3D prints still suffer from bad layer adhesion due to their 2.5D slicing and printing approach. I investigated if a novel slicing method that interleaves the layer could improve the strength of 3D prints.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      What is that? You do two half widths for each perimeter and it increases strength?

      • Kata1yst@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Just an offhand idea. If you look at the print in the thumbnail, you can see that while this clever brick-interleaving has eliminated the straight lines along the xy plane, the Z axis still has straight lines. Eliminating that so you have a “brick-interleaving” in all axis seems the most optimal.

        • tortiscu@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Well you need either that or the video’s idea. I think yours could be easier to implement and it requires fewer z-movements (and no reordering, can’t remember if the video did that)

        • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh, I see what you’re getting at, interesting. I hope these land in a slicer sometime, it would be interesting to try out.

    • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The thumbnail shows a hexagonal tiling, which is like a brick-laying pattern but rotated 90 degrees, so the “half bricks” are on the top and bottom, not the sides.

      Maybe it would still work to orient the hexagons so the zig-zag part is on the walls, and then fill in the gaps with half-height half-width walls. Although “half” isn’t exactly correct; the hexagons give you ugly trig numbers.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You don’t need any ugly trig. You can just use a magic number. The magic number in question is 0.8660254, which is the ratio between the width of the longways (point-to-point) to shortways (flat-to-flat) dimensions of a regular hexagon. If you need half of that, divide it by 2 afterwards.