Topic: Gigundus File Size ~ Why?!

[MP]

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.

[Josh Nieman]

So it's ok for you but no one else, then? 

[MP]

If you wish to interpret it that way.

[Keith™]

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.

[CADaver]

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?

[MP]

... 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.

[Josh Nieman]

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"

[CADaver]

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?

[Keith™]

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.

[MP]

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.

[mjfarrell]

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.

[MP]

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.

[mjfarrell]

I understood this; and is why I didn't ask you for the file.   

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.
 

[M-dub]

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.

[MP]

Works for me.