<p>In my opinion, PrusaSlicer aims for the most robust printing process at the cost of a higher demand for material in the standard configuration.</p>
<p>I totally agree with <a href="https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/13294/prusa-slicer-and-support-material#comment23677_13294">@0scar</a> that the small pillars have a high tendency of falling over with increasing height of the print.</p>
<p>To handle the waste of material you could use the feature &quot;Paint-On Supports&quot; (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 &quot;3D-Editor View&quot;. 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 &quot;you get what you click&quot;.
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.</p>
<p><a href="https://help.prusa3d.com/en/article/paint-on-supports_168584" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Paint-on supports @Prusa Knowledge Base</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-22T10:22:47.847Z
2021-07-22T13:30:14.863Z
2021-07-22T13:30:14.863Z
IceCreamToast
<p>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.</p>
<p>Additional details can be found in the article from Tom's Hardware &quot;<a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/news/new-features-added-to-prusaslicer-26-alpha-release" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New Features Added to PrusaSlicer 2.6 Alpha Release</a>&quot;.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-05T12:54:05.903Z
2023-07-05T13:05:54.287Z
2023-07-05T13:05:54.287Z
xSlh._
<p>I usually use <code>Slic3r 1.3</code> but now I'm trying the new <code>PrusaSlicer 2.2</code> that offers new features.</p>
<p>I see that PrusaSlicer creates a lot of support material when compared to <code>Slic3r</code>:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/rQxar.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="screenshot comparison of Slic3r and PrusaSlicer sliced 3D model"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/rQxar.jpg" alt="screenshot comparison of Slic3r and PrusaSlicer sliced 3D model" title="screenshot comparison of Slic3r and PrusaSlicer sliced 3D model" /></a></p>
<p>this involves two problems:</p>
<ol>
<li>A lot of material is wasted</li>
<li>The structure is very difficult to separate from the model</li>
</ol>
<p>This is my configuration panel in Prusa:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/lRm2K.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Screenshot of PrusaSlicer configuration panel"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/lRm2K.jpg" alt="Screenshot of PrusaSlicer configuration panel" title="Screenshot of PrusaSlicer configuration panel" /></a></p>
<p>Is it just a settings problem?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-01T10:08:04.367Z
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.
0scar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-01T13:04:39.930Z
@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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-01T14:21:07.220Z
@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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-01T14:48:12.473Z
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.
Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-02T15:06:57.433Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-03T07:34:24.843Z
@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
<slicing><slic3r><support-structures>
Prusa slicer and support material
danyolgiax
# Prusa slicer and support material

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-04-01)

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](https://i.sstatic.net/rQxar.jpg "screenshot comparison of Slic3r and PrusaSlicer sliced 3D model")](https://i.sstatic.net/rQxar.jpg "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](https://i.sstatic.net/lRm2K.jpg "Screenshot of PrusaSlicer configuration panel")](https://i.sstatic.net/lRm2K.jpg "Screenshot of PrusaSlicer configuration panel")

Is it just a settings problem?

**Tags:** slicing, slic3r, support-structures
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 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.  
> **username_2**: @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).  
> **username_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.  
> **username_3**: 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.  
> **username_4**: 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.  
> **username_0**: @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.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-07-22. Score: 5

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](https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/13294/prusa-slicer-and-support-material#comment23677_13294) 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](https://help.prusa3d.com/en/article/paint-on-supports_168584)


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2023-07-05. Score: 3

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](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/new-features-added-to-prusaslicer-26-alpha-release)".


---

