I’ve been using gyroid infil almost exclusively since I first tried it.

I was using cubic before, which was fine, but gyroid seems much sturdier for the same % infil even if it does take a bit more print time.

Also it looks awesome.

    • Jtskywalker@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t tried that one yet. I don’t see that one in Cura - is that in prusa slicer?

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      The only advantage 3d honeycomb has is speed.

      3dh Is directional, has stress points, and has less fluid transitions between changing layers.

      Unless you’re absolutely in a hurry, it’s easily the best infill.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nlEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        That is literally its biggest disandadvantage lol.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upELI0HmzHc&t=417

        3D honeycomb is insanely slow. It takes like double or triple the time and is super stressful on the printer because of very high accelerations.

        Pretty much its only use of honeycomb seems to be making the absolute strongest prints in compression strength. 3D honeycomb is slightly better, but it is essentially the master of none. Line and rectilinear have the best surface, cubic and gyroid have the best transverse strength. Triangle has as good of compression strength and transverse strength as honeycomb and better than 3D honeycomb while taking a fraction of the time to print.

        Honeycomb is probably one of the worst “popular” infills.