RAM increase on Dynamo for Civil3D 2025

Civil3D
,
1
  • Original message (ja) follows after ENG.

Hello all.

There is a problem with RAM exhaustion when trying to run Dynamo for Civil3D 2025,
created with Dynamo for Civil3D 2022.

  • same PC with 64GB RAM, same DWG, same DYN file
  • Dynamo for Civil3D 2022: Memory usage 35GB, completed in 5-10 minutes
  • Dynamo for Civil3D 2025: Memory usage 63GB, unresponsive for over 1 hour (and I killed the task)

Other Info:

  • purpose: extract properties and convert to json
  • no custom nodes in graph
  • without changing or outputting the geometry
  • problem happens at 500MB dwg. 10MB dwg is OK (of course).

Do you have any helpful tips for migration?
Or is there a way to save memory?

*Due to company policy, I cannnot upload graph and dwg.

------ Original ------
こんにちは。

Dynamo for Civil3D 2022 で作成したワークフローを
Dynamo for Civil3D 2025 で実行しようとした時、RAMが枯渇する問題があります。

同じ端末、同じdwg、同じdynで実行しており、RAM=64GB です。
カスタムノードはありません。
目的はプロパティを抽出してjsonにすることで、ジオメトリの変更や出力は行いません。
メモリが枯渇するのは約500MBのdwgです。10MBのdwgでは（もちろん）枯渇しません。

※会社のポリシーにより、ワークフローやdwgをアップロードすることはできません。

現象
Dynamo for Civil3D 2022: メモリ使用 35GB、5-10分で完了
Dynamo for Civil3D 2025: メモリ使用 63GB、1時間以上応答なし

何かマイグレーションに役立つtipsがあるでしょうか？
あるいは、メモリを節約する方法があるでしょうか？

2

Feel free to use google translate or similar in future…

Hello ENG or other language users, please translate.

Hello.

Workflow created with Dynamo for Civil3D 2022
There is a problem with RAM exhaustion when trying to run Dynamo for Civil3D 2025.

I’m running on the same terminal, same dwg, same dyn, and RAM=64GB.
There are no custom nodes.
The purpose is to extract the properties and make them into json, without changing or outputting the geometry.
The memory exhaustion is about 500MB dwg. A 10MB dwg won’t run out (of course).

*Due to company policy, it is not possible to upload workflows or dwg.

phenomenon
Dynamo for Civil3D 2022: Memory usage 35GB, completed in 5-10 minutes
Dynamo for Civil3D 2025: Memory usage 63GB, unresponsive for over 1 hour

Do you have any helpful tips for migration?
Or is there a way to save memory?

1 Like
3

Are you sure that in 2025 there isnt a part of your script broken due to API changes? Ie can you run a singular or much smaller and get a result to compare against instead of a crash?

4

@pyXam
Thank you for question.

I tried with a small dwg input (10MB).
Then it outputs same result against Dynamo for C3D 2022 without RAM exhaution.
About memory, it was too short to check at task manager.

5

Hmm ok, i just thought i’d ask to help others help you.
Unfortunatly there isn’t much that can be done without example graph or file but others still might have insight as to the issue.

1 Like
6

can you create a small sample that reproduces the issue instead of the original production graph?

7

I’m not an expert in the concept on the Civil 3D side, but if this were Revit I would say it’s element binding at play as the second session for the same graph uses 2x the ram typically (and dyn file sizes go up exponentially).

1 Like
8

Interesting about element binding.
Is it possible in 2025 to set (as in 2023) that Object binding should be stored only in drawing.
Does it make any changes?

9

Should be, but the source was 2022, which I think had not implemented Element Binding changes so who knows how it was configured.

10

Oups, my bad. Didn’t read the complete thread.

1 Like
11

@jacob.small
Thank you for suggestion.
I tried some binding configuration pattern with smaller data.

Input：100MB dwg

  1. (Original graph) C3D 2022, Store in Graph for Dynamo, Store in Drawing for Dynamo Player
    RAM before / after execution : 1,890 MB → 2,580 MB (+690MB)

  2. C3D 2025, No Binding Data Retained
    1,880 MB → 12,030 MB (+10,150 MB)

  3. C3D 2025, Store in Graph for Dynamo, Store in Drawing for Dynamo Player
    1,890 MB → 12,100 MB (+10,210 MB)

  4. C3D 2025, Store in Graph for Dynamo
    1,700 MB → 11,850 MB (+10,150 MB)

  5. C3D 2025, Store in Drawing for Dynamo
    1,690 MB → 12,100 MB (+10,410 MB)

  6. C3D 2025, Store in Drawing for Dynamo Player
    1,930 MB → 12,070 MB (+10,140 MB)

It seems Binding configuration not causes any issues.

12

@Michael_Kirschner2
OK, I’ll try.
It will take some days (because I’m software engineer, not sure about CAD operation…).