Simplify3D User Forum

YEAH!! user customizable infill patterns
+ to that.

+1

yes please integrade some other infill methods

As of Aug 7th the courts have told Stratasys to drop it's lawsuit on the control of infill not on the honeycomb pattern. Here is an article talking about it. I've found nothing saying you can't use honeycomb pattern as an infill type. http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/08/0 ... a-lawsuit/

Also the slic3r uses a honeycomb infil plus 6 others. Here it is listed in the manual. http://manual.slic3r.org/expert-mode/infill This is a open source program.
I might be wrong but other programs have honeycomb even though stratasys had a suit against afinina but was told to drop it.

Has anyone else found out why we can't use honeycomb as an infill for simply3d?

I did a quick look at makerbots patents. Here is what I found about a machine giving texture to an object.
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=0852 ... first+page

Also you can view the rest makerbots patents here.
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=0852 ... first+page

Can anyone else find anything that says honeycomb pattern is copyrighted?

joesoap583 wrote:With regard to hexagonal copyright which MakerBot might hold, would it not be possible to consider octagonal (8 sided rather than 6 sided)? That would give a uniform pattern.

I've never heard that Makerbot had a copyright on hexagonal infill. First, it's in Skeinforge which is an open source project independent of Makerbot - they used the software and contributed to the project, but don't own it. And second, you can't copyright a general concept just a specific expression (e.g. a novel). Perhaps you're thinking that they patented it? Though as far as I can tell, they haven't.

The reason that a hex infill is so strong is that it's a geometrically strong shape, so it's stronger, relative to the amount of material, than squares or triangles.

There's a good discussion of infill patterns at http://manual.slic3r.org/expert-mode/infill . In your in a few look at the done a great of hexagon fill, you'll see that alternate layers reinforce alternating angles with end result being extremely strong.

joesoap583 wrote:With regard to hexagonal copyright which MakerBot might hold, would it not be possible to consider octagonal (8 sided rather than 6 sided)? That would give a uniform pattern.

I've never heard that Makerbot had a copyright on hexagonal infill. First, it's in Skeinforge which is an open source project independent of Makerbot - they used the software and contributed to the project, but don't own it. And second, you can't copyright a general concept just a specific expression (e.g. a novel). Perhaps you're thinking that they patented it? Though as far as I can tell, they haven't.

The reason that a hex infill is so strong is that it's a geometrically strong shape, so it's stronger, relative to the amount of material, than squares or triangles.

There's a good discussion of infill patterns at http://manual.slic3r.org/expert-mode/infill . Look at the diagram of hexagon fill, you'll see that alternate layers reinforce alternating angles with end result being extremely strong. Different infill patterns work better for different part shapes. Ideally infill would be intelligently adaptive, rather than regular repeating patterns, but no free slicers do that yet.

Is anything going to happen with this, ever?

They definitely know about the request, but this one takes a long time to implement. I have talked with people about it when they attend maker faire and there is a LOT of coding involved.

I've so hard it with S3D, I'm ready to chuck it, solely due to the infill.

I've had nothing but success with MarketBot, and nothing but hassles with S3D.

Yet another day wasted on this program, and nothing to show for it.

Having to make the infill heavy to fill the voids between layers where one is 45 and the other is -45 is nuts. How about doing both on the same layer.

Freeware does various infills, $150 doesn't

Whee