I will be brief, I think Bambu Studio has many options to implement that are already available in Orca Slicer, but I am mainly concerned or interested in the “Make Overhang Printable” option.
This option prunes the overhangs of the 3D models so that they can be printed without using supports, I add some example pictures taken in the Orca Slicer laminator.
Any other option that you miss?
I think it isn’t a lack of porting or implementing…
More a lack of man power really.
Overhangs have been a trouble since day one of 3D printing.
And while there are some novel approaches to the problem, so far there isn’t one that does both - make overhangs good to print AND keeping the model geometry.
Like in your example where a flat surface turns into an angled one.
What I would like to have is something like a print profile tuner.
We can finally use custom filaments in half decent ways.
Having some tool to properly and quickly tune print- and filament profiles would be nice.
Am sure Bambu knows about the relationships between speed, acceleration and such, so it can’t be too hard to provide some sliders and quick test prints to hone settings.
im not sure i understand what you mean by lack of man power ? this feature is something we often need to print special models or prototypes that wouldnt need supports when cast… so not sure what your syaing here… hopefully we can get this feature available soon
While the “Make Overhangs Printable” feature is a powerful tool for reducing support material and print time, applying it globally often ruins critical dimensions or aesthetic details where precision is required. By implementing a brush-based system—similar to the current Support Painter—users could selectively apply chamfers or “printable” slopes only where they are needed and keep a standard support for the larger overhangs.
Key Benefits:
Surgical Precision: Users can keep functional holes or tight tolerances untouched while “fixing” non-critical aesthetic overhangs with a few brush strokes.
Hybrid Efficiency: Currently, we often choose between “100% Support” or “100% Geometry Change.” A painter tool allows for a hybrid approach: auto-fixing simple overhangs (eg. small Logos, Texts) and using traditional supports only for complex areas.
Material & Time Savings: It is the ultimate “Green” feature. Minimizing waste by modifying geometry is always more efficient than printing sacrificial structures.
Why now?:
Slicers have evolved significantly over the last few years. We have moved beyond simple G-code generation into intelligent geometry manipulation (like Variable Layer Height and Boolean operations). After years of relying on external CAD software to “fix” models for 3D printing, it is time for the Slicer to bridge that gap natively. Since the logic for “Make Overhangs Printable” already exists in the engine, adding a localized mask (painter) is the logical next step in user empowerment. 
Why not just “paint” the model in CAD to be more printable in the first place? 
This is an old thread and I don’t know the current status of this feature in Orca… does anyone use it?
It does seem like a nice feature in general and the OP’s screenshot shows a nice fix of a terrible-looking original model. But the model “shouldn’t” be like that to begin with, IMHO. I mean… why? Laziness?
Now if my modelling software had that feature, that could definitely save some time, chamfering and whatnot.
Personally I lean towards the slicer doing slicing things (managing profiles, generating g-code) and CAD/CAM doing the things those programs should be good at, which is making the model. Adaptive layer height would be the slicer, boolean ops in CAD (with actual solids instead of meshes, or something like Meshmixer). And the last thing Studio in particular needs right now is more bloat. But I get that it’s convenient to have tools in the slicer directly.
But if the slicer is changing the model, how is that a “proper” prototype? Genuine question, no snark intended. Wouldn’t something like that (a special version of a part for FDM) still be more controllable/replicable in CAD?
Cheers,
-Max
