Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

Why not (Fast) Honeycomb?

Recommended Posts

Hi Cura-Team.


I love to use Cura with my UM3E and print a lot large objects. Why you don´t implement fast honeycomb with no overlapping an full honeycomb with overlapping? Fast honeycomb is the strongest and fastest way to print rock solid infills.


So please please please implement at least fast honeycom into Cura please. Rectangle and octo infill cant really beat/substitute honeycomb in stability and printspeed.


I appreciate it so much like other users will do i guess.




Edited by ViperJet

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a UM employee but I really don't believe that honeycomb is stronger than all the other infills.  Maybe you mean the strongest for it's weight?  Certainly not the strongest for it's speed of printing.  It's only strong in certain dimensions.  Honeycomb is a bit weak on 2 of the axes I believe.  I think the cube pattern that Cura has might be stronger than honeycomb for it's weight and also for it's speed.


Really the best infill is a gradual infill with higher density near all walls (side/top/bottom) and less infill in the center.  Cura supports this.


Please try to draw a little bit of the honeycomb pattern on paper.  You will see that you can't go very far at all in a straight line.  The printer has to jig and jag constantly.  Making it print very slow.  There is a "triangle honeycomb" pattern that cura supports that is very similar to honcomb but prints much faster (all straight lines).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geometrically speaking honeycomb pattern an efficient use of 2D space when your trying to make an structure to house a bunch of basically round pupae. I think of it as circles packed tight, without the lost space between. I've never bothered with it due to all the jerking required to print.


My favorite infill for strength is Cubic.  It is a triangular (also results in hexagons) pattern that on subsequent layers, each line also shifts, creating sloping line that form tetrahedrons inside your part.  Since it is straight lines, it prints fast.  It seems cubic would be the best candidate for gradual increasing infill (or support) as you print up. I say this because each new infill wall could be placed such that it has support starting off an existing infill wall.  On the other hand, gradually denser grid or line infill (or other straight vertical infill), always result in a lot of unsupported overhangs at the start height of a new course.  Am I making sense i that explanation?


Cubic Subdivision, Octet, and Quarter Cubic are similar in that the infill walls are sloped, and should also yield the same benefit to gradually increasing infill.  I can't distinguish the difference between Octet and Quarter Cubic or between Cubic and Cubic Subdivision.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Our picks

    • Introducing Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Beta
      Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Beta is available. It comes with new features, bug fixes, and UX improvements. We would really like to have your feedback on it to make our stable release as good as it can be. As always, you can download the beta for free from our website, for Windows, MacOS, and Linux.
        • Like
      • 95 replies
    • Print Core CC | Red for Ruby
      Q: For some users, abrasive materials may be a new subject matter. Can you explain what it is that makes a material abrasive when you are not sure which print core to use?
      A: Materials which are hard in a solid piece (like metals, ceramics and carbon fibers) will generally also wear down the nozzle. In general one should assume...
        • Like
      • 30 replies
    • "Back To The Future" using Generative Design & Investment Casting
      Designing for light-weight parts is becoming more important, and I’m a firm believer in the need to produce lighter weight, less over-engineered parts for the future. This is for sustainability reasons because we need to be using less raw materials and, in things like transportation, it impacts the energy usage of the product during it’s service life.
        • Like
      • 12 replies

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!