Any idea about how to remove these things? They are super annoying to take off from the plate.
I think is the support raft, even if the support are not even close to the plate. I believe is a bug but I can’t find a way to prevent them.
Normal manual support, style: Snug.
This is the painting for the support:
Using paint tree supports and right-clicking to paint support blockers is probably the easiest.
Or you can right-click on the model and select support blocker and then resize and position the blocked shape. In this example, I’m using a cube but you can use any shape including a cut down version of the original model.
Tree support would be extremely inefficient there.
Support blocker doesn’t work. I tried already.
Are you changing the topic? Your initial question was how to block the supports.
I assure, blockers work as my GIF above illustrates.
If you upload your 3MF, I’ll take a look at it and see if there is anything about the geometry that would prevent blockers from working.
I’m afraid you’ve mistaken this topic for some kind of contest. I posted it to find an efficient solution to my problem, not to accept any answer that simply fits within the boundaries of the question, otherwise, even replying “disable supports” would have been a correct answer. 
If I wanted to solve the problem by changing the type of supports, I definitely wouldn’t have posted here…
Support blocker doesn’t work as I already said. And for a very obvious reason:
Good luck to you.
Those little tags are often vestigial parts of the “first layer expansion” brim-like constructs.
Set that to 0 and see if it gets rid of it. Otherwise you’ll need to paint specific supports and twiddle with the settings as Olias recommended. The support paint tool has a nice “on overhangs only” mode where it’ll only paint on areas >someDegree, which makes it very quick to slap on. The paint tool also can be RIGHT CLICKED to paint a no-support region, instead of using a support blocker cube, which has different behavior in the algorithms.
I tried the first layer expansion thing:
You are supposed to set a support raft, then set the first layer expansion to zero and take off the raft.
Worked in the past but here, unfortunately didn’t work as well. 
At this point I’ll keep those, doesn’t seem to be a solution in the support’s setting for what I believe it’s a bug, and the alternatives are worse than the problem itself.
I’m currently dealing with supports that annoyed me and no amount of painting supports, different types and all that didn’t help and overall the supports were not as effective as I wanted them to be…
So I designed my own “support” which is another object that’s assembled with my object, has pre-set distance etc… The only problem then is that it’s not treated as a “support” so no support interface if I’d like it, but man, setting vertical distance to 0.2 and it’s like a normal support, works great, leaves no mark… Check Slant3d on youtube and search for “supports” - interesting
I guess we use a different definition of “efficient”.
Support+Interface
Weight and Print Time
Normal Snug 4.57g/26:59
Tree Default 5.88g/21:57
Tree Organic 5.88g/19:51
Tree Slim 4.31g/11:09
Tree Strong 6.02g/13:45
Tree Hybrid 4.36g/11:16
Tree(Auto) in all forms requires less time than Normal Snug, uses less material in two.
No need to paint blockers. Easy removal. Interfaces on only one surface, not two, reducing potential scars. No supports in hard-to-reach areas.
But feel free to insist on using what does not work.
I really can’t understand why every time someone posts in this forum looking for advice, there always has to be some toxic kid or group of kids who must start an argument just because you don’t accept their solution.
I can absolutely accept not finding, or that there simply isn’t, a solution to the problem I’m raising. But if I say that a certain support does NOT work properly for the specific case, WHY should I have to get dragged into an argument I DON’T CARE ABOUT, one that adds NOTHING to the discussion, just to satisfy the amusement of some toxic troll replying with memes?
I’m “insisting on something that works perfectly,” and works better and more efficiently (not only in terms of filament cost, obviously…) than other tests I’ve already tried. I’m just trying to optimize the print for whoever will have to print it once I upload the project online. That’s all.
shaq981
4m
I really can’t understand why every time someone posts in this forum looking for advice, there always has to be some toxic kid or group of kids who must start an argument just because you don’t accept their solution.
I can absolutely accept not finding, or that there simply isn’t, a solution to the problem I’m raising. But if I say that a certain support does NOT work properly for the specific case, WHY should I have to get dragged into an argument I DON’T CARE ABOUT, one that adds NOTHING to the discussion, just to satisfy the amusement of some toxic troll replying with memes?
I’m “insisting on something that works perfectly,” and works better and more efficiently (not only in terms of filament cost, obviously…) than other tests I’ve already tried. I’m just trying to optimize the print for whoever will have to print it once I upload the project online. That’s all.
Im quoting this for posterity, and you should scroll up as you look in the mirror lol
You’ll be fine.
This is the problem you asked to have solved. You did not put constraints on the solution at that time. The correct answer would be a scraper. I recommend plastic razor blades.
Instead we suggested several solutions to resolve the stated problem. I suggested Tree supports, which prevent the formation of “these things” in the first place, so there is nothing to remove, while using less material and time. You find trees “inefficient” in some unstated manner, so that made you upset. How are Trees “worse than the problem itself”? This is a forum, we are free to suggest any solution we like. You do not get to dictate the form of those suggestions. If you don’t accept a solution, simply ignore it. If you prefer to get angry, you will find few willing to help you.
We had foolishly thought the goal was to create a print. Now you are changing the problem, “insisting on something that works perfectly”, even when your choice of supports is suboptimal.
I did initially misunderstand the issue, thinking that those bits of support in the hole corners extended up to the first interface layer. Since you did not provide a sample project for us to examine, I drew up and sliced a portion of a similar model. I was surprised to see that Normal/Snug places these tiny support bits only on the first layer, and they should not touch the model with well-calibrated filament. These tiny bits are your problem???
I find that increasing Support/object xy distance to 0.60mm or more will prevent these trivial corner pieces from being generated.
That said, these tiny bits do not serve any purpose that I can see and probably are a minor bug. Feel free to submit a bug report to the developers on Github as a New Issue. Bugs reported only in the forum are seldom fixed. The forum is by and for the users, and the developers seldom visit this forum. The users here cannot make the software conform to your ideals of perfection, they can only make suggestions to help you achieve reasonable results with the available tools.
