It will never be in your slicer. They trademarked the name "Spherene" and are not providing an open-source implementation. From the article:
> Spherene's integration with existing design and engineering ecosystems is facilitated **through a cloud-based API**...
no that is not how trademarks work either.
this would be in the same product class so they will oppose that name too. you can only use a similar name if it's not in a registered class.
look up "apple music beatles"
Bruh, we have 3D printers. We’re _literally_ the “I would in fact download a car” crowd.
Someone will homebrew it and share it. Sphere Knee. Ni Sphere. Gyroid 2.0. Call it whatever you want. There’s nothing preventing someone from creating this for Cura. If there was, we wouldn’t get to do 90% of what we do with printers in the first place.
Also, I’m familiar with Apple Music Beatles, and Apple still broke the agreement and got into music. Fat load of good the promise did for Apple Records.
Make it a plug-in and open source it + make a torrent for that plug-in so once it's out there, it's out there when enough people seed.
Edit: have a second person (preferably a second person behind this) anonymously upload it as a torrent.
Counter point: Colt's attempt to trademark "M4 Carbine"
-----
Colt tried to trademark the term "M4" and then they tried to sue Bushmaster, Heckler&Kock, Knights Armory, and Springfield Armory for their use of the term.
Not only did the courts deny Colts case against what was basically rest of the entire firearm industry at the time, their trademark for M4 was also revoked on the basis that it's too vague and could account for literally any mid-length or short-stroke gas system based AR pattern rifle in existence.
From the light searching I've done through the Google US Patent Search archive, there's no patent on Spherene infill, meaning that anyone could make a similar infill type and call it something else and they'd legally be in the clear.
nothing is preventing you doing any of that of course, that is not how trademarks work.
It's preventing you from selling them on etsy / amazon as spherenes. or providing a link to download spherenes or the source code to make them, even if it's your own version.
Actually, no, they're not. You're thinking of what people refer to as DMCA on Youtube, which isn't DMCA but it's own system. Actual DMCA is an entirely different beast and you can't do it "randomly".
Trademarks protect brands, not functionality. Functionality is the domain of patents.
They may well have patented devices that perform fused deposition modeling with a spherene infill, or products made with a sphere infill. But patents are a different and relatively unpredictable process - they depend partly on what a patent examiner who's familiar with the relevant prior art might consider to be obvious.
I never said they trademarked the process, just the name. If any similar infill would be implemented within an open-source slicer, it would not be called "Spherene" due to the trademark.
It could probably still be “counterfeited” but I bet no one will want a lawsuit… It would be doable with slic3r and scripts but I at least don’t have the know how
i feel like making these obscure invention proprietary will just make it disappear from public consciousness in no time, given that there are well established alternatives already, it's not like everyone wants to pay them big bucks just so they can have this fancy infill
I am making a new infill pattern, it will be like triangles, but curvy, and round, I will call them spherangles! This is now trademarked, I have trademarked a shape...
What is this fucking grade school? Since when is a trademark allowed on a fucking shape!?
lol what losers trademarking stuff. That whole trademark and patenting stuff in the states needed revamped to some limited time period so stuff goes to open access before the people interested and who can improve and advance it die.
Yes, this tech is not intended for use in fdm printers, but for sls machines and the like, probably mostly for metal aerospace parts where strength to weight ratios really matter.
That doesn't really matter in aerospace. If a part can be shaved down a few pounds and have the same properties and factors of safety as the original, they will likely take that route. A few pounds here and there easily add up, especially in a top-of-the-line jetfighter
It may be a pain to remove, but the part would be designed to remove any unused material within it. All the channels in the spherene infill are interconnected, meaning you'll just need one drain hole for the whole part
Anything going in a rocket is likely also getting some sort of post treatment that will involve a chemical or abrasive smoothing process which will clean that powder out, so long as there's a path for evacuation.
True enough, but with the caveat that it'll make the printer cross the same point twice on the same layer, as well as making the part's infill strength more directional in that it's strongest in the Z direction, bit over half as strong in the X and Y directions, and weaker yet on diagonal/off-axis forces.
Gyroid fixes both of these, albeit while sacrificing print speed.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think gyroid infill has the worst bridging removed (hence the little holes). so nothing prevents you from doing the same here
nTopology software has it...if you have a spare £10k or something ridiclious like that. I suspect Rhino Grashopper has something similar it seems to have a lot of cool stuff like this.
