Revit 2019 toposurface model size

[thakopian]

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.

[barthbradley]

That's nothing! 

...delete the CAD from the Project. 

[thakopian]

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

[barthbradley]

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

[thakopian]

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?

[barthbradley]

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?  

[thakopian]

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.

[barthbradley]

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

[Viveka_CD]

Hi @thakopian

Can you share a file to test further?

Regards,

[thakopian]

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

[barthbradley]

Can you post the Civil? 

..555 MB??? Holy cow!

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[thakopian]

The topo CAD is attached.

[barthbradley]

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".  

[thakopian]

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.

[barthbradley]

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.   

[thakopian]

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.

[barthbradley]

---

@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.  

[thakopian]

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.

[barthbradley]

let's see a screenshot of the DYN routine

[thakopian]

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:

 

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.