Alternative to Unfrag or Eco

[Myndex]

I've read some concerns here over Unfrag or ecosqueeze, and thought I'd mention an alternative.

In addition, this alternative can fix corruption problems. For instance, I had some corruption that prevented the circular pattern feature from working correctly, but using this procedure fixed that.

PROCEDURE:

1) At the bottom of your feature tree, made a sketch of a rectangle that completely surrounds the part.

2) Then, using BOSS EXTRUDE, made an extrusion that completely encompasses the part. All you should see is one big block.

3) Save a Copy As. You'll see that the new file will be as much as 70% smaller. Also, if you had certain bugs or corruption, they will now be fixed.


I usually name this feature "DELETE THIS" or "SUPPRESS THIS", and always keep it at the bottom of the tree, suppressed, and just unsuppress it as needed.



Regards,


Andy

 

[SBaugh]

It's not a complete alternative, because the "Save as copy" option does decrease the overal size until it is opened again and saved. The size will return, however keeping a extrusion encompassing the part will help, but the problem as mentioned before is the fact it's not SW it's Microsoft adding data to the file. So you can't run from this by extruding blocks around the geometry and "file\save as copy". Most people I know want to see their geometry when it opens. If you have any form of complexity built into the model and you suppress that bottom feature you have to now wait, but you may have to wait if you opened up directly, who knows exactly?

Either way you can't run from this, but Ecosqueeze or unfrag does perform a good job on the files and removes that M$ data that plagues all of our SW lives. SW users shouldn't have to all this to minimize file size, but thanks to Bill Gates and his army of robots we all have to suffer this M$ data plague.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[Myndex]

I mention it for two reasons:

1) It's a quick way to make a file smaller for uploading or for backup.

2) It's the only way I was able to uncorrupt certain part files.


And as a side note: just because it's "Microsquish's fault" does not absolve SW of having their own "cleaning" utility, such as Eco.


Cheers!


Andy

 

[Myndex]

Scott,

After playing around with EcoSqueeze, and my own "method", I've found some interesting things:

1) My method can result in substantially smaller files EcoSqueeze.

2) My method DOES indeed result in permanent file size reduction (which I'll discuss below).

3) My method can be done from within Solidworks, on a single file, and while saving to any directory.

4) Because my method involves "save a copy" it's a great way to make backups of the file that are already as small as they can get, and not have to process them with EcoSqueeze after the fact.


Analysis:

The file in question started at over 13 MB (it's a complex part with over 300 features and several configurations). I then used various methods - my own, and Eco, and in combination.


Here are the results (and yea, I'm a geek):

* The File began at 13,760k. I made 4 copies in Windows.

Using copy #1:
I opened it and did a regular "save as" (without unsupressing my "delete this" block) this makes the file 9,486k.

Using copy #2:
I opened it and did my procedure as outlined in the first post here (the block extrusion and save a copy as). This resulted in a file size of 2,828k. Yes, 2,828k. When this part is re-opened, and the extrusion is suppressed again, and then saved, the resulting part size is 7,508k. Make a note of this number.

Using copy #3:
I placed it in a folder and ran EcoSqueeze on it and did NOT check "remove preview, display list, parasolids". This resulted in a file size of 10,514k

Using copy #4:
I placed in in a folder and ran EcoSqueeze on it and DID check "remove preview, display list, parasolids". This resulted in a file size of 7,871k


OKAY, now CHECK THIS OUT:

I took Copy #2, which I first ran through my process, then used Eco on the file (with the extrusion off, recall the file size was 7,508).

The result: NOW when running Eco, Eco was able to reduce the file size to 2,784k.


MY CONCLUSION:

1) Eco is good for getting modest file size reductions as a batch process.

2) However, using "Save As" or "Save as a Copy" first is important to achieving the greatest size reduction when using Eco.

3) The "Save as a copy" method makes a permanent file size reduction, even after you reopen the part. Remember that my part started at 13, 760k, and after my process, and reopened, and the extrusion suppressed, the new part was a mere 7,508k.

