Pdf fiiles created from publisher are very large

[Anonymous]

I am having an issue publishing pdf files. They are extremely large, i.e. 5-18 MB. for drawings with about 3-4 MB of plotmaker files. I just started having this problem on a project where i have successfully created pdfs before, in the past couple of weeks. Example, I had file sizes for an exterior elevation drawing of 1.6 MB. The same drawing, albeit with some revisions, is now 16.6 MB.

[Stress Co_]

I'm thinking of waiting for "Leopard"....coming soon (think they'll ever get to "Scottish Wildcat".... or maybe "Domestic House Cat"?)

[Anonymous]

gbley wrote:
I don't know if this helps but I had a similar problem. When I batch plotted a number of pdf's, the plot status dialog box says they all saved ok and were of a reasonable size (50-250 kb). When I looked at the files in the directory I saved them to, several had bloated to 2-3 mb. When I went back and saved each separately, they kept their original size. What is it about batch plotting pdf's that causes them to expand significantly?

Gary Bley

I've also had the same problem in AC10 (was hoping the new patch would fix it, but no).

I've contacted my reseller, who's solution wasn't a solution at all, but a few mickey mouse workarounds. I've emailed Graphisoft, who, unsurprisingly haven't bothered to reply.

For our office this is becoming a serious problem for several reasons. There is the obvious - a 50x increase in file sizes is soon going to start clogging up our server. Also, we submit PDF drawings for planning approval via a website that only accepts 25mb of files total. Previously not a problem, now it is. We're having to go back to submitting paper applications. ( Graphisoft, your killing trees.)

Clearly there are a few work arounds for this problem, such as Gary's individual PDFing or compressing the PDFs afterwards, but there shouldn't be a problem to start with - this worked fine in 9 - why was it messed up in 10? (a.ka - the archicad release that after 10 years of dedicated use has really made me think about switching to other software.)

I love custom profiles, tilting walls and lots of the other new shiny things in 10. But Graphisoft, why o why have you messed up so many simple, straight forward things, that worked from 9?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.



-rant over-

[Aussie John]

Any fill that produces many lines ( particularly circles which make many short straight lines) will bloat the PDF file.
If file size is a problem then look carefully at the fill types you are using.

You will see the PDF takes a while to draw the problematic fills. I had a chair object that had way to much detail in it and after modifying the chair the PDF file rendered nearly instantly.

Compressing the PDF will have little effect on this issue. Best if you have embedded picture files as in particular OSX produced PDFs that do not compress jpgs but rather render them like a tiff file. ie looses the inbuilt compression of a JPG file.

[Rod Jurich]

Tom wrote:
/..........Graphisoft, why o why have you messed up so many simple, straight forward things, that worked from 9?

Tom, feel your pain. You have to wonder how and why some "beta testers" were every allowed access to what was and still could be again an outstanding CAD/BIM program.
Some of the suggested work arounds, in 10, put forward by some, would make you ask why they seem to quietly accept that 10 is the "best thing since sliced bread".

[Richard Morrison]

Rod wrote:
Tom, feel your pain. You have to wonder how and why some "beta testers" were every allowed access to what was and still could be again an outstanding CAD/BIM program.:

Rod,
You seem to have some misconceptions about the beta process.

1) Most of the beta testers put in quite a few (unpaid) hours to help you get a reasonably stable release, and I'm sure there were many reported bugs that didn't get fixed by the final release.

2) The beta testers were fully free to rant and rave about features and their implementation (and they certainly did) However, not every rant was capable of being addressed, although many were. Hanging your dissatisfaction at the doorstep of the beta testers is being rather ungrateful to a group of volunteers who were doing the best they could while concurrently trying to make a living.

I would encourage you to have your reseller nominate you as a beta tester for V11, and you can then be part of the solution.

[Rod Jurich]

Richard wrote:
Rod,
You seem to have some misconceptions about the beta process.

No, Richard I understand quite well and I did say, some.

