video, love the work you put into things. That is a huge effort for adjusting the weight to be the same. Thanks !
The list of infill percentages (for even use of filament) is at 11:46
if you do this test ever again, please also try Cross Hatch in Bambu Studio. It is basically a mix between Grid and Gyroid and is supposed to have a good strength while maintaining a good print speed. It is also quieter than gyroid.
To me, Hilbert Curve is more of a top surface pattern than infill. It helps the top of an object match the textured build plate.