4
$\begingroup$

I usually use Slic3r 1.3 but now I'm trying the new PrusaSlicer 2.2 that offers new features.

I see that PrusaSlicer creates a lot of support material when compared to Slic3r:

screenshot comparison of Slic3r and PrusaSlicer sliced 3D model

this involves two problems:

  1. A lot of material is wasted
  2. The structure is very difficult to separate from the model

This is my configuration panel in Prusa:

Screenshot of PrusaSlicer configuration panel

Is it just a settings problem?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The danger of the pillar style support structures is that they have a far higher risk of falling over, while the PruseSlicer support structure is more solid. I think that, in the end, wasting a single print because of failed pillar support takes more filament than printing with a little more filament each print. $\endgroup$
    – 0scar ♦
    Commented Apr 1, 2020 at 10:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @0scar: That analysis is less convincing once you factor in that the excessive support probably doubles print time unless you use options that harm quality of the part being printed (eg skipping retraction during support causes underextrusion after moving back to print the part). $\endgroup$
    – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
    Commented Apr 1, 2020 at 13:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE Not really, the OP shows an example, the support is completely configurable, it can be way less using the proper settings. But this is very subjective, hence not an answer but a comment. We've had 1 kg PETG print failures with Cura (pillar type) support; would have loved to put in a 100 grams extra then I wouldn't have had to print another kg for the re-print. $\endgroup$
    – 0scar ♦
    Commented Apr 1, 2020 at 14:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with @0scar here. You can waist a little extra material for a higher probability of print success, or run the higher risk of print failure with the other, which would waste a lot of material, for both support and part. Sometimes the waste is worth the rewards. $\endgroup$
    – Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2
    Commented Apr 1, 2020 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have print- time estimates for these two slices? I agree with the others that wasting a few cents' worth of filament is not an issue. Time and reliability are the key issues. $\endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 15:06

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

In my opinion, PrusaSlicer aims for the most robust printing process at the cost of a higher demand for material in the standard configuration.

I totally agree with @0scar that the small pillars have a high tendency of falling over with increasing height of the print.

To handle the waste of material you could use the feature "Paint-On Supports" (since version 2.3) to tell the software where support material has to be used. The feature can be found on the left panel while on "3D-Editor View". This is an extra step to prepare your model, but to speed up your post-processing I think it should be worth it. Prusa improved the modifier by "you get what you click". If you want to stay in Version 2.2, I think you have to use the generic modifiers, which are a lot more time-consuming to set up.

Paint-on supports @Prusa Knowledge Base

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Additionally for those who may not know, (I'm fully aware this post is a few years old) there are improvements that come with PrusaSlicer 2.6 in terms of options for cutting prints along a plane, adding pegs to those cut prints and organic supports, just for those who may not be aware.

Additional details can be found in the article from Tom's Hardware "New Features Added to PrusaSlicer 2.6 Alpha Release".

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .