Rethink how you use 3D printer infill!

Will watch this later, literally just popped in to say that's an S-tier thumbnail.

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.

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.

Cubic was my first love...

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 YouTube content.

I appreciate the hours/days spend doing this massive comparative evaluation

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also what about cross hatch, was it too late to include it? Looks very promising, aligned rectilinear meets gyroid 😅

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.

Such a shame you didn't test Bambus new "Cross hatch" infill pattern as well

What’s with cross hatch? Orca Slicer.

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.

Damn, I was hoping for cross-hatch and the updated 3D honeycomb to see how it performs

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.

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!

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.

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