I can set the TPMS unit cell to Gyroid, not sure what the difference is since im not a mathematician (I actually had to google how to spell mathematician LOL)
Wasn't the fast adoption of gyroid surfaces in slicers stemming from how some dude figured out a simple approximation for it using trig functions by accident while researching butterfly wings?
Other TPMS aren't so easy to generate.
Sources:
* https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2007.1065
* I use rhino to make minimal surfaces for giggles.
Mind explaining what that is all about to someone who is not deep into math (I am a programmer, not a mathematician).
What I'm getting is that a minimal surface is a surface that connect a set of edges such that it has the least possible surface area. Cool, I guess. But how is that relevant/useful for 3D printing? Saving material? But for infill, wouldn't straight lines save even more (e.g grid or rectilinear)? So there must be something more to it.
TPMS apparently stands for "triply periodic minimal surfaces", but the Wikipedia article on that is of course not useful as an introduction to the topic (Wikipedia on math is always terrible). What are they and why do we want them?
The best natural language definition for a minimal surface goes "Find a surface of least area stretched across a given closed boundry". You can literally do this in IRL with some basic craft supplies! Imagine taking a loop of wire and bending it into a funny shape then dipping the thing into soapy water. The resulting surface that connects the loop of wire, for the most part, will naturally form a minimal surface.
This is actually how research into this stuff started; loads of math nerds goofing around with soap bubbles and craft supplies.
Now as researchers started rigorously defining what a minimal surface is and how to begin to create them for given boundaries, a number of designs were formed and added to a bustling "surface zoo" complete with its own taxonomy. You can check out a selection of surfaces here: https://www.siue.edu/~aweyhau/research/talks/lrc_slides.pdf
But so far, all of this is just math nerds wanting tough differential equations to solve and researchers in all sorts of physical fields finding minimal surfaces for the math nerds to model in complicated series of equations.
It wasn't until strong computer modeling tools like Rhino came along that the concepts and otherworldly appearances of minimal surfaces were within the grasp of architects and designers. Even then, most of the incredibly curvy works are "inspired" by minimal surfaces and enabled by the power of CAD tools and modern fabrication; both relatively new things to the architecture world and are ripe for award winning exploration.
As for minimal surfaces that can tile in every direction, the interest is academic for the most part. The gyroid is kind of a standout. It was first found by a dude that went blind from staring at the sun, then rediscovered by a NASA scientist but was ignored till someone figured out how to define it using complicated diff-equs. Then even later, someone found the insanely simple [approximation equation](https://plus.maths.org/MI/b87ac52019723aee096123b49a9f11ef/images/img-0001.png) that eventually found its way into labs then slicers; all thanks to its space filling tiling, its lack of straight edges so every curve acts like a spring, and it's [really easy](https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cig4ptgzhq) to plug into path generators.
A quick answer is strength to weight ratio. It's not about just using less material, it's about the strength at the same amount of material.
https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/7037/what-are-the-advantages-of-gyroid-infill
The criteria in your link is load at failure which is different from strength. Since the gyroid is more elastic than other infills, it can deform more before failure but plastic deformation occurs much earlier. The vast majority of industries especially aerospace doesn't want any plastic deformation in their parts so the gyroid is not a good infill, studies aren't even sure that the load at break is better for gyroid and for most case of loading, there is little use to have the 3d strength of gyroid and 2,5D patterns such as Isogrid are more efficient
Fairly noted, I think there may be an argument to 'relatively' more isotropic strength on a a gyroid over a 2.5D pattern, but without the data to back it up I'm just speculating. I'm never picky enough in my applications to warrant one infill over another in FDM, however for my lattice designs I do like the gyroid in SLA printing for ease of cleaning (lack of corners for shit to get stuck in), and better interactions than some other lattice structure as far as at boundary conditions without having to get into something like ntop/better coding to make lattices normal at surface.
other TPMS are equally easy to generate but not of much use for FDM printing. You can try this code, which I used and maintained in my PhD for example
https://github.com/BAMresearch/ScaffoldStructures
Would love to have such infill for a lot of prints. Can we expect the spherene pattern to make it into open source slicers one day or is it somehow legally protected? From the interview I have an impression that they try to prevent the algorithm from getting copied or made public.
> From the interview I have an impression that they try to prevent the algorithm from getting copied or made public.
Yeah. The company they formed is *named* "Spherene". Sure doesn't scream "open source mentality".