4) Using the extrusion method I discuss in the first post in this thread will achieve results substantially better than Eco on it's own (and virtually as good as Eco when Eco is used on files that were first "saved as".)

As such, my 'method" is very useful for incremental backups (where you save a "copy as" into a backup folder), not to mention the other uses already stated.



Best Regards,



Andy Somers



P.S. Oh, and 5) Microsoft is lame.

 

[macPT]

Myndex

Interesting work. The procedure of reducing file size using supressing features or making an extrusion covering all the part is used by some users, mainly when it was relateded to internet downloads or e-mails (that is, in a few number of files).

I personaly never used these procedures because:
- I like to have the preview. Maybe this shouldn't be an important feature, but it helps to open the right file.
- the parts must be ready to use (it's just not possible to unsupress the last feature or resolve all features whenever we need to open a file).
- when you have hundred of files in a finished project, it would be a painful task reduce file size, unless you write a macro for batch modification of all files.

So Unfrag or Eco do not have the biggest compression rate, but they are easy to use and fast.

Regards

 

[ctopher]

Myndex, seems like a good idea. The only problem I have is with using PDMWorks, if I suppress/unseppress each time, the revision wants to update. Also, if I have a large assy I do not have the time to do this to each part/assy. For now I just run eccosqueeze about once a month and have no problems. I rarely have corrupted parts, but when I do, I just send it to my VAR support and they fix it.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 2005 SP0.1

 

[SBaugh]

By doing a save as copy, everyone would have to change the name or part number. A lot of people start their file out and save it at the beginning with the name or part number that the want the file to start with. IMO the save as copy is great for emailing. I found this save as copy back in 2000 when I was having problems with large file size. I thought I found something great, but when you open the file up in an assembly and save it... guess what the file size returns.

Which that brings up another point about saving everything suppressed or extruding a block around your project. If you use faces to assembly your files with and you extrude blocks around all your models. That's going to make it a difficult for your Assembly to recognize the faces it needs too when reassembling those models. Most people don't want to open every part in an assembly first to suppress the last feature or unsuppress all the features every time. They need the files to be fully resolved when saved. So they only need to open the assembly, and they can open the parts later if needed.

Your results are good, but not in a large assembly or even small assembly enviroment. They are not easily overcome in those areas and most all companies use Assemblies, some how. Those with PDMWorks that makes it more cumbersome for them. It's just easier to deal with the high file sizes or use Ecosqueeze. The problem is not SW, it is Microsoft and that is not a lame excuse. It's the truth.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[Myndex]

To be sure, you cannot leave the extrusion unsuppressed for parts in an assembly, but that's not how I use this feature anyway.

As I mentioned, I use it for my incremental backups. The incremental backups are saved to a different directory, and it is still the same part number as the name, but with "BK-<date>" at the end. This results in the minimum space needed for the incremental backups.


SECOND: as indicated above, you can use "Save as" instead of "Save a copy" to enhance the effect of EcoSqueeze. When done with the assembly open, the assembly will update to the newly saved part. In regards to part number changing - We always append a revision number (for our internal use only) at the end for tracking part development anyway.


Regards,


Andy

 

[SBaugh]

This way works for you, but it's not a versatile way around the issue.

As for backups, do you open each file and save each of them off as a new name? That would take hours for a lot of users and if your DB isn't very big then it's not a big deal. What about those users with 10Gigs with of files. What solution would that prove to help them backup or not?

It's just not as versatile as running an application like Ecosqueeze is.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[Myndex]

When I say "incremental backups" I mean the backups I do as I'm working on the part - this is not backing up legacy files, and as I pointed out, Eco is the way to do batch processing.

Certainly I would not open old files just to save a few MB. Heck, these days with hard drive space being less than 75 cents a GB, I just backup to hard drives - today, who gives a rat's patootie about a few MB?!

But for parts that are in development, saving size and trimming for performance is valuable, as is minimizing the size of the incremental "in progress" backups. And that, if it wasn't clear, is the thrust of my point.


Regards,


Andy