Some slicers have introduced brick layers, and more slicers plan to add them. Until that happens, you can use this new script from [Geek Detour] to get brick layer goodness on Prusa, Orca, and Bambu slicers. Check out the video below for more details.
The idea behind brick layers is that outer walls can be stronger if they are staggered vertically so each layer interlocks with the layer below it. The pattern resembles a series of interlocking bricks and can drastically increase strength. Apparently, using the script breaks the canceling object functionality in some printers, but that’s a small price to pay. Multi-material isn’t an option either, but — typically — you’ll want to use the technique on functional parts, which you probably aren’t printing in colors. Also, the Arachne algorithm option only works reliably on Prusa slicer, so far.
The video covers a lot of detail on how hard it was to do this in an external script, and we are impressed. It should be easier to write inside the slicer since it already has to figure out much of the geometry that this script has to figure out by observation.
If you want more information, we’ve covered brick layers (and the controversy around them) back in November. Of course, scripts that add functions to slicers, tend to get outdated once the slicers catch up.
Open source can ignore patents, if you don’t resell it.
That isn’t so. Patent holders can enforce their patents against open source projects and those who use them regardless of revenue.
However it sounds like a “Fujitsu” case. If it’s automating a process that can be done manually, it’s not an invention and not patentable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujitsu%27s_Application
Not a lawyer, but isn’t it usually the case that something as generic as layering 3d prints like we’ve been layering bricks for hundreds/thousands of years would only be protected in relation to the specific algorithm used to generate the gcode. This is how android phones can have very similar scrolling snapback behavior to apple phones because they both use a different algorithm (though this had to be tested in court first obviously).
anyone can ignore patents, you just might get sued. You also might not get sued.
This is non-trivial part of the law, that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and how different jurisdictions’ patents interact.
In the USA,to a reasonable approximation, ANY use of US patented IP is prohibited without authorization, even personal use.
In some other jurisdictions, personal use may be ok.
In others, non-commercial may be ok.
It gets interesting with IP patented in a different jurisdiction, such as using IP protected in the US for a product in the EU.
The details are why I know patent lawyers.
software patents are not valid in many, if not most jurisdictions.
but this may be considered a manufacturing patent…
Just a reminder that all the conversation about legally protected use is an intellectual exercise. If a patent holder pursues you in court, you still have to show up with a lawyer. If you intend to defend your position, it’s going to cost you time and money and regardless of how right you feel you are, you still might walk away unsuccessful.
And rights holders know this.
Everyone can (and should) ignore patents all the time.
Sure, you’re allowed to code it yourself for your own personal use, just as you’re allowed to copy a patented item and use it non-commercially. Distribution, whether it’s physical or code, whether you sell or offer it for free, is another matter.