Yeah, this is definitely a slicer issue. The way it generates supports is flimsy at best.
Why am I convinced of this now? I’ve posted a comparison in my previous posts showing how OrcaSlicer vs Bambu Studio handle supports.
OrcaSlicer generates exactly the number of interface layers you specify, and it places them at an angle (around 45°, give or take), which provides much better surface contact and support logic.
Bambu Studio, on the other hand, creates interface layers vertically at a 90° angle when viewed top-down. Since BS v2, it also adds an extra, uncontrollable interface layer—likely assuming you’re using dedicated support material with 0 top-z. So when you set 3 interface layers, you actually get 4.
To make things worse, that extra layer is completely out of the user’s control. For example:
- I set my interface speed to 80 mm/s
- That hidden support interface layer runs at 10 mm/s
- And the flow is dropped to 0.18, compared to the 4.50 I’ve defined for the rest of the interface layers
Additionally, a friend of mine—who also owns a P1P—has been struggling for three days straight with tree supports that keep breaking on a model he’s already printed successfully in the past. Meanwhile, I’ve printed that same model on my P1P (which has been running flawlessly for over 10 months now) with no issues.
He’s using his own slicing profile, which I’ve tested on my printer—and it works perfectly on mine but fails on his.
The only difference? I’m using Orca, and he’s using Bambu Studio.
It’s probably time for Bambu to take the hint and make amends with SoftFever. They make amazing printers, no doubt, but their slicer is clearly falling short—especially with all the new issues introduced in the latest BS versions.
But that’s unlikely to happen, because… “closed ecosystem, yay 
”.