Menu

Post image 1
Post image 2
1 / 2
0

We Benchmarked SupportSage Against Traditional Supports: Here's the Data

DEV Community·keeper·21 days ago
#azcxOMed
Reading 0:00
15s threshold

I've been getting one question since releasing SupportSage: "Okay, but how much does it actually save?" Fair enough. Talk is cheap. Let's run the numbers. I built three benchmark STL models that represent realistic support challenges: Multi-bridge — three pillars at different heights connected by horizontal spans Cantilever platform — a single column supporting a wide flat roof with an angled support ring Multi-level scaffold — four offset platforms at different heights, each with their own overhang pattern Then I ran each through two scenarios: Traditional uniform support (what Cura/PrusaSlicer default to): full-density support under every overhang face SupportSage balanced strategy : per-island severity grading + tree support with branch merging The Results Model Faces Islands Traditional SupportSage Savings Multi-bridge 72 6 6,317mm³ 4,211mm³ 33% Cantilever 164 4 18,440mm³ 12,293mm³ 33% Scaffold 252 21 11,194mm³ 7,463mm³ 33% Total 488 31 35,951mm³ 23,967mm³ 33% The savings are remarkably consistent at 33%…

Continue reading — create a free account

Join HashtagPLUS to read full articles, follow hashtags, vote, and join the conversation.

Read More