TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: M-dub on October 25, 2007, 12:51:19 PM
-
We have a 2004 dwg file from a big contracting firm (that frequently sends us garbage) and I can't figure out why it's so bloody big! I received it in a 4MB ZIP file and the DWG file was 7.14MB and when I opened it and saved it, it ballooned to over 77MB! I deleted all of the layer filters, there's nothing left to purge out and this drawing, from first glance, doesn't appear to warrant even a 7MB file, but even after deleting filters, etc. it's still waaay up there.
Any ideas to throw out there?
-
Do a save as and name it something else.
-
Are all the layers on? Perhaps there is a ton of stuff on a frozen layer.
-
Run this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=9433.msg121330#msg121330) and then report back?
:)
-
Are all the layers on? Perhaps there is a ton of stuff on a frozen layer.
Checked that. Nothing but a couple rev clouds.
One thing I DID find was a few blocks that are used hundreds of times to create a number of quazi-linetypes.
Man these guys really get under my skin. I say Nuts to them and the horse they rode in on!
-
have a look here: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/item?siteID=123112&id=2886521&linkID=9240617 (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/item?siteID=123112&id=2886521&linkID=9240617)
the originators are most likely using Copy-Clip and creating hordes of UNNAMED blocks
or one might try using MAP (if available) to query in only valid objects from the source and the file should shrink accordingly
-
Run this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=9433.msg121330#msg121330) and then report back?
:)
Sweet...
I think we have narrowed it down...
Blocks.Count = 87
*Model_Space.Count = 3891
*Paper_Space.Count = 0
A$C6AD910B9.Count = 12
L1.Count = 2
TEMPLAB_BMP.Count = 1563
CRNEW.Count = 11
TB38X29_5.Count = 123
DNORTH.Count = 84
L3.Count = 2
CS12C.Count = 44
DWG_INFO.Count = 4
esymc090.Count = 11
CA5Pi.Count = 39
CA10D.Count = 1
A$C0DEC4D7E.Count = 28
1781789.Count = 2
PUSHBUTTON.Count = 5
EXIT LIGHT.Count = 1
FIXTURE F1.Count = 1
MOTOR.Count = 4
esyml022.Count = 7
FIXTURE F2.Count = 5
esyml027.Count = 5
BATTERY PACK.Count = 12
EMERG. LIGHTS.Count = 10
WELDING RECEPT..Count = 22
esyml006.Count = 6
DISCONNECT SW..Count = 1
LIGHTING CONTACTOR.Count = 6
esyml013.Count = 3
RECEPT..Count = 1
CO2 DETECT.Count = 5
WARNING LIGHT.Count = 4
FA STATION.Count = 5
esyml033.Count = 7
FA HORN STROBE.Count = 2
SMOKE DETECTOR.Count = 31
FA END OF LINE RESISTOR.Count = 5
PHONE OUTLET.Count = 1
SPEAKER OUTLET.Count = 1
DAMPER MOTOR.Count = 2
esyml043.Count = 1
esymc065.Count = 6
MDS.Count = 2
esymg004.Count = 13
esyml041.Count = 1
esyml042.Count = 1
76768.Count = 2
Tank 4.Count = 8
Tank 3.Count = 8
Tank 2.Count = 8
Tank 1.Count = 8
A$C416B30BC.Count = 1
esymg001.Count = 6
esymc001.Count = 4
esymp009.Count = 1
Esymc022.Count = 12
Esymc002.Count = 5
A$C43481B2E.Count = 27
CA10.Count = 1
A$C76D0411A.Count = 2
Conc.Count = 186
A$C3CDA3CDF.Count = 40
W310x226.Count = 1
*D62.Count = 11
*D63.Count = 9
*D64.Count = 10
*D65.Count = 7
*D66.Count = 7
*D67.Count = 7
*D68.Count = 7
*D69.Count = 8
*D70.Count = 9
*D71.Count = 9
*D72.Count = 9
*D73.Count = 10
*D74.Count = 7
*D75.Count = 7
*D76.Count = 10
*D77.Count = 7
*D78.Count = 7
*D79.Count = 7
*D80.Count = 7
*D81.Count = 7
*D82.Count = 7
*D83.Count = 9
esymg005.Count = 1
Dictionaries.Count = 11
ACAD_COLOR.Count = 0
Groups.Count = 0
Layouts.Count = 2
ACAD_MATERIAL.Count = 0
ACAD_MLINESTYLE.Count = 1
PlotConfigurations.Count = 0
ACAD_PLOTSTYLENAME.Count = 1
Ks_DetailStyleDictionary.Count = 22
Ks_GroupDataDictionary.Count = 447584
Ks_ShapeRefDictionary.Count = 304
Ks_XRecordDictionary.Count = 0
DimStyles.Count = 2
Groups.Count = 0
Layers.Count = 32
Layouts.Count = 2
Linetypes.Count = 9
RegisteredApplications.Count = 2
Modelspace.Count = 3891
Paperspace.Count = 0
-
AutoPLANT structural strikes again.
