Just showing this off because I want people to see examples of what you can do with very smart and careful supports placement. This was done all manually and the outcome is significantly better than using auto generate.
Hopefully one day auto generate will get close, or we’ll have more powerful manual editing tools to make pre processing take less time 
Hi Phil,
This is great! Out of curiosity, what changes to the supports do you typically find yourself making compared to the auto-generated ones? e.g. moving touchpoints closer/farther away from edges, making touchpoints larger/smaller/denser/less-dense, etc.
In general - making touchpoints smaller, making them less dense or more evenly spaced out, with a higher density near and around the minimas with less (or none) at other self supporting areas and simply removing/deleting touchpoints at areas that are self supporting (a judgement call based on geometry, material, and height).
I find auto gen is bad at a few things:
The supports V2 settings perform significantly better than the old settings in my opinion, in terms of placing supports at the right places (along edges nearby minima), but it has some weird bugs where it tends to place support points very close to each other in clusters. I’ve brought this up several times, but the algorithm needs to have something in it to prevent touchpoints from being placed less than x mm close to each other.
100%, could not agree more. Great explanation of the oddities of using Auto Placement. I do hope they take your feedback into consideration.
Do you find that Supports V2’s auto gen is better on any of the 3 points you brought up?
Yes it’s much smarter about where it puts them but it’s buggy (check in with Hasan, I’ve been sending him video recordings of the bugs). Wish you guys had a GitHub or something for logging issues so I could see issues being assigned or resolved. Maybe something in the future to consider.