Simplify3D is a software improvement

Look here for custom firmware, networked 3D printer hosts like OctoPrint, and more!
KosmoPi
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:46 am

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by KosmoPi » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:57 am

kcchen_00 wrote:...
Regardless, there's a third party analysis of infill patterns. The quantitative analysis seems to show that rectilinear and hexagon patterns are fairly comparable in strength. Further supporting S3Ds direction and stance.
Link?

mushoo
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by mushoo » Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:02 am

Biggest thing I've found with S3D's infill is to turn off the 'random infill placement.' Leaving that active will make terrifically weak infill at anything lower than 90% infill, as you're basically just bridging a bunch of thin wires without much beneath them.

I will admit, it'd be nice to be able to do an "X" pattern every layer. To be honest, I mostly print things solid (unless it's exceedingly large, but often if I'm printing large I need a lot of structural integrity so it's solid anyway).

kcchen_00
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by kcchen_00 » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:19 pm

KosmoPi wrote:
kcchen_00 wrote:...
Regardless, there's a third party analysis of infill patterns. The quantitative analysis seems to show that rectilinear and hexagon patterns are fairly comparable in strength. Further supporting S3Ds direction and stance.
Link?
Summary (original report in the article):
How Does Infill Affect 3D Printing? Ask 3D Matter


.

User avatar
mhackney
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:57 pm
Location: Groton, MA
Contact:

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by mhackney » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:12 am

I acknowledge that this work on infill is a good step in the right direction. However, it is not a compete story and has some significant omissions. Statements about what a slicer should or should not be doing for infill based solely on this work are misguided. One example - this work is for PLA only, each material has different properties so you can not make a general conclusion based on the results (and as you'll read below, incomplete results) from a single material.

I'm not going to pick the research apart (this is based on my reading of the original work at 3DMatter) because I hope/anticipate this is just the first phase of a more complete analysis, but one glaring ommision is - what orifice diameter are they using and what is the relationship between orifice and layer height? The ratio of orifice diameter to layer height has a very large impact on strength and rigidity. The work does go into some exploration of layer height, and it does present the machine that made the test pieces on, but they do not explicitly say what nozzle size they used or the effects of nozzle diameter or the ratio of diameter/layer height.

The other larger issue I have is the lack of meaningful treatment on the effect of infill pattern on rigidity - and in particular, the effect of infill on anisotropic rigidity not only along Z but, particularly along X and Y. This is far more important in selecting parameters (infill and others) to tailor the mechanical properties of printed parts than is tensile strength. There are other areas that need more work and hopefully these will be addressed in the future.

Regards,
Michael
Sublime Layers - my blog on Musings and Experiments in 3D Printing Technology and Art

Start here:
A Strategy for Obtaining Great Prints

Strategies for Resolving Print Artifacts

The Eclectic Angler

striegel
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:00 pm

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by striegel » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:05 am

I'll add in and say that while I love Simplify 3D and its speed / beauty of the parts, the lack of a better infill system is pretty awful. My general rule of thumb is that if I don't need strength, Simplify3D is the way to go. If I need any sort of part strength (particularly on the z axis), Cura or Slicer (depends on the part) are the way to go.

striegel
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:00 pm

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by striegel » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:23 am

To add, I would be very curious to see that same effort (the one at the link) done with Simplify3D. If I have a bit of time this summer, I may task a student to run some stress tests on the parts that come out.

I have zero confidence that the results gleaned in the earlier link with regards to infill types generalize to what Simplify3D does for infill.

KosmoPi
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:46 am

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by KosmoPi » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:29 am

It would also be interesting to do a market study of slicer software. Id like to see which is most popular, and market shares for these in question (along with makerware, and etc.).

gghouck
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:35 pm
Location: Seward, Alaska

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by gghouck » Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:23 pm

striegel wrote:To add, I would be very curious to see that same effort (the one at the link) done with Simplify3D. If I have a bit of time this summer, I may task a student to run some stress tests on the parts that come out.

I have zero confidence that the results gleaned in the earlier link with regards to infill types generalize to what Simplify3D does for infill.

If you do perform some stress tests, it would be really cool if the strengthening effects of vapor polishing and/or acetone brush surfacing could be included.

kcchen_00
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by kcchen_00 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:33 pm

striegel wrote: I have zero confidence that the results gleaned in the earlier link with regards to infill types generalize to what Simplify3D does for infill.
I don't know what there is to doubt... rectilinear is rectilinear in any slicing software. If you really want strong infill via S3D, specify 200%+ extrusion... @200% you get almost a solid wall between infill layers. I don't think the 3D Matters report was to support any specific slicing software.

I'd also be interested on any tests with post processing (ie acetone vapor finishing, epoxy coating).

gghouck
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:35 pm
Location: Seward, Alaska

Re: Simplify3D is a software improvement

Post by gghouck » Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:35 pm

kcchen_00 wrote: I don't know what there is to doubt... rectilinear is rectilinear in any slicing software. If you really want strong infill via S3D, specify 200%+ extrusion... @200% you get almost a solid wall between infill layers. I don't think the 3D Matters report was to support any specific slicing software.

I'd also be interested on any tests with post processing (ie acetone vapor finishing, epoxy coating).
The doubt is the idea that all infill types are of the same strength. I also doubt that is true.

Post Reply