Is honeycomb the better "infill" ?

[Zekeman]

I know this feature has been requested, but as a novice printer, what is the significance of using a honeycomb infill (I see it looks nicer, and less "straggly's" are created) but does it really make a difference in the durability and strength of the print? Also what other infills do people tend to use which will give it a more solid infill?

Thanks for any input.

[errolt]

I prefer honeycomb as there are more "overlap" between the layers.

With normal hashed infill the infill only touch the previous layer in very small spots where they cross. With honeycomb the infill layer overlaps with 80% of the previous layer. This, in my opinion, does create a stronger part and a better print.

[jimc]

you need to turn off random infill placement. then every layer will line up and make a structure inside the print.

[TenKOhms]

you need to turn off random infill placement. then every layer will line up and make a structure inside the print.

+6

[errolt]

I have turned random infill off right after my first print with Simplify3D. I really don't know what that option exists nor why it is on by default.
I have attached two examples from KissSlicer. I have circled the places where one layer of infill touch the layer below it.

On the hash it only touch where it crosses the previous thread.

On the honeycomb it touches the previous layer in much bigger spots...

[BaronWilliams]

I just want to point out that the "honeycomb" infill created by KissSlicer and similar slicers is not a true honeycomb and will therefor not be as strong as people expect it to be. It's pretty strong, but it's not created by making a serious of hexagons, it's created by making a series of "zig-zag" like lines, that looks like a honeycomb, but which is NOT a honeycomb. There is not a single full hexagon shape anywhere in the infill. It's simulated with lines, not hexagons.

People keep calling this kind of infill "honeycomb". It is not a real honeycomb and is not as strong. In order for it to be a real honeycomb, it needs to be made of actual hexagons where all points of the hexagon are made from a single line, not from separate lines touching each other with a weak bond. A real honeycomb is not possible because there's no way to 100% fuse all sides of the hexagon walls to itself making a complete hexagon. This just isn't possible on an FFF printer. Instead we can make a bunch of bending lines that look like a hexagon, but will have weak spots where they aren't 100% fused together.

While the simulated honeycomb structure is strong, it has weak points all throughout the pattern because of the lack of real hexagons.

It's like a bowl with a hole in the bottom. A real bowl can hold water completely. A bowl shape with a hole in the bottom can't really be called a bowl. A bowl with a hole can only hold water until it all leaks out the hole. Instead of calling it a bowl, we call it a funnel, because it isn't quite a bowl. This simulated "honeycomb" is likewise not really a honeycomb because of all the weak bonds.

Imagine a cube made of wood where all corners are held together with nails. Now imaging a pyramid made of wood and nails for MOST of the connections, except the pyramid has two connections on the right which are held together with sticky tape, and no nails. Obviously because of the weak bond made of tape, the pyramid with two sides held together with tape is not as strong as the cube held together with nails at all corners. Had both been held together with nails at all connecting points, the pyramid would be stronger. But with the weak points caused by weak bonds, the cube is obviously much stronger.

[Zekeman]

Thank you all for the information, I also have turned off "random infill placement" So I will see how it goes on next print.