What the HECK! Drawing 10x smaller in 2k3!?

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by JJ, Aug 19, 2003.

  1. JJ

    JJ Guest

    You would probably get the same effect if you did a "Save As" in SW2001+.
    The files tend to bloat over time and rewriting them is one way to deflate
    them. A better way is to use a unfrag (not defrag) tool such as EcoSqueeze
    (http://www.ecocom.com/eng/index00.htm). The reason for the size increases
    and the methods used to reduce them are explained on the website.

    HTH,

    JJ
     
    JJ, Aug 19, 2003
    #1
  2. JJ

    whit Guest

    I've an assembly we built in 2001+sp6 with ~350 parts, made up of 2 top
    level sub assys, which each contain a half dozen subs and several
    assorted parts, linear patterns, etc. These subs and parts are spread
    thru ~8 different folders on the network (numbering/file organization
    methods letfover from the old days)

    We didn't want to switch from 2k1 to 2k3 in the middle of the project,
    it's now done, so the time has come. I loaded 2k3sp4 at home along side
    2k1+, I used SWeXplorer to Copy the top level Assembly Drawing and all
    its children to a new folder- so nopw all the files of this assy are in
    one folder.

    I recreated the assembly drawing, 4 sheets, 5 views, no dims, no notes
    other than what comes in on the Sheet- in 2001+ this file is over 35Mb,
    in 2003 it's 3.2Mb <ZOINKS!>

    Is this because all the files are in one folder, or is this someting
    wonderful about 2003?
     
    whit, Aug 19, 2003
    #2
  3. JJ

    Jeff Norfolk Guest

    Is the 2001+ drawing saved as RapidDraft? Is the 2003 drawing not
    RapidDraft? RapidDraft saves a lot of assembly data in the drawing file.
    This could explain the file size difference. Generally the files have gotten
    larger since more data is being saved in them, but there are some cases such
    as AutoCad 2004 where the file sizes have gotten smaller. The only reason is
    because the files aren't saving anything "new" and they figured out some new
    algorithms to make the same old data smaller. Right now, SolidWorks seems to
    be headed down the path of making files "independent" and they contain more
    info from their dependants. This will only result in larger files, but
    increased speed in accessing the data.
     
    Jeff Norfolk, Aug 19, 2003
    #3
  4. JJ

    Jeff N Guest

    I think this could also be that you saved the 2001+ files more times than
    you did the 2003 file. Files store shadow data each time they are
    overwritten (saved). This is why programs like Ecocom exist... they strip
    out the shadow data. SolidWorks sometimes needs this historical data to
    troubleshoot files, so beware if you have trouble with either corrupt files
    or constant crashing. I use Ecocom occasionally and have never ran across a
    problem related to using it.
     
    Jeff N, Aug 19, 2003
    #4
  5. JJ

    whit Guest


    I did notice the assy's and sub assy's seemed slower to do whatever it
    is they do when saving, loading etc. Might be just because all the lower
    parts and stuff hadn't been updated and saved, etc. <shrug> but the
    drawings, click, click, boom, complete, nice, pretty, no missing parts.

    Don't get me started on the IT goons ;o)

    Thanks
     
    whit, Aug 19, 2003
    #5
  6. JJ

    whit Guest

    Thanks I'd seen reference to it here in the past, I'll go check it out.

    I'll try the Save As too and report back...
     
    whit, Aug 19, 2003
    #6
  7. JJ

    whit Guest

    I thought RapidDraft did the opposite of how you're describing it.
    Anyway no the 2001+ is not saved as RapidDraft, the 2003 may have been,
    if set by default, and I might not have noticed it.

    I agree and have seen with the rest of what you're saying, I'll
    investigate the file some more when I go home at lunch.

    Thanks for the reply.

    Whit
     
    whit, Aug 19, 2003
    #7
  8. JJ

    whit Guest

    Holy cow! "SaveAs" cut the size of the 2001+ file IN HALF!!!, I'm going
    to try it again later, see if I can eventually get it down to ~100kb :eek:)
     
    whit, Aug 19, 2003
    #8
  9. I find that Save As, Unfrag or EcoSqueeze (in it's default mode) usually
    cuts the file size down by half. Pretty rare to see it go lower than that,
    although I think it has happened. Doing any of them more than once on a file
    shouldn't result in any reduction in size (unless you've done something in
    between to bloat its size again).

    Jerry Steiger
    Tripod Data Systems
     
    Jerry Steiger, Aug 20, 2003
    #9
  10. JJ

    DWH Guest

    White,

    Do a "Save As..." in SW2001 and let us know the file size. I bet it shrinks
    miles below the 35Mb it already is. :)

    DWH
     
    DWH, Aug 20, 2003
    #10
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.