Slic3r pillar support setting
I have tried using spillar support settings, but I see no difference between that and the honeycomb setting. They look the same. Is that supposed to be the case?
Re: Slic3r pillar support setting
The pillars were not stable and they were removed internally during the rework of the supports. The "pillars" choice has yet to be removed from the user interface.
Re: Slic3r pillar support setting
Ok, not sure how I managed to type "spillars", but anyway...
That would explain why it does what it does! Thanks for the response. I will say, though, that Slic3r supports make the bottom of the supported area a mess. It would be nice to have something that removes more cleanly.
Re: Slic3r pillar support setting
I will say, though, that Slic3r supports make the bottom of the supported area a mess. It would be nice to have something that removes more cleanly.
I have to second this. I tried my first print with supports in Slic3r the other day, and while the supports came off easily, I was disappointed with the surface finish of the areas that were supposed to have been held up by the supports. They were unacceptably rough and no amount of post-processing would have made them look presentable.
Another thing I noticed, at least in the case of models with curved overhangs (such as the bottom of a sphere), Slic3r's supports aren't generated close enough to the overhangs to prop them up, which causes them to droop as if they hadn't been supported at all. The supports seem to stop just a little short of making full contact with those kinds of overhangs no matter what settings you use. I've tried tweaking overhang angle, contact Z distance, density, etc., but I can't get them any closer. I understand that part of the reason for supports to maintain some distance from the model is to aid in easier removal, but that also lessens their effectiveness because they're not holding up the overhangs that need them as well as they could.
Until Slic3r improves in this area, I'd suggest using Meshmixer to generate supports for more complex models and then bringing the supported model back into Slic3r; it's given me much better (and cleaner) results. Or you could look into Simplify3D. Although I'd love to see Slic3r with those kinds of features built-in someday as it has worked the best for me of all the slicers I've tried so far (minus supports :P).