I have seen this mentioned on a couple of forums over the years, and have never seen this implemented into any slicing software. The image explains the concept rather well. Id like to see this implemented into the wall loops where you have more than 3.
This isn’t my original idea, or image.
Here’s another request for interlocking layers as also reviewed by Stefan from CNC Kitchen.
I’ve had some of my parts printed in bambu petg simply fall off due to poor layer adhesion. this could make a big improvement to layer adhesion.
A new video regarding this topic has been posted on YouTube:
Brick Layers: Stronger 3D Prints TODAY - instead of 2040
Creator: Geek Detour
(unfortunatelly I am not allowed zo post links)
I would appreciate this feature in the Bambu Studio.
You need to read and intact just a little longer before you can add links
I would also like to see the interlocking / brick layers added
This user claims to be a patent laywer and argues that the claims are very specific and can allow us to work around the patent. Can anyone verify if the patent has been argued for cease and desist against anyone? I think you are in the clear, Bambu Labs, but verify with your lawyers.
WE SHOULD HAVE THIS FEATURE ALREADY
It all comes down to the wording and I do not believe there isn’t a safe path to solve this issue.
By wording I mean, often those who write these things are often trying to be clever.
The following is an example of wording issues that is subject to law and the consequence of how it was written.
In the U.K. is illegal to have a Cathode Ray TV in the front of a car.
Well, that makes sense, right? No one would want others on the road to be able to watch a TV whilst they drive.
Superb, all TVs are banned from cars.
Erm, nope, you may have missed a bit.
It said Cathode Ray TVs, those who wrote it thought they were smart, it was an old law and in the olden days (mine) TVs were actually still called Cathode Ray TVs. There were no commercially successful other techniques than Cathode Ray, so, it was included.
The worlds spins a few thousand times and suddenly, a new way of displaying TV is available, LCD, then LED, and OLED and more.
The law still exists, but, the only way to convict someone of watching TV in the U.K. now is evidence of actually driving without due care and attention, an entirely different law with different standards.
The position pushed by the person claiming not to be a lawyer makes sense. Like him, I have not read anything else, but, when someone describes a specific process it is usually for one of two main reasons.
I was recently told about a patent that might affect me, the person (actually three different people) all believed they were so smart sharing this news that might cause me issues. The problem is, they do not understand the basic principles of patents and they scope to which they can claim.
I chose not to correct them as two of them were doing something in the same field and stopped becuase they misunderstood a patent!
Considering the author repurposed prior art that is already in the public domain, this patent has no leg to stand on.
We really should have this feature, it would be great to see! Especially since the original patent expired and the new one is garbage that would never hold up pretending to be something new.
I’m excited to see a feature like this added! Layer strength is such a huge deal in 3d printing!
I agree that this would be a valuable addition and bring functionality to the Printers with AMS
This would be an amazingly great feature. I would make them shaped like the Lego interface, or some way so you get strength along the X and Y vectors.
I’m sure this type of feature will be coming eventually.
This “patent” is just the laziest kind of patent trolling, literally duplicating even some of the diagrams from the expired patent. The trouble is, most of the companies aren’t willing to put out resources to fight for something they aren’t currently using anyway. I’d love to see someone go after it, because it should significantly improve layer adhesion, but we almost need a patent lawyer who’s a printing hobbyist to take this on… That or to make enough noise that someone like Bambu actually steps up, but I’m not counting on it.
There are more and more articles on the net about higher strength when printing with “bricklayer” technology.
I find the background very interesting. This would help to significantly improve layer adhesion.
What do you think?
What do I think? There are two items that come to mind.
First, show me proof. I know the theory behind this and it sure sound appealing but where is the test data to prove that this sort of printing will move the dial on structural strength? Personally, until they show me actual test data–not from Stefan’s CNC Kitchen BTW-- I’m from Missouri “Show ME”.
On the second topic. The fact that this was able to be patented is just one more example of a broken intellectual property system that is part of the thing that blocks innovation in the west. On one hand, you have inventions here that are being stolen everyday by the Chinese and then on the other hand you have patent trolls like Stratasys who squat on inventions for the purposes of blocking their entry into the market. This tactic is more prevalent in the Pharma industry where real lives are impacted. At least in FDM, nobody loses a loved one because a patented drug is placed out of reach.
Any updates on this? This would greatly improve our prints.
I have an idea for implementing staggered layer heights by manually modifying G-code to improve layer adhesion. Before I test this further, I wanted to ask the community if there are any concerns about whether this approach would work in practice or if I might have overlooked important aspects that would need to be adjusted. For example, does this method adequately address extrusion, movement commands, or mechanical stresses? I would greatly appreciate feedback and suggestions for improvement.
The idea is that staggered layer heights could significantly improve layer adhesion in 3D prints by creating a stronger mechanical bond between layers. My proposed approach involves adjusting the G-code for a Bambu X1C to achieve this effect. Here is how it could be done:
First, you would export the G-code from Bambu Studio. This would involve preparing your 3D model with standard print settings, such as material, layer height, and number of perimeters. Initially, you would select a uniform layer height, such as 0.2 mm. Once the slicing is complete, you would export the G-code file.
Next, you would edit the G-code file using a text editor like Notepad++ or Visual Studio Code. In the G-code, you would locate the commands that specify the Z height for each layer, which appear as lines starting with G1 Z... . The idea is to alternate the layer heights, for example, switching between 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm for successive layers. This would create a staggered pattern.
In addition to adjusting the layer heights, it would also be necessary to modify the extrusion rates for the thicker layers to account for the increased material volume. For example, you could increase the extrusion value (represented by E in the G-code) for layers with greater height. This ensures that the additional material required for the thicker layers is extruded properly.
It’s also important to ensure smooth transitions between layers by verifying that movement commands, such as G0 , do not lead to collisions with higher portions of previous layers. This involves carefully checking that the print head moves smoothly without disrupting the printed structure.
Does this theoretical approach make sense? Are there any potential issues I might have overlooked, such as challenges with extrusion adjustments or increased mechanical stress on the printer? I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts and any suggestions you might have to refine this idea further.
Glad to see this thread finally getting some action, hopefully we get this feature. If it ends up a legal issue, how about user-defined plugins/scripts?
Any tried this? seems like the kind of thing a custom GPT could easily do.
I have a long and mixed collection of experiences with software patents, such as: authoring them, acquiring them, licensing them and being threatened and even sued over them for patent infringement.
Keep in mind, Patents are an offensive tool for a plaintiff who brings a patent infringement suite. If you hold a patent and you believe it clearly defines infringement within a product - where do you take your patent and what do you do to remedy the situation?
You would go to your believed offender, usually a company, and waive it around and demand they either cease selling their product, maybe remove the feature, or negotiate a license deal.
If they disagree and ignore you then you either give up or get a lawyer and file a claim in civil court.
From a practical / technical perspective patents such as this ‘Brick Layer’ issue were systemically dealt with by a simple ‘cut & paste’ of the offending operations out of the core build and introducing an optional ‘plugin extension port’ where such types of ‘filters’ can be introduced through configuration files.
The code you cut out is pasted into a ‘sample plugin’ on the wiki that is clearly documented as possibly being a violation of ‘9999’ patent - compile and use at your own risk. It is provided for reference and example use only.
In the document imaging and processing software space everyone did this a lot and got huge ancillary benefit from all kinds of tweaks and options getting introduced even before open-source patches, pull-requests and branching of source was a thing.
It worked like a charm. Never once a successful judgement.
