that will only make sense if you don't work with block-structures.
When you use blocks all this MB-by-Layer gives no result that makes sense for any decissions.
Imagine you have
1 block "TREE", that block consists of:
each block "BRANCH" consists of
each block "LEAF" consists of
that tree will be inserted 100 times on layer "TREE", so you have now:
a small drawing with just 100 items on layer "TREE"
you can try to delete all objects from ModelSpace from layer "TREE_LEAF" ==> that will not remove anything (redcution is 0) ==> so does the layer "TREE_LEAF" have 0 MB?
I agree to "it makes no sense" caclulating MB as long as you are thinking about well structured drawings. (If there is a case where this makes sense, let us know!)
It's a failure to think that MB drawingsize has a 1:1 relationship to how much is the drawing worth. In most cases the best structured drawings are much more worth but less big in drawing-size.
- alfred -
Unfortunately, not all drawings exist in the land of AutoCAD Utopia. Many of us do not work with such structured drawings. If you read my post and thought about why someone would want such a measurement, it would then appear more useful.
I would like to know the size (Bytes) per layer because autocadws has a 15MB limit (ridiculous) so I will have to delete valuable information to get under that extremely limiting number! Knowing which layers are the largest would help immensely! Anybody that says this info is not important or is
irrelevent should open their minds a little! Maybe someone has a need you haven't thought about .... hmmmm .... just maybe!
then use the way to write a script that does a WBLOCK layer by layer.
- alfred -
The "fix" remains the same: you need to split your file using WBLOCK, either by layer (seems silly to have that many files), or by layer groupings (fewer files).
Or just create two DWG files from the one using WBLOCK too.
Randomly deleting layers (whether you know the size or not) would indicate (contrary to your statement) that there really is nothing important you can't live without. Correct?
Alternate fix; scrap the 'WS" as too limited to be useful, and consider options. Design Review & DWF come to mind, or if editing is needed, Draftsight.
Let adesk know that you are dropping WS, and explain that the limitations render it ususable -- that may help provide them with an incentive to fix it so it work as you want it to. squeaky wheels donchano
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register