Revit Architecture Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Architecture Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Architecture topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Revit 2019 toposurface model size

27 REPLIES 27
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 28
thakopian
2296 Views, 27 Replies

Revit 2019 toposurface model size

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Does Revit handle large topo models well? I have a 3D toposurface for a site of about 1500 feet by 1500 feet about roughly 0.2 square miles.

The topo was generated directly from a Civil link of topo contours: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/EN...

It looks like everything is ok since the file being otherwise a few sheets and site elements is around 600 MB now. Anyone has had similar experiences with topo models being large model files or taking up system resources?

I am using Revit 2019.1.

0 Likes

Revit 2019 toposurface model size

Does Revit handle large topo models well? I have a 3D toposurface for a site of about 1500 feet by 1500 feet about roughly 0.2 square miles.

The topo was generated directly from a Civil link of topo contours: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/EN...

It looks like everything is ok since the file being otherwise a few sheets and site elements is around 600 MB now. Anyone has had similar experiences with topo models being large model files or taking up system resources?

I am using Revit 2019.1.

27 REPLIES 27
Message 2 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

That's nothing! 

 

...delete the CAD from the Project. 

0 Likes

That's nothing! 

 

...delete the CAD from the Project. 

Message 3 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

The CAD is a linked model. I can remove the link instance but even then the file size is large.

 

600 MB for a mostly empty model is excessive and I haven't seen this before.

Image of my Site with Topo:

 

https://imgur.com/l4xhRvq

0 Likes

The CAD is a linked model. I can remove the link instance but even then the file size is large.

 

600 MB for a mostly empty model is excessive and I haven't seen this before.

Image of my Site with Topo:

 

https://imgur.com/l4xhRvq

Message 4 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

I agree. But, there's something else going on.  Can you purge and audit file?  

0 Likes

I agree. But, there's something else going on.  Can you purge and audit file?  

Message 5 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Audited, Purged and Compacted the model File size reduced to 200 MB but it is still larger than expected.

You see, when I created this model with toposurface it was under 100 MB. 

The file had sheets added to it but most of the modeling was topography adjustments.

 

I then took it a step further with a detached copy.

The toposurface model was removed along with most model elements then purged and compacted again.

It ended up being 193 MB which means some kind of data is in the model that can't be removed through deletion or purging. I think this hidden content might be the core of the inflated file size. It likely has something to do with the toposurface modeling.

 

Is there a way to find what the left over data is?

0 Likes

Audited, Purged and Compacted the model File size reduced to 200 MB but it is still larger than expected.

You see, when I created this model with toposurface it was under 100 MB. 

The file had sheets added to it but most of the modeling was topography adjustments.

 

I then took it a step further with a detached copy.

The toposurface model was removed along with most model elements then purged and compacted again.

It ended up being 193 MB which means some kind of data is in the model that can't be removed through deletion or purging. I think this hidden content might be the core of the inflated file size. It likely has something to do with the toposurface modeling.

 

Is there a way to find what the left over data is?

Message 6 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

So you're saying that when the Toposurface is removed, the file decreases 7 MB in size, but the remaining file size is 93 MB larger than you think it should be?  

 

 

 

 

 

0 Likes

So you're saying that when the Toposurface is removed, the file decreases 7 MB in size, but the remaining file size is 93 MB larger than you think it should be?  

 

 

 

 

 

Message 7 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Yeah that's where I am at right now. Take everything away from the model. I would expect maximum 100 MB size due to remaining loaded families and legacy content.

 

Should be closer to 20 MB but I don't have a reference just my expectation based on experience.

One note to make is that this was originally a 2018 model the toposurface was created in.

The entire model was upgraded to 2019 which seemed like it worked fine.

Maybe the upgrade had something to do with it since everything was normal while in 2018 and we started seeing issues in 2019. Could be a coincidence.

0 Likes

Yeah that's where I am at right now. Take everything away from the model. I would expect maximum 100 MB size due to remaining loaded families and legacy content.

 

Should be closer to 20 MB but I don't have a reference just my expectation based on experience.

One note to make is that this was originally a 2018 model the toposurface was created in.

The entire model was upgraded to 2019 which seemed like it worked fine.

Maybe the upgrade had something to do with it since everything was normal while in 2018 and we started seeing issues in 2019. Could be a coincidence.

Message 8 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

Yah, something weird is going on here.  Let's call in some muscle.  @Viveka_CD!!! 

0 Likes

Yah, something weird is going on here.  Let's call in some muscle.  @Viveka_CD!!! 

Message 9 of 28
Viveka_CD
in reply to: thakopian

Viveka_CD
Autodesk Support
Autodesk Support

Hi @thakopian

 

Can you share a file to test further?

 

Regards,

 

0 Likes

Hi @thakopian

 

Can you share a file to test further?

 

Regards,

 

Message 10 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: Viveka_CD

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

I tried to upload with the Forum post but the model was too large to be accepted.

 

Here's a shared folder from Google Drive that has the entire model:

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jlbwyKhFWzWTZSu68GtjPBx1WlKmn3JN

 

 

0 Likes

I tried to upload with the Forum post but the model was too large to be accepted.

 

Here's a shared folder from Google Drive that has the entire model:

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jlbwyKhFWzWTZSu68GtjPBx1WlKmn3JN

 

 

Message 11 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

Can you post the Civil? 

 

 

..555 MB??? Holy cow!

 

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

0 Likes

Can you post the Civil? 

 

 

..555 MB??? Holy cow!

 

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

Message 12 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

The topo CAD is attached.

0 Likes

The topo CAD is attached.

