Benny Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I should preface my question with some background, I'm a long time Autocad user (since R11), and I am picking up vectorworks on my own along with help from our clients that typically use it as well. I feel pretty confident in my ability to draw any object I desire, as well as assigning it classes, layers, record formats, etc. We purchased vectorworks so that we could provide 3d model layouts of our products to our customers. However, I'm finding that if I draw our product library with the same geometric shapes and the level of detail that we have in our Autocad library, the file sizes are becoming unreasonably high. For instance, we have a connection "flange" that we use in one of our standard truss products. This flange is fairly heavy in geometry, and in acad, it is 73 kb, whereas in vectorworks it is 1.1MB! We use anywhere from 6 to 8 of these flanges in every piece of truss, and sometimes there may be 50-100 pieces of truss in a display. This is not acceptable in my mind. See my example drawing. I used a very similar technique in both programs to create this piece, since it is really the best way to represent it (read: revolve). See my example of the construction in VW. Should I use another method? Is not solid geometry modeling a better way to go than surfaces? In my opinion, any 3d modeling program worth it's salt should be able to use complex and detailed shapes/models without "breaking the bank" in file size. I'm just not seeing that in vectorworks to this point. There are other instances of exorbitant file sizes that I'm running into, with even less complex shapes, but this is just the latest and most extreme example. So what is the next step? Am I going to have to "dumb down" my drawings so that my clients and I aren't trying to share 50+ MB files that would be 10MB if done in acad? Is this just the way vectorworks is? (I'm just a little frustrated if you couldn't tell) Quote Link to comment
propstuff at MJLA Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I just had a go at a similar shape and it came out at a 64KB file, so I'm not sure why yours is >1MB. That being said; VW files are always much larger than ACAD it seems. You probably already know this, but if you turn your bracket into a symbol the file will remain more or less the same size regardless of how many you place. (I just added 100 of mine for a file size of 80KB) The Convert to Generic Solids command might help (but you loose editability), and lastly, VW files usually compress quite well if zipped) HTH Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Or maybe there are other resources in your drawing? Like textures or images? because they add a lot of file size Quote Link to comment
islandmon Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Setting your VW>Prefs>2d &3d resolution to 'medium' will reduce file size appropriately. And, of course , always follow Nicholas's sage advise. Quote Link to comment
Benny Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Well, there are no textures other than VW's standard pre-loaded textures (hatches, etc.). No images though, the example drawing was just the collar created from scratch in the default blank template. I'll certainly look at my 2d/3d res settings and confirm the setting and let you know how that effects it. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
Benny Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) Hi Nicholas, I double checked my vw prefs, and the 3d was set to med, but I changed my 2d to med. now as well. I'm curious as to the method you used to create the similar object. I'm considering the possibility that the method I used could be the culprit. I can rework the current collar and make it more simplistic, which wouldn't be bad in itself, but I like the objects to look like they're supposed to. (the technical side in me I guess). I'll have a go at it with a simplified model and see where that leaves my file size. I will also make it a symbol (which I have to do anyway, since it's a part we sell) which I realize will help the overall construction file sizes. Thanks for the tips. Benny Edited July 30, 2007 by Benny Quote Link to comment
Benny Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 Update: I re-created the collar by extruding nurbs circles into cylinders, then joined them. This brought the file size down to 234K (a nice improvement). Still larger than acad, but not bad at all. However, I did have to eliminate a little more detail, but overall a very serviceable solution. If I make it a pio, I should be in pretty good shape. Thx all. Quote Link to comment
propstuff at MJLA Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Hi Nicholas, I'm curious as to the method you used to create the similar object. I just looked at your example and drew a shape that was similar with a similar number of verticies and corners. It was a poly made by drawing a number of rectangles, adding them and then chamfering corners. From there it was using the sweep command. Quote Link to comment
Benny Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) That's interesting, since that's virtually the same method I created my first version, only I used lines, then converted to 3d polys once the shape was complete, then sweep. I suppose the number of fillets and chamfer details may have pushed my first version over the top. Oh, one more question. Is it possible to chamfer 3d objects, but having different x/y values for the chamfer (read: not 45 deg)? I didn't see it as an option in the dialogue, but maybe there's an override? I suppose I could always draw a 3dpoly of my chamfer profile then sweep/extrude it, then subtract it from my base object, but that's more work than it should be to achieve what I want IMHO. Edited July 31, 2007 by Benny Quote Link to comment
propstuff Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Did you chamfer the edges of the 3D sweep using 3D tools, or make them as part of the 2D profile? Quote Link to comment
Benny Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 I built them into the 2d profile, since the chamfers are not all equilateral, and as far as I can tell, you can't chamfer a 3d object in that manner. I will admit, there are several chamfers and radii (that aren't apparent in my jpg) on the 2d profile, I made the profile to exact spec, which might be a bit overkill for my specific application. When I made the 2nd version, I simplified it quite a bit, which makes sense that the file size is down around 200K now. But, going forward, I guess I'm a bit puzzled/disappointed that one can't use VW to draw things of high detail without the fear of monstrous file sizes. Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) But, going forward, I guess I'm a bit puzzled/disappointed that one can't use VW to draw things of high detail without the fear of monstrous file sizes. This is mainly because VW holds a history of all actions made on an object. When you double click an object, you go 1 step back in this history. This is a great feature because you can adapt what you did X steps back. But if you do hundreds of actions, your object size in file will get large. There is a solution to it: When you are sure your object is finished, you can then make it a generic volume (i think it's called in english this way). By doing this, you will delete the object's history and so reducing the file size. This doesn't only apply do 3D objects. It also applys on polygons etc. but not in the same way. Polygons can have many points, because when adding and clipping surfaces, more points are created. There is a command to delete these unneeded vertices which I do not remember at the moment. Actually I'm curious how many kb you will get off by doing this. It should get some of though. Edit: I do this not much, but I tested it on a large file I have. It's an appartement. Note that there are also textures in the file, so here are the results: * 30.800kb :just made * 4.624kb :convert all volumes to Generic Volume * 2.622kb :deleting all textures Edited August 1, 2007 by DWorks Quote Link to comment
Benny Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 I had no idea that the history would make so much difference in file size! I purged the drawing and it brought the size down to 104KB, much better! Thanks for the tip DW. I also wanted to see what converting to a generic solid would do, it wouldn't let me do that, so instead I converted it to a nurbs object, which made the file even smaller, 69KB. So it looks like I need to consider a nurbs conversion as an option for solids once they're drawn. Thanks everyone. Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I had no idea that the history would make so much difference in file size! I purged the drawing and it brought the size down to 104KB, much better! Thanks for the tip DW. I also wanted to see what converting to a generic solid would do, it wouldn't let me do that, so instead I converted it to a nurbs object, which made the file even smaller, 69KB. So it looks like I need to consider a nurbs conversion as an option for solids once they're drawn. Thanks everyone. Converting to a generic solid doesn't work on some objects like extrudes. And if you think of it, it's logical because they have no history. I do not know why, but when I tried to convert all my generic solids to NURBS, the whole file gets bigger: from 4.624kb to 9.296kb. So did you convert your objects first to generic volume and then to NURBS? or did you just convert them to NURBS? Quote Link to comment
Benny Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) well since it was a sweep, I'll bet it was already a generic solid or at least maybe that's how VW sees it, so I just converted directly to nurbs. Edited August 1, 2007 by Benny Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.