File Sizes

That's one of the best and safest. The other that I use is EcoSqueeze. Not officially condoned by SW, but I've never had any issue that I could tie to using it.

WT

Does reducing the file size of assemblies and parts have any effect on the load time/memory usage of solidworks, or does it just reduce disk/vault storage space usage?

Wayne Tiffany wrote:

I don't know - I've never done any testing of that kind.

WT

The file size reductions (accomplished by "save as" or through the use of file unfragmenter software) are only temporary.

I think the reductions are useful for cutting down on disk/vault storage requirements and for the transfer of data across the internet, for example; however, working to continually "compress" active files is a waste of time from a SolidWorks performance standpoint.

Most of the reduction in file size, as far as I know, comes from the elimination of the Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) overhead. Even after being saved without the OLE "baggage", when files are next opened and worked with in SolidWorks, the "bloat" returns.

My 2=A2,

Per O. Hoel ____________________ Wayne Tiffany wrote:

By reducing the file size of one of my files (from 49 megs to 600k), it greatly improved the time to load the drawing. That was the primary reason why I want to reduce the file size. The bloat has not returned because the file does not have the elements that caused it to get bloated in the first place.

I did some quick tests some time ago that showed that reducing file size did reduce our load times. I didn't think to check memory usage. I also tried radically reducing file size by removing the Parasolid data with EcoSqueeze and found that it took about the same amount of time to load the stripped file as the file with Parasolid data. I never followed up on the preliminary results because I didn't have time or the inclination to work out a solution that would work with our PDM system.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

I may be being bloody stupid here!, lol, but if you draw a cube so that you part or assembly is inside, this reduces the size, does it not? Not ideal, but good for zipping files, just suppress the cube when you want to use the part.

Hmmm, just did a smallish test on a part, and its associated assembly. The part consists of essentially a length of perforated tubing. File-save as brought it down to 4Mb from a whoppingly bloated 27, doing a cylindrical extrude that covered everything brought file size down to 1.75Mb.

The associated assembly file before: 2.10 MB, file-save as: 2.30 MB, and a cut-extrude assembly feature removing all material 67.5 KB ( a whopping

95+ % reduction in file size ).

I think it would be a pain to remember to unsupress features to work, especially if it were a large assembly, but for file transfer the same 22Mb (zipped ) file that I sent my var for trouble shooting shrunk to a 1.5Mb file after a covering extrusion and zipping it. Thats pretty handy and would have saved my having to FTP it to them due to e-mail limitations.

Why does drawing a cube or cylinder around the model reduce the file size?

Because the bulk of the file bloat is two things,

1. Microsoft's file OLE fragmentation which is why "Save As" to a new file name reduces the file size.

1. Solidworks stores the 3d parasolid body in the file so that the viewer and eDrawings can view the model. Also, a solid of each configuration is stored leading to even larger files as you add more configs.

So > Why does drawing a cube or cylinder around the model reduce the file > size?

Here is a Knowledge Base article I written on this subject.

The SolidWork's part file is broken up into 4 different parts; Header, Instruction Set, Database, and the Visualization Data. The Visualization data is used to provide the image you see on the monitor and the preview image when you open the file. If you could limit the amount of visible faces, edges and vertices of a part, you could minimize the overall file size of the part. The visualization data generally not needed for a file transfer through email.

One way to minimize visualization data is to extrude a dummy block that

encompasses the whole part. This breaks the visualization data down to

6 faces, 12 edges and 8 vertices. It is good practice to rename the feature as "Delete Me" or enclose instructions in the email explaining what feature to delete to bring back the original part.

Another way is to suppress the entire tree. You can accomplish this by suppressing the base feature of the part. This will in turn suppress the entire feature tree. Again it should be best practice to include instructions in the email when using this practice.

Remember, there is visualization data for every configuration in the part. The block method is ideal for parts where configurations are used.

Wow, this is getting away from my original intent. I am working with a drawing, not the part files.

What I had was a drawing file that was large, and it was so large that I decided to split the information into 3 files with the hope of significantly decreasing the file size. Since I did a save as for the files I split off, the original file remained the same size, eventhough I deleted unwanted sheets.

As far as I can see, SW only updates or adds information to file, but if things are removed, it doesn't remvoe that data.

Yes, you're right. As Wayne said in the first reply, you can either use "Save As" or EcoSqueeze to get the file size reduced. EcoSqueeze is nice because you don't have to save the file to a new name and then back again.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

Gentlemen, Zooming part, assy or drawing to "infinite" reduce visualization data to nearly 0. Another good thing is to change existing "standard" configurations into "design table driven" configurations.

Regards, SWPriest

Yep, I was being stupid!, lol