Message 13 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

Holy cow again! Who did this DWG anyway?  There's a lot of junk in it. Plus, virtually every element in it is on a layer named "TOPO"-something!  Hard to know which are the index and intermediate contours.  Did you specify layers to use when you created your Topo?  

 

..."TOPO" Layer Insanity!  Here's how she looks in Revit, using just the layers with the prefix "TOPO".  

 

topoinsanity.png

 

0 Likes

Holy cow again! Who did this DWG anyway?  There's a lot of junk in it. Plus, virtually every element in it is on a layer named "TOPO"-something!  Hard to know which are the index and intermediate contours.  Did you specify layers to use when you created your Topo?  

 

..."TOPO" Layer Insanity!  Here's how she looks in Revit, using just the layers with the prefix "TOPO".  

 

topoinsanity.png

 

Message 14 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

It's a busy DWG. Aerial survey reporting to CAD.

 

I generated from the layesr TOPO-INTER and TOPO-INDEX.

The rest were for non-grading references like curbs and trees.

0 Likes

It's a busy DWG. Aerial survey reporting to CAD.

 

I generated from the layesr TOPO-INTER and TOPO-INDEX.

The rest were for non-grading references like curbs and trees.

Message 15 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

Okay, so TOPO-INTER and TOPO-INDEX isn't showing hardly any relief.  The Topo is virtually flat.  Other than that; unless you expoded this DWG in your project, I don't see any issues that could be caused by using it in a RVT project.  So, I'm still stumped.   

0 Likes

Okay, so TOPO-INTER and TOPO-INDEX isn't showing hardly any relief.  The Topo is virtually flat.  Other than that; unless you expoded this DWG in your project, I don't see any issues that could be caused by using it in a RVT project.  So, I'm still stumped.   

Message 16 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Didn't explode the DWG. Just linked it in and generated from the two layers mentioned.

It is a fairly flat grading of the site so the geometry isn't anything complicated.

 

However. We did use a dynamo script to take the toposurface and modify the sub element of some floors to create topo sidewalks. 

 

That may have had an affect but we are not sure. 

An example of the current topo (in the model link I created) shows a lot more triangulation. I have an image attached.

That conversion of the toposurface into the floor family sub elements could have had an effect.

 

Perhaps adding a lot of points and making the model more complex.

0 Likes

Didn't explode the DWG. Just linked it in and generated from the two layers mentioned.

It is a fairly flat grading of the site so the geometry isn't anything complicated.

 

However. We did use a dynamo script to take the toposurface and modify the sub element of some floors to create topo sidewalks. 

 

That may have had an affect but we are not sure. 

An example of the current topo (in the model link I created) shows a lot more triangulation. I have an image attached.

That conversion of the toposurface into the floor family sub elements could have had an effect.

 

Perhaps adding a lot of points and making the model more complex.

Message 17 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

@thakopian wrote:

 

An example of the current topo (in the model link I created) shows a lot more triangulation.


That's a result of the "Triangulation Edges" Subcategory (under Topography) being turned on.  It could impact on performance, but not file size.  

 

0 Likes


@thakopian wrote:

 

An example of the current topo (in the model link I created) shows a lot more triangulation.


That's a result of the "Triangulation Edges" Subcategory (under Topography) being turned on.  It could impact on performance, but not file size.  

 

Message 18 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

That's the thing. I simplified the contours in the topo model which improved responsiveness and performance to a degree. However that is when the file size increased.

 

The timeline from the start:

 

1. Model creation from Template - 5 MB

2. Toposurface generated from DWG link - 100 MB

3. Floor sub elements updated with toposurface contours with Dynamo script - 300 MB

4. Simplifying the contours - 600 MB

5. Auditing and Compacting the model - 592 MB

 

I get the feeling the floor modification had something to do with all this but not sure what.

in any case it is just the site with the topographic elements and a few sheets it is not a complex model.

Not sure what would cause the file size to inflate. That's why I think there's some kind of hidden data that needs editing.

The question is how to find it and clear it out if possible.

0 Likes

That's the thing. I simplified the contours in the topo model which improved responsiveness and performance to a degree. However that is when the file size increased.

 

The timeline from the start:

 

1. Model creation from Template - 5 MB

2. Toposurface generated from DWG link - 100 MB

3. Floor sub elements updated with toposurface contours with Dynamo script - 300 MB

4. Simplifying the contours - 600 MB

5. Auditing and Compacting the model - 592 MB

 

I get the feeling the floor modification had something to do with all this but not sure what.

in any case it is just the site with the topographic elements and a few sheets it is not a complex model.

Not sure what would cause the file size to inflate. That's why I think there's some kind of hidden data that needs editing.

The question is how to find it and clear it out if possible.

Message 19 of 28
barthbradley
in reply to: thakopian

barthbradley
Consultant
Consultant

let's see a screenshot of the DYN routine

0 Likes

let's see a screenshot of the DYN routine

Message 20 of 28
thakopian
in reply to: barthbradley

thakopian
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Script is select model element (topo subregion) > topography.poits > floor.slabshapebypoints

the floor input is whichever floor you want to match the points.

 

It's based on this tutorial at 4 nodes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMB6a3Xd4-k

 

Screenshot:

 

Screenshot_15.png 

 

 

Granted the example for this video was a small path and I was using floors that were several acres in size.

Don't know if that scale and the resulting points in the floors would have a negative effect though.

0 Likes

Script is select model element (topo subregion) > topography.poits > floor.slabshapebypoints

the floor input is whichever floor you want to match the points.

 

It's based on this tutorial at 4 nodes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMB6a3Xd4-k

 

Screenshot:

 

Screenshot_15.png 

 

 

Granted the example for this video was a small path and I was using floors that were several acres in size.

Don't know if that scale and the resulting points in the floors would have a negative effect though.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report