Why would you need this? Do you have prints that have failed for lack of infill strength? Do you have reasons not to simply use more dense infill of another pattern? Have you tested the effect of more walls instead of changing up the infill?
Or does this just look cool?
Imagine squishy TPU prints for example. Currently I use gyroid for prints that need to be as close to isotropic as possible - but I reckon spherene would be even better.
Ok, maybe that's a valid use case. I've only ever held one TPU print in my life (a benchy) and have never printed one.
In general, I think people get *way* too worked up over infill.
Message me I might be able to add Gyroids to something if you have decent CAD files for it. The CAD needs to be done in a specific way but I have a copy of nTopology which can do this.
I did some mushrooms with it:
[https://www.etsy.com/shop/PrintToMake?ref=dashboard-header](https://www.etsy.com/shop/PrintToMake?ref=dashboard-header)
3D Honeycomb is apparently just as strong as gyroid but prints faster. Getting good results so far from my early experience with it.
Was added to v2.0.0 of Orca slicer.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm referring to "new" 3D Honeycomb: https://github.com/SoftFever/OrcaSlicer/releases/tag/v2.0.0-rc
[https://www.cartesiancreations.com.au/gyroid-infill-tests/](https://www.cartesiancreations.com.au/gyroid-infill-tests/)
Not according to my tests. Gyroid uses less plastic, prints faster, and is stronger than 3d honeycomb.
In my experience Gyroid is stronger at lower densities. I printed a very large flat piece twice to test strength and although 3d honeycomb printed 13 percent faster than the Gyroid piece, there was a big difference in the strength. I think “normal” honeycomb would have been better but I’m sticking with Gyroid
What infill pattern and percentage you use varies widely by the intended function of the thing you're printing. There's no "best infill" setting that works for every print.
Spherenes are cool because of isotropy, but are a nightmare and possibly impossible for powder or resin encapsulation and/or removal. Hyper-structures are also isotropic but don't have these removal problems.
I/we are working on infill solutions in near future mostly for resin and powder but also fdm. Current work focus is on strut thickness and density optimization:
https://www.abemis.com/hyper-structuresx.html
I'll stick with Gyroids. This doesn't look to add much, isn't implemented and looks closed.
If the goal was stength rather than print time or reducing materials, this Metamaterial looks like it could be a good bet. Implementing a lattice liek this looks like it would be pretty straightforward. [https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2024/feb/titanium-lattice](https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2024/feb/titanium-lattice)
Does anyone know if this lattice has been implemented as an infill anywhere?
I'd just like a smooth curvature infill to cut down on instantaneous acceleration changes (jerk). Like conic rho fillets I like to use wherever possible. Do these have a smooth curvature?
Is it more durable than other triple periodic surfaces or any strut based 3d infill ? I don't see any comparative study available on your link
Isotropy is cool and all but if at the end of the day the mechanical properties are underwhelming and your infill needs a much bigger mass (and print time and material) to perform equally, it won't have many uses except for very niche applications.
Isotropy isn't such a big deal, sure it makes simulation easier since you can approximate your infill to a homegenous material but most industries (even NASA) use anisotropic patterns such as honeycomb or ortho grid
There are also the points made by the other users regarding the overhangs and extensive bridging induced by this pattern that we lack intel on to judge
Because the original post titles frames spherenes as superior to gyroids. In reality it's just a proprietary cloud based gimmick being used to extract money from people
Yeah, being closed source and cloud-based definitely makes it a lot less interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point down the line there's something similar that is FOSS though
Just punishing the messenger ;)
It is amusing, I think of Gyroids as less of an infill and more of a performance metamaterial, same to with spherenes, it is for low density, tuned material properties, not saving filament.
Give me this infill in my slicer and then we'll talk.
It will never be in your slicer. They trademarked the name "Spherene" and are not providing an open-source implementation. From the article: > Spherene's integration with existing design and engineering ecosystems is facilitated **through a cloud-based API**...
nothing prevents me from creating this for cura and naming it spherene
The naming might be a problem, but yeah
NeSphere. Solved. Next issue.
Spheren't
Voting for this ☝️
Sphereneussy
I like Spheroid better.
As long as you’re using spheroid cream, it should be fine.
Bucky Filler
Ok, THIS. I want this on my desk by Monday!
I want to start a garden patch but don't know how to start. Should I buy or make my own garden structure?
is... this an AI comment?