Richard wrote:
2) The beta testers were fully free to rant and rave/......... being rather ungrateful to a group of volunteers who were doing the best they could while concurrently trying to make a living.

GS seem to ignore most, if not all in this forum. Who else is prepared to accept some resopnsibility for 10 as it is? I know of some on this forum who are beta testers and I recognise their frustrartion also. This version without doubt has proven to be the most frustrating. My father taught me that "it is the squeaky wheel that gets the oil". If GS would, just once, acknowledge they have erred it would make all the difference. But we live in a litigious world and I see no evidence locally or on this forum to the contrary.

Richard wrote:
I would encourage you to have your reseller nominate you as a beta tester for V11, and you can then be part of the solution.

I have put my hand up, and it is still up, to be part of a process to contribute in a positive manner. After almost 12 years (AC) and some 40yrs in practice I feel I might have something to offer.

If you are part of the beta team, and I inculde others, my remarks were not intended to offend. But unless we all send a clear message to GS, and lets face it there are almost 7000 listed members, one would hope that our next investment might pay better dividends. Because the real bottom line here is that while GS pursue the current path, some will leave to seek alternate packages. One last thought, my father also taught me "that service can only be judged after the event". The next version "spin" will have me sitting on the fence for quite a while before GS get any more of my hard earned.

[Rod Jurich]

Richard wrote:

I would encourage/...........

An after thought Richard. GS provide a product with the caveat of "buyer beware".

I accept this.

But at the same time, all my working life, I've taken resonsibility for all the documentation that leaves my office.

When will GS take responsibility for the delays, etc that we have to endure.
The day to day operations are really stressed with some of the quite nonsensical changes that they force upon us.

Quite unnecessarily!!

This is a partnership similar to a marriage, sometimes blissful and sometimes heading for the lawyers office.
I am prepared to accept that GS has a difficult job,
but why not engage with the community they cannot do without, but which we need!!

And on a lighter note:-
"(C'mon, where are the old farts when I need them for support?)"
Who are you calling "old".

[TomWaltz]

Beta testing has nothing to do with recommending or approving features. Beta testing simply means getting the program a month or so before it's released and trying to use it in a production environment, seeing what bugs might exist. It's on par with giving a set of drawings to another architect in your office to check it before you send it off for building department approval.

Opinions offered during the beta test have little or no value since the release is essentially already done. They might be able to tweak small things, but that's about it.

In my experience, GS does read this forum and usually looks for patterns or large consensus amonth the group. If one or two people go on a long rant, it's ignored. If many people agree that something is absolutely critical (not by voting on a wish item, but through discussion and explanation of what you want in the discussion about the wish), it has more weight than anything else.

[Rick Thompson]

For what it is worth... I save pdf's via Mac print, and the file sizes are the same in 10 as they were in 9, and in 8 if I remember correctly.. for files that are about the same size. You must have added something, but you haven't responded since the first post.. so are you "figured out"?

So, it was not an issue to rant about in beta and, personally, I have found GS more than responsive to it's user base (and it's beta testers), considering GS deals with many users, and many just flat ornery

It's is relative to other software developers (for a realistic perspective), and I do give GS credit, despite my ranting about the calc functions being so ridiculous.. but I am hoping.

[Dennis Lee]

I have the same problem when creating PDF files in batch. I've tried to limit to 2 to 3 files in a batch, which usually works but not always. Best bet is to do 1 by 1 as someone mentioned previously.

What I have noticed is that when the status dialog in ArchiCAD showing progress of the PDF saves are done, it shows the correct (smaller) file sizes. At this point, the file explorer also shows correct sizes.

AC will hang briefly however after it says saving is complete, and during this time, a "scratch" file will show up in the explorer, changing file sizes for approximately half of the files. When the files are done becoming "bloated", AC will stop hanging.

It seems like there is some problem in transferring the files from the scratch (temporary?) disk / memory to the final folder.

Also, the bloated files do have some graphic errors in them, especially around the text.