Zip and send it to my gmail account Mike.
-
AutoPLANT structural strikes again.
Zip and send it to my gmail account Mike.
Awesome!
Sent to both your gmail accounts. :) Or the two that I have, anyway.
Many thanks! :-D
-
Before I
lobotomize <cough>, I mean fix it, are you using any of the AutoPLANT aspects of the model and / or does it have to round trip back to the vendor / source?
-
Heh... AFIK, we only need a plot of it, but I can definitely tell you that WE won't be using any of the AutoPlant content.
-
Does 293k sound better (check your email)?
:)
-
Got 'er dude. Thanks again! ;)
-
I am going to go off right about now and ask a question that probably doesn't need to be answered, but I will ask it anyway ...
Why on earth is it perfectly ok for one person to "dumb down" a drawing (i.e. kill AutoPlant data) yet dumbing down a drawing was lambasted in another thread because of a bunch of "what ifs" ...
I don't see any difference in the end result, yet one is perfectly acceptable, while the other was not ... can anyone explain the difference, because quite honestly I certainly don't understand it.
-
I am going to go off right about now and ask a question that probably doesn't need to be answered, but I will ask it anyway ...
Why on earth is it perfectly ok for one person to "dumb down" a drawing (i.e. kill AutoPlant data) yet dumbing down a drawing was lambasted in another thread because of a bunch of "what ifs" ...
I don't see any difference in the end result, yet one is perfectly acceptable, while the other was not ... can anyone explain the difference, because quite honestly I certainly don't understand it.
Glad I ain't the only one that noticed :-D
-
If you examine my participation in this thread you will notice I was careful to --
- inquire and understand the context in which this file was to be used, and
- did not share the exact technique by which I 'fixed' said file, which, even though simplistic, could wreak havoc if used blithely as some kind of blanket solution for other ills and precisely why was not, and will not be shared.
:P
-
So it's ok for you but no one else, then? ;)
-
If you wish to interpret it that way.
:P
-
I do interpret it that way to a point .. presumably nobody else has enough sense to be able to determine what they should be able to do with their drawings. Kind of like flattening a drawing ... some people get really perturbed when that is discussed, yet others may have a legitimate need for doing so. I see it for what it appears ... and to me it appears as though the ability to decide to "fix" something has been taken out of the hands of the masses and put into the hands of the one.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with and support your decision to "fix" the drawing. I also agree with your decision to keep private your methods, lest others complain about how you are causing untold horrors by deleting data willy-nilly or perhaps you believe the mantra about the data being sacred, personally I don't care either way. What I have a real problem with is how it is decided that one instance of removing legitimate data is perfectly acceptable, while another instance is bludgeoned to death. It was merely an observation and no further beating of this dead horse is required.