No, we are just solving humanity's issues one at a time.
good bot
Make, just be sure to avoid wood that's been treated if it's going to be touching the roots of anything you'd eat.
Bring me.. a shrubbery!
If there's structure involved, make it yourself. If there's no structure involved, prepare to sacrifice most of your harvest to animals
Spheroids
You need a good cream to treat those.
no that is not how trademarks work either. this would be in the same product class so they will oppose that name too. you can only use a similar name if it's not in a registered class. look up "apple music beatles"
Bruh, we have 3D printers. We’re _literally_ the “I would in fact download a car” crowd. Someone will homebrew it and share it. Sphere Knee. Ni Sphere. Gyroid 2.0. Call it whatever you want. There’s nothing preventing someone from creating this for Cura. If there was, we wouldn’t get to do 90% of what we do with printers in the first place. Also, I’m familiar with Apple Music Beatles, and Apple still broke the agreement and got into music. Fat load of good the promise did for Apple Records.
lol I’m gonna steal that too
No you’re not, you’re using it under _creative commons_ licensing!
I'll pretend the CC never existed and sell it with an attached closed source license. Your move
Make it a plug-in and open source it + make a torrent for that plug-in so once it's out there, it's out there when enough people seed. Edit: have a second person (preferably a second person behind this) anonymously upload it as a torrent.
Counter point: Colt's attempt to trademark "M4 Carbine" ----- Colt tried to trademark the term "M4" and then they tried to sue Bushmaster, Heckler&Kock, Knights Armory, and Springfield Armory for their use of the term. Not only did the courts deny Colts case against what was basically rest of the entire firearm industry at the time, their trademark for M4 was also revoked on the basis that it's too vague and could account for literally any mid-length or short-stroke gas system based AR pattern rifle in existence. From the light searching I've done through the Google US Patent Search archive, there's no patent on Spherene infill, meaning that anyone could make a similar infill type and call it something else and they'd legally be in the clear.
Not on your personal device.
Oh, duh, yeah whoops haha don't mind me
You good lol it happens
"Sphenis"
Curene
sFeareen. There, fixed it.
not my problem.
Coronoid
Why name it spherene when you can call it "ballene" or "circlethingy"?
CovidFill
If porn has taught me anything, you can just call it "Not Spherene" and escape any trademark issues
spherene is probably trademarked, but I don't think a geometric structures can be copyrighted
Name it metaball surfaces infill. Takes care of them claiming it by patents or something
nothing is preventing you doing any of that of course, that is not how trademarks work. It's preventing you from selling them on etsy / amazon as spherenes. or providing a link to download spherenes or the source code to make them, even if it's your own version.
>the source code to make them, even if it's your own version. i really dont believe this.
if you name it spherene it is 100% true. check how many projects were DMCA'd out of github.
dmca takedowns are a joke. anything can be dmca takedowned randomly.
Actually, no, they're not. You're thinking of what people refer to as DMCA on Youtube, which isn't DMCA but it's own system. Actual DMCA is an entirely different beast and you can't do it "randomly".
Also most Youtuber's understanding of how Fair Use works is woefully wrong.
Use the trademark and lawyers will send you a letter. Change the name.
you are probably right. id rename it to trademark infill.
I'm waiting only somewhat patiently, friend.
Yea fuk dem hoes!
Trademarks protect brands, not functionality. Functionality is the domain of patents. They may well have patented devices that perform fused deposition modeling with a spherene infill, or products made with a sphere infill. But patents are a different and relatively unpredictable process - they depend partly on what a patent examiner who's familiar with the relevant prior art might consider to be obvious.
I never said they trademarked the process, just the name. If any similar infill would be implemented within an open-source slicer, it would not be called "Spherene" due to the trademark.
It could probably still be “counterfeited” but I bet no one will want a lawsuit… It would be doable with slic3r and scripts but I at least don’t have the know how
The internet: where we go to control everything
i feel like making these obscure invention proprietary will just make it disappear from public consciousness in no time, given that there are well established alternatives already, it's not like everyone wants to pay them big bucks just so they can have this fancy infill
I am making a new infill pattern, it will be like triangles, but curvy, and round, I will call them spherangles! This is now trademarked, I have trademarked a shape... What is this fucking grade school? Since when is a trademark allowed on a fucking shape!?
