Reducing Sketchup file size.
-
@remus said:
the main things you can do to reduce file size is to reduce the number of polygons, make sure the textures your using arent too big and to only apply detail where you need to.
reducing the number of polygons isnt too hard, usually just means using fewer segments in circles (to change the number of segments jsut type in th number youd like, while youve got the circle tool selected, but before you draw your circle.)
Now i tihnk aobut it, adding detail is also in this category. Be careful aobut how you add detail to your model
you need to be quite selective about what you add, you need to try and work out which details are really going to make a big difference to the look of the model, compared to superflous detail. EG imagine i was modeling a window for an exterior, id probably spend a while making a good frame but wouldnt bother with a really detailed lock, as your not really going to see it.Textures: this applies mainly if your using photo textures. Anyway, if your using photo textures, the image file is inlcuded as part of the SU modle, so a 3 mb photo will add significantly to the size of the model. Obviously you can shrink the photo down to make it more reasonable.
theres definetly some stuff ive missed, and im sure someone will point it out in a second.
thanks for the input.
I've only used colours, and there are no textures involved. My polygon count is 122000, which isn't high. And the only major details i add are to the facade and the seats.
-
@pompeyfan said:
.....
thanks for the input.I've only used colours, and there are no textures involved. My polygon count is 122000, which isn't high. And the only major details i add are to the facade and the seats.
pompeyfan,
Are there any components in your file that you no longer use in the model?
Or inactive invisible section planes or....Maybe you could upload the model for us to have a look at it?
-
Thats interesting Pixero, I would have bet on the component mass to be lower.
-
I just did a test.
I created a box and saved it. The file is 7,96 kB.
Next I copied the box. 100 times. That file is 20,6 kB.
Finally I made a component of the box and then Copied/instanced it 100 times. That file is 34,7 kB.
Shouldnt instanced gemetry weight less than just copied? -
Surely instancing also needs some "information" (place, rotation, scale, colur etc). Maybe if the geometry is very simple (like a box), keeping for SU this in mind is easier than keeping the info of the instances in mind.
I made a historic reconstruction/visualisation of my town in the 14th century. There are six churches/monasteries (detailed with ribbed Gothic vaults and tracery windows from inside, also this kind of structures in the cloisters), all the town walls, bastions, town gates, streets, some 3D plants and simple houses in there. I used components extensively and the file size is below 7 Mb.
-
One way to reduce file size easily is - any sections of the model that are symetrical you can cut in half, make into a component and then copy/mirror the component to remake the original part.
-
Yes, making components of repeated elements is the major way to save on file size....plus reducing arcs and circles to the very minimum number of faces you can get away with, especially if they are following any kind of sinuous path.
I think Pixero's test is a victim of the economy of scale. As Gaieus suggests, the amount of code involved in making a component of something as simple as a box probably outweighs any saving in the instance versus copy equation. Try it with something more complicated and you get a huge difference.
Here is a link to my original post involving a small sized model containing 100 Corinthian columns....a 200kb file that will bring many systems to their knees.
http://groups.google.com/group/Sketchup-Pro/browse_thread/thread/2ddc0e1594ef13/5438d871d2ad2648?Interestingly, there are about twice as many faces in this 200 kb file as there are in the problem file weighing in at over 10 MB.
I've found similar things with image maps. If the resulting file size is anything to go by, you can hugely increase the size of a skp file by merely using some complicated versus simple image mapping. I've occasionally found that SU must be using more code to actually map an image than than it uses to hold the image itself.
-
So let me get this straight. The file size of my model would be smaller if i did the following?
*Model 1 seat and make it a component.
*Copy/Paste this seat component to make one row, and make that a componentand so forth, opposed to just modelling the seats and not making it a component?
EDIT: Here is a model that shows perfectly my problem. It is 21MB
-
yes, that would help a lot
-
You are not saying that you didn't use components for the seats, do you!
-
There is no appreciable saving to be had by nesting components. In other words, making a row of seat components into a further row component won't save much in the way of file size over just leaving the seats separate. If you were including stuff in the row that hadn't previously been made into a components (can't think what) then it would be an advantage.
It's like trying to zip an image file that's already been compressed, such as a tiff file with LZW compression...it just won't squeeze any smaller.
There may be organisational advantages to making a row a component, though...if you have many rows the same length.
-
I read thru this thread pretty quickly. How big is too big when it comes to image size in SU? I know image size definitely has an impact on speed. What resolution should we try and keep as min in general terms.
-
if your refering to picture exports, 3000 pixels wide is a good base line. Enough to retain a reasonable aobut of detail and easy too shrink down.
-
Other than procedural textures for ground planes, I believe 512x512 is sufficient for any texture.
-
@lapx said:
I read thru this thread pretty quickly. How big is too big when it comes to image size in SU? I know image size definitely has an impact on speed. What resolution should we try and keep as min in general terms.
As far as I know SketchUp ignores texture resolutions larger than 1024x1024 pixels.
Larger textures will simply be downsampled to that size.
It is a good rule to use textures in pixel sizes like 256x256, 512x512 or 1024x1024 since they "fit" into the computers memory more efficient. -
i made a test similar to pixeros with a sofa.
sofa made out of groups: 609 kb
sofa cut in half, two mirrored components: 608 kbsofa (built of two components) as component, copied 10 x: 612 kb
sofa (groups) copied 10 x: 624 kb -
Just thought i would say a very big thanks. I performed a test, a 7200 seat stand, which would have been 5-7MB, is now 44.2kb. Thanks a lot!
-
You guy's are great! Thanks for the answer
Oh, one more thing. If you already have a large texture(s) mapped in your su file whats the best way to reduce the size? Is there a ruby script to help facilatate this if there are many oversized images in your model?
And even before that, say you receive a model from someone else, where in sketchup does it show what resoltion the image is currently? -
SketchUp somehow reduces the image size to a maximum of 1024 pixels (bot vertically & horizontally) already. You can always export an image from the material browser (i.e. save it out of SU) and then you can see both the file size and resolution.
-
Sweet trick Mr. Fraser, thx!
Advertisement