First, the difference between the surface normal and enclosing shape methods is not as significant as with the bulk parts. This could be due to fewer surfaces being labeled as edge emission surfaces in the 3D printed parts due to the curvature inherent in the printed paths, which reduces the surface normal efficiency. Alternatively, it could suggest 3D printed parts have better directionality of emission, i.e., emitted photons are more likely to be orthogonal to exit surfaces than with bulk parts. We also again notice that the simulated efficiency with the enclosing shape method is in good agreement with the measured efficiency (Δ𝜂 !"# = 0.36 ± 0.15 %). and.