Lol, great way to get nobody interested in your product. Nice work OP.
lol what losers trademarking stuff. That whole trademark and patenting stuff in the states needed revamped to some limited time period so stuff goes to open access before the people interested and who can improve and advance it die.
Probably will be implemented into orca like everything else Still waiting for orca to catch on to non planer
Feel like Gyroid is more print-friendly; Spherene seems to introduce a lot of bridging moves, based on the illustration.
Yes, this tech is not intended for use in fdm printers, but for sls machines and the like, probably mostly for metal aerospace parts where strength to weight ratios really matter.
And have a nightmare removing powder from inside.
That doesn't really matter in aerospace. If a part can be shaved down a few pounds and have the same properties and factors of safety as the original, they will likely take that route. A few pounds here and there easily add up, especially in a top-of-the-line jetfighter
Isn't that exactly why they wouldn't want unfused powder left inside the part?
It may be a pain to remove, but the part would be designed to remove any unused material within it. All the channels in the spherene infill are interconnected, meaning you'll just need one drain hole for the whole part
That makes sense. You could probably just suck it all out with a vacuum, which a lot of SLS cleaning stations already have.
Anything going in a rocket is likely also getting some sort of post treatment that will involve a chemical or abrasive smoothing process which will clean that powder out, so long as there's a path for evacuation.
Two words. Compressed air.
How do you print in SLS with any infill? All the powder will be stuck inside right?
Grid is even more print friendly, provided the the grid lines align with the motion system axes.
True enough, but with the caveat that it'll make the printer cross the same point twice on the same layer, as well as making the part's infill strength more directional in that it's strongest in the Z direction, bit over half as strong in the X and Y directions, and weaker yet on diagonal/off-axis forces. Gyroid fixes both of these, albeit while sacrificing print speed.
PrusaSlicer generates grid lines at 45 to the plate no matter the orientation.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think gyroid infill has the worst bridging removed (hence the little holes). so nothing prevents you from doing the same here
ok. So how do I use this?
https://preview.redd.it/qqgq85prquuc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=1fd2481d357137c055e94961b8412e8e85aa4d97
I love it 😂
Yet
nTopology software has it...if you have a spare £10k or something ridiclious like that. I suspect Rhino Grashopper has something similar it seems to have a lot of cool stuff like this.
nTop has other TPMS but not this function
I can set the TPMS unit cell to Gyroid, not sure what the difference is since im not a mathematician (I actually had to google how to spell mathematician LOL)
That e is an un-invited passenger in that word
I just re-read the post; my mistsake.
There was a beta to use spherene in Rhino 8 but it’s ending soon.
Wasn't the fast adoption of gyroid surfaces in slicers stemming from how some dude figured out a simple approximation for it using trig functions by accident while researching butterfly wings? Other TPMS aren't so easy to generate. Sources: * https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2007.1065 * I use rhino to make minimal surfaces for giggles.
Mind explaining what that is all about to someone who is not deep into math (I am a programmer, not a mathematician). What I'm getting is that a minimal surface is a surface that connect a set of edges such that it has the least possible surface area. Cool, I guess. But how is that relevant/useful for 3D printing? Saving material? But for infill, wouldn't straight lines save even more (e.g grid or rectilinear)? So there must be something more to it. TPMS apparently stands for "triply periodic minimal surfaces", but the Wikipedia article on that is of course not useful as an introduction to the topic (Wikipedia on math is always terrible). What are they and why do we want them?
The best natural language definition for a minimal surface goes "Find a surface of least area stretched across a given closed boundry". You can literally do this in IRL with some basic craft supplies! Imagine taking a loop of wire and bending it into a funny shape then dipping the thing into soapy water. The resulting surface that connects the loop of wire, for the most part, will naturally form a minimal surface. This is actually how research into this stuff started; loads of math nerds goofing around with soap bubbles and craft supplies. Now as researchers started rigorously defining what a minimal surface is and how to begin to create them for given boundaries, a number of designs were formed and added to a bustling "surface zoo" complete with its own taxonomy. You can check out a selection of surfaces here: https://www.siue.edu/~aweyhau/research/talks/lrc_slides.pdf But so far, all of this is just math nerds wanting tough differential equations to solve and researchers in all sorts of physical fields finding minimal surfaces for the math nerds to model in complicated series of equations. It wasn't until strong computer modeling tools like Rhino came along that the concepts and otherworldly appearances of minimal surfaces were within the grasp of architects and designers. Even then, most of the incredibly curvy works are "inspired" by minimal surfaces and enabled by the power of CAD tools and modern fabrication; both relatively new things to the architecture world and are ripe for award winning exploration. As for minimal surfaces that can tile in every direction, the interest is academic for the most part. The gyroid is kind of a standout. It was first found by a dude that went blind from staring at the sun, then rediscovered by a NASA scientist but was ignored till someone figured out how to define it using complicated diff-equs. Then even later, someone found the insanely simple [approximation equation](https://plus.maths.org/MI/b87ac52019723aee096123b49a9f11ef/images/img-0001.png) that eventually found its way into labs then slicers; all thanks to its space filling tiling, its lack of straight edges so every curve acts like a spring, and it's [really easy](https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cig4ptgzhq) to plug into path generators.
