Support Z gap layer or mm

Suggestion Summary

For me on of the main problems on all the slicers is that the Z Gap between the support and the part is defined by layers and not by mm. In my opinion it makes much more sense to have mm here.
For example. I print a part at 0.2mm layer height than the gap is 0.2mm and I am able to remove the support really good. If I then print exactly the same part with 0.1mm the gap is only 0.1mm I am then simply not able to remove the support.

*Do other slicers do this?:
As worse as pathio

I can second this too. Z Gap should be a set distance as it does not change. I can see issues if you have a layer height that is not an even multiple of the Z gap distance. In this case there could be a warning dialogue that pops up warning you of this when you try to slice the part.

Hi smoki3 and brandon

This is definitely something we are going to be looking into further.

Our development roadmap for future release will have such a feature.

However there is a little more complexity than meets the eye here since resizing the supports (by adjusting the gap between it and the model) can give you supports that end in a partial layer, which can cause problems.

We need to further review how we implement this without negative effect on other features and functionality.

As stated above this is a feature that we are going to be further reviewing for a future release.

I understand the complexity. But I think this can be handled.

You may have to add a dynamic layer height for support. That means that may 3 or 4 layers before the support get in contact with the part, the layerhight of the support get adjusted to get the exact distance between the part and support.

You’d have to take into account the full step distance of the Z axis since not all printers have arbitrary Z axis resolution.

Could you sub define the interface layer, so say it needs 0.2mm gap and you are using 0.3mm layers, and the interface layer is not falling on a Z multiple, the interface layer is stepped at say 0.1mm increments? A bit like using a bigger nozzle for infill and increasing the layer height for the infill, but in reverse.