Maybe it's not even necessary? I'm just guessing, from what I'm seeing.
This probably applies mainly to honeycomb, as I've started to use it exclusively (so far ).
IMO (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just thinking out loud) it's best if there are clean hexagons, not halves, and certainly not having just a tiny line of not-quite-anything at the border, where the printhead has to jiggle to fill it up.
My reasoning is that especially tiny walls that are already fragile gain most from a stable infill with regular structures.
What I'm doing currently is going up and down a percent to see if it looks any better.
Is it possible to automate this? An optional button "optimize infill" where the program takes its time to calculate the best percentage.
Defining "optizing": take the percentage I supplied and go up/down for about 20% of the value (or so?). I.e. if I supply 5%, try with 4 and 6.
At 10, it'd be 8,9,10,11,12 .