## Prusa slicer and support material

0

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

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

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:

Is it just a settings problem?

1The 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. – 0scar – 2020-04-01T10:08:04.367

@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). – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE – 2020-04-01T13:04:39.930

1@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. – 0scar – 2020-04-01T14:21:07.220

1I 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. – Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 – 2020-04-01T14:48:12.473

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. – Carl Witthoft – 2020-04-02T15:06:57.433

@CarlWitthoft I don't have estimates for those prints but this was just a too simple test. If you have to print something big I think time and material increasing proportionally. In this test, the object stops with a simple bridge between those two circular columns; Prusa Slicer generates a structure can support 5 Kg over it. I agree with you all, the key is the result, but, in my opinion, I have to be free to choose the amount of support to generate.
In this way I am led to use two tools: one for small parts (Slic3r) and one for large prints.
– danyolgiax – 2020-04-03T07:34:24.843