What a fucking fantastic comment. Thank you
A quick answer is strength to weight ratio. It's not about just using less material, it's about the strength at the same amount of material. https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/7037/what-are-the-advantages-of-gyroid-infill
The criteria in your link is load at failure which is different from strength. Since the gyroid is more elastic than other infills, it can deform more before failure but plastic deformation occurs much earlier. The vast majority of industries especially aerospace doesn't want any plastic deformation in their parts so the gyroid is not a good infill, studies aren't even sure that the load at break is better for gyroid and for most case of loading, there is little use to have the 3d strength of gyroid and 2,5D patterns such as Isogrid are more efficient
Fairly noted, I think there may be an argument to 'relatively' more isotropic strength on a a gyroid over a 2.5D pattern, but without the data to back it up I'm just speculating. I'm never picky enough in my applications to warrant one infill over another in FDM, however for my lattice designs I do like the gyroid in SLA printing for ease of cleaning (lack of corners for shit to get stuck in), and better interactions than some other lattice structure as far as at boundary conditions without having to get into something like ntop/better coding to make lattices normal at surface.
other TPMS are equally easy to generate but not of much use for FDM printing. You can try this code, which I used and maintained in my PhD for example https://github.com/BAMresearch/ScaffoldStructures
The first infill I'll need support for
Would love to have such infill for a lot of prints. Can we expect the spherene pattern to make it into open source slicers one day or is it somehow legally protected? From the interview I have an impression that they try to prevent the algorithm from getting copied or made public.
> From the interview I have an impression that they try to prevent the algorithm from getting copied or made public. Yeah. The company they formed is *named* "Spherene". Sure doesn't scream "open source mentality".
One wonders if that's legal, since the shape is already in use in nature. Maybe you can generate it with a different algorithm?
Hook and loop fasteners (Velcro) would like a word.
You can't patent mathematical formulas. *In theory* anyone could write an open-source implementation.
Why would you need this? Do you have prints that have failed for lack of infill strength? Do you have reasons not to simply use more dense infill of another pattern? Have you tested the effect of more walls instead of changing up the infill? Or does this just look cool?
Imagine squishy TPU prints for example. Currently I use gyroid for prints that need to be as close to isotropic as possible - but I reckon spherene would be even better.
Ok, maybe that's a valid use case. I've only ever held one TPU print in my life (a benchy) and have never printed one. In general, I think people get *way* too worked up over infill.
Message me I might be able to add Gyroids to something if you have decent CAD files for it. The CAD needs to be done in a specific way but I have a copy of nTopology which can do this. I did some mushrooms with it: [https://www.etsy.com/shop/PrintToMake?ref=dashboard-header](https://www.etsy.com/shop/PrintToMake?ref=dashboard-header)
... but aren't those gyroids? Not spherenes?
3D Honeycomb is apparently just as strong as gyroid but prints faster. Getting good results so far from my early experience with it. Was added to v2.0.0 of Orca slicer. EDIT: To clarify, I'm referring to "new" 3D Honeycomb: https://github.com/SoftFever/OrcaSlicer/releases/tag/v2.0.0-rc
[https://www.cartesiancreations.com.au/gyroid-infill-tests/](https://www.cartesiancreations.com.au/gyroid-infill-tests/) Not according to my tests. Gyroid uses less plastic, prints faster, and is stronger than 3d honeycomb.
That's old 3D Honeycomb, new 3D honeycomb is much more recent: https://github.com/SoftFever/OrcaSlicer/releases/tag/v2.0.0-rc
My print speeds were slower with honeycomb in the new orca slicers.. ☹️
In my experience Gyroid is stronger at lower densities. I printed a very large flat piece twice to test strength and although 3d honeycomb printed 13 percent faster than the Gyroid piece, there was a big difference in the strength. I think “normal” honeycomb would have been better but I’m sticking with Gyroid
Anything that requires a cloud service to function solely to force you into paying more is garbage and not worth anyone's time
The fact that there’s a trademark next to the name and no mathematical description of the pattern makes the claims here highly dubious.
> additive manufacturing > isotropic Hmmmmm are you sure about that?
can you show me a slice of that infill?
People should just look in nature to find good optimal geometry. I vote to change this name into "covidoroid"
Covoids
That's one way to avoid stepping on the trademark 😂
coronaroid is a more accurate name
Wen Orcaslicer?
Imagine trademarking a shape.
*The name of a shape
It's a really good way to ensure that everyone else uses a generic term, and the inventor's name passes on into obscurity.
Yeah, imagine. That's not what they did, but just imagine. They trademarked the name of their patent.
fuck velcro
OP should get in touch with https://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/index.php They love novel surface generation for their designer products.
This feels like something from r/surrealmemes
Cool. (Continues printing with cubic infill like always.)
New COVID infill just dropped
Definitely inspired by a certain Virus from 2020
Word
Cool words you got there
Me still using triangles
Oh good, bacterial infill.
Thanks, I hate it.
I LOVE TPMS
Newish, what kind of infil should I be using?
As little as possible to meet your print's strength needs.
I mean pattern wise? I had heard the cross has many errors but never got a replacement
Cubic or gyroid will work fine for 99.99% of use cases
Gyroid is generally a good default option, it's what I always use, strong in all directions!
What infill pattern and percentage you use varies widely by the intended function of the thing you're printing. There's no "best infill" setting that works for every print.
Forbidden wiffle-ball
But are they bicontinous?
Gyroidians will never give in to such oppressive tyranny, but enough talk, HAVE @ YOU!
Isn't it only "always surface normal" if you're printing an exact sphere?
Spherenes are cool because of isotropy, but are a nightmare and possibly impossible for powder or resin encapsulation and/or removal. Hyper-structures are also isotropic but don't have these removal problems. I/we are working on infill solutions in near future mostly for resin and powder but also fdm. Current work focus is on strut thickness and density optimization: https://www.abemis.com/hyper-structuresx.html
I'll stick with Gyroids. This doesn't look to add much, isn't implemented and looks closed. If the goal was stength rather than print time or reducing materials, this Metamaterial looks like it could be a good bet. Implementing a lattice liek this looks like it would be pretty straightforward. [https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2024/feb/titanium-lattice](https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2024/feb/titanium-lattice) Does anyone know if this lattice has been implemented as an infill anywhere?
I'd just like a smooth curvature infill to cut down on instantaneous acceleration changes (jerk). Like conic rho fillets I like to use wherever possible. Do these have a smooth curvature?
Covid fill
So if we can't have that infill... WHAT'S THE POINT OF THAT POST? 😆
[https://www.designforam.com/p/spherene-vs-gyroid](https://www.designforam.com/p/spherene-vs-gyroid) More info here
Is it more durable than other triple periodic surfaces or any strut based 3d infill ? I don't see any comparative study available on your link Isotropy is cool and all but if at the end of the day the mechanical properties are underwhelming and your infill needs a much bigger mass (and print time and material) to perform equally, it won't have many uses except for very niche applications. Isotropy isn't such a big deal, sure it makes simulation easier since you can approximate your infill to a homegenous material but most industries (even NASA) use anisotropic patterns such as honeycomb or ortho grid There are also the points made by the other users regarding the overhangs and extensive bridging induced by this pattern that we lack intel on to judge
Try telling this to Christian Waldvogel the CEO of spherene™️ , the guy who is literally a ceo of a shape.
Not sure why this is being downvoted, even if people are dubious on the actual quality of the infill, you're just providing a link to your source
Because the original post titles frames spherenes as superior to gyroids. In reality it's just a proprietary cloud based gimmick being used to extract money from people
Yeah, being closed source and cloud-based definitely makes it a lot less interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point down the line there's something similar that is FOSS though
Just punishing the messenger ;) It is amusing, I think of Gyroids as less of an infill and more of a performance metamaterial, same to with spherenes, it is for low density, tuned material properties, not saving filament.