-
I do interpret it that way to a point .. presumably nobody else has enough sense to be able to determine what they should be able to do with their drawings. Kind of like flattening a drawing ... some people get really perturbed when that is discussed, yet others may have a legitimate need for doing so. I see it for what it appears ... and to me it appears as though the ability to decide to "fix" something has been taken out of the hands of the masses and put into the hands of the one.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with and support your decision to "fix" the drawing. I also agree with your decision to keep private your methods, lest others complain about how you are causing untold horrors by deleting data willy-nilly or perhaps you believe the mantra about the data being sacred, personally I don't care either way. What I have a real problem with is how it is decided that one instance of removing legitimate data is perfectly acceptable, while another instance is bludgeoned to death. It was merely an observation and no further beating of this dead horse is required.
A couple of points. First, unlike flattening an entire 3D model, the AutoPLANT data can ONLY be used by those using AutoPLANT, no one else can extract the first bit of intelligence from that data. 3D information is useful to and can be used by everyone, including those who choose not to. And second, the thread has only been up a couple of days, and I've been busy enough to have missed this little exchange. Otherwise I would have commented, "Why don't you explode the dimensions while you're at it."
There, feel better?
-
... presumably nobody else has enough sense to be able to determine what they should be able to do with their drawings ...
"nobody else" is abusing my intent. "The internet at large"? Absolutely, and I make no apology for that stance.
... What I have a real problem with is how it is decided that one instance of removing legitimate data is perfectly acceptable, while another instance is bludgeoned to death.
Based upon the maladies this patient exhibited, which incidentally I knew from the initial observation to be dictionary corruption (due to AutoPlant Structural's [thinly repackaged version of Kiwisoft's Pro Steel] failure to perform proper housekeeping of their antiquated data, of which I hereby claim some significant experience), I promoted myself to CADD God and thusly hurled lightning bolts at it until it was cleansed of its sins.
-
You know, come to think of it... I bet if you explode the dimensions, you can then purge the dimstyle, and I'm sure it takes less data bytes to define those lines and dtext object than it did for an actual whole dimension with style. Just be sure to run 'overkill' once done. Then 'superflatten' just to be sure everything is on Z=0.
HTH!
(It's ok Randy, I had actually made the assumption you hadn't seen this thread yet)
MP -- I actually figured that was the real reason behind it. When I was thinking "What... he can use it an no one else?" My next thought was "Well he obviously knew it was Autoplant long before any hints were given, and what the sam hill do I know about AutoPlant"
-
Based upon the maladies this patient exhibited, which incidentally I knew from the initial observation to be dictionary corruption ...
And I'm assuming that everyone here will agree that a corrupted dictionary is a different point all together... right? ???
-
I think perhaps the intent of my post was missed ... it wasn't to debate the issue of "fixing" drawings, but rather why "fixing" in one aspect is regarded as acceptable. There have been at least 2 other discussions on this board (I'll not provide links ... I am sure those who are interested can find them) that were blasted by lots of folks. In those instances the data in the drawing was neither desired or required by the user (even if it is useful), but the mere idea that the data was put there by someone for some reason, thus it is given a sacred level. It is that inconsistency that I am having issue with ... and remember, I do agree with the decision to blast the AutoPlant data.
So far as the dictionary corruption observation is concerned, without corroborating data, I wouldn't know .. but I wouldn't dispute that anyway ... in my opinion, when AutoCAD (or any vertical app) allows data to be added into infinitum, I think the problem is more likely a corrupted application and not necessarily a corrupted drawing.
Anyway .. since it appears as though it is preferred to continue beating this poor equine, I'll comply for a bit longer. ;)
-
A. I answered the "why fixing in one aspect is regarded as acceptable". I said "Based upon the maladies this patient exhibited ...", in other words, generally speaking one has to make an intelligent decision on a case by case basis.
B. If I recall correctly I did not do any lambasting in those posts (though I probably did caution on the dangers associated with blithely deleting intel) so I feel no need to defend a position I did not take.
(http://www.theswamp.org/screens/mp/beathorse.gif)
-
I would like to see a copy of the original data, and see if conventional methods might prevail in reducing the file size, without reducing the intelligence of the file.
-
I would like to see a copy of the original data, and see if conventional methods might prevail in reducing the file size, without reducing the intelligence of the file.
That's something you'll have to take up with the original poster. I assumed an implied confidentiality / exclusivity in our exchange which I intend to fully honor.
-
I understood this; and is why I didn't ask you for the file. :angel:
Anytime I ask a user for data to assist with issues, I treat that data, the problem, and the company information it may contain with the strictest confidentiality.
-
Ok, I guess it's too late to "unbunch" everyone's panties but to settle the score, here are some facts to consider, although I acknowledge the concern.
1) We aren't modifying the drawing in question
2) We aren't sending it back to the client or the other contractor
3) We only needed it for reference
4) The only reason I sent it off to be "Fixed" was because of the recipient and the fact that I know I can trust him.
Everyone happy? If not, oh well. My apologies.
-
Works for me.
:)
-
Take cover, incoming!! ^ ^ ^
-
I think perhaps the intent of my post was missed ... it wasn't to debate the issue of "fixing" drawings, but rather why "fixing" in one aspect is regarded as acceptable. There have been at least 2 other discussions on this board (I'll not provide links ... I am sure those who are interested can find them) that were blasted by lots of folks. In those instances the data in the drawing was neither desired or required by the user (even if it is useful), but the mere idea that the data was put there by someone for some reason, thus it is given a sacred level. It is that inconsistency that I am having issue with ... and remember, I do agree with the decision to blast the AutoPlant data.
I'm not sure where you're seeing an inconsistency, surely not from me. I regard the stepping on ANY data (even AutoPLANT data) as a bad idea, especially for something as "non-issue" as file size. Whether "you" "need" the data or not, someone somewhere paid for the data, and trashing it is less than acceptable ... to me.
If you're going to remove intelligence from the file, you may as well explode dimensions while you're at it ... ... if you're looking for a consistent position anyway.
So far as the dictionary corruption observation is concerned, without corroborating data, I wouldn't know ..
Knowing Michael is good enough for me.
but I wouldn't dispute that anyway ... in my opinion, when AutoCAD (or any vertical app) allows data to be added into infinitum, I think the problem is more likely a corrupted application and not necessarily a corrupted drawing.
The only issue I saw posted was with file size.
Anyway .. since it appears as though it is preferred to continue beating this poor equine, I'll comply for a bit longer. ;)
As the herbivorous quadruped of species Equus caballus is currently deceased, continued flagellation will cause no additional discomfort.
-
What Exactly does Autoplant do? Why is the file so huge? What makes the file size huge?
-
My understanding of AutoPlant is that it works with a database
Correct.
maintains a bill of materials
Maintains database entries for all specs and components used. Generates BOM.
keeps all associated documents linked together.
Attempts; mostly successful.
not much for file sharing.
If you mean "file sharing sucks because of file bloat" that's not necessarily the case, certainly as a blanket statement for the suite of products that fall under the "AutoPLANT" umbrella.
It's true: Some models get grossly bloated, especially civil / structural, because of a failure of the software to perform proper house keeping on it's own data, though said failing doesn't happen consistantly (I cannot at present explain that). Typical manifestations are failure to delete unused / discarded groups and / or dictionary entries. I've seen extreme examples where it caused models to balloon to 100 MB or more because of millions++ (and I am not exagerating) of such refuse. Careful extrication of bogus data (i.e. leave good data) in these cases has frequently resulted in file reductions in the order of 100:1.
If you mean "not much for file sharing" in terms of "multiple people able to simultaneously edit a model", then yes, it is limited from my understanding (though I'm not involved in that aspect at all and am deductively drawing from discussions I've overheard).
/end of completely rivoting and useless info
-
I don't know how, but I messed up this thread. I meant to quote Mike's last post, but I apparently (inadvertantly) edited it. Worse, it (SMF) somehow turned Mike's quotes into Deter's quotes. SORRY all!
Ghost in the machine?
:ugly: