Jump to content

pfrings

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

pfrings's Achievements

Explorer

Explorer (4/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. pfrings

    PDF Size

    But something has obviously changed within FM 9, because of the much smaller file size you get when using 'Compress PDF' to print a PDF from FM 9 compared to FM 8.
  2. pfrings

    PDF Size

    Some good news regarding improvements in PDF sizes in Filemaker 9. Printing an invoice (mainly text, one small graphic, 2 pages) came out at 500k using FM 8... but was only 76k when printed from FM 9. BUT... this is only when you use the 'Compress PDF' option in the print dialog box (I'm using Mac OS 10.4.10). If you use the normal 'Save PDF' command, the files come out at 592k whether its from FM 8 or FM 9. So is there a way to access the 'Compress PDF; option from within a script?
  3. pfrings

    PDF Size

    This is still a problem for my company, and the biggest single thing that would improve Filemaker for us (are you listening Filemaker???) I started a thread on this last year, a couple of people suggested using particular fonts, taking out graphics etc.... but these suggestions don't work/aren't practical.... and the point remains that using any number of other PDF creators will produce a PDF a tenth of the size that Filemaker does. In my company I have project managers emailing out PDFs of 'Request to Quote', specs, quotes for clients etc often to multiple recipients. One project manager can easily generate 100 emails a day, and if the attachment is 1 or 2MB... and I have 15 project managers doing this... you can appreciate what a pain this is for our email system. In last year's post on this subject, someone commented that this was a known issue for Filemaker and they were working on it. Could someone from Filemaker update us on progress??
  4. Thanks for this, as always these things seem a bit obvious when someone points it our for you. Much appreciated. One final question: is there a way I can get a container field holding a document just to display the icon of the document, not the file name? Apart from setting the font size to 1pt?
  5. I know you can't search a container field directly.. But I have container fields which stores audit documents related to particular suppliers. these docs are Word, excel etc. Is there some way I can create a text field which automatically( by a calculation?) takes the file name of the document that has been imported into the container field? Then the text field would be searchable. How do I do this. Had a look through the other posts in the 'Containers' sub forum but couldn't see anything.
  6. Thanks very much, I feel I should have worked out the first option myself... with hindsight its staring me in the face when you define the field!!!
  7. Apologies if this is a silly question... I have a job number field which is set to serially increment each time a user sets up a new record. Users cannot delete a record. But I'm getting a few missing records in the sequence (which is a major problem because my Filemaker database has to link up and correspond with another database). I think this is happening because User A starts entering a new record, while this is happening User B enters a new record... and then occasionally User A abandons setting up a new record for whatever reason, leaving one missing number in the sequence. Any thoughts on the best way to prevent this from happening?
  8. I'm not using the fonts mentioned in the knowledgebase article either... I switched from the ones I was using (Franklin Gothic) to Univers and the file sizes were still 5 to 10 times what they should be. So switching fonts doesn't help. Can anyone from Filemaker shed light on when this might be fixed? Send to PDF is such a great feature but badly hampered by this problem.
  9. Outputting a PDF from Filemaker, which then pops up as an attachment in Mail ready to email to send to someone, is a potentially massive productivity benefit for my users. I can make it all happen correctly, but there's one problem.... PDFs that are only one or two pages long, and only contain text, come out at filesizes of between 600k and several megabytes. Our repro team have some advanced PDF manipulation tools and can low res the files down to 50 or 60k and they look and print fine. How can I control the pdf resolution/file size from within Filemaker. (We're using Filemaker 8.03 on Macs generally running 10.3 or 10.4) Thanks in anticipation
  10. I think the penny has finally dropped... thanks for your tip, Ender, or always going back to a blank piece of paper when struggling to work out the right structure. My hang up was that I only wanted a user to have to 'create' a quote in a single action. But I can see that typing in a Quote Lines portal on a Quotes (Table 1) layout will create a Quote Line record. All I have to do then is get the user to enter some ID/number from the new Quote Lines record into either a layout/portal from another table, to link that particular specification element/record to the Quote Line record. The user now has to do two explicit entry actions for every Specification element that builds up the final quote, but I think that is probably a price worth paying for the benefits. Now to see whether I can get this to work in practice as well as on the sheet of paper!
  11. Thanks for your advice. What I'm not sure I understand is how a calculation field in Table 1 could pull in data from several other tables... And if I have a different set of calculation fields for each of Tables 2 to 8, I'm not sure I've made any progress??
  12. Thanks for the responses. Yes I did have each of tables 2 to 8 showing through a portal on a different tab panel. But this caused difficulties in navigating back to a particular panel after the user has gone, for example, to a search screen to search Table 4. I couldn't find a way of reliably getting a user back to the tab panel they started at. So I created 9 layouts within Table 1 which each look identical to the tab panel approach, are in fact separate layouts. So my users can quickly move between a portal for Table 2, a portal for Table 3 and so on, at the click of a navigation button. But what I can't do is show users a few common fields from each table in a clear layout. At the moment I do this through a layout which contains 8 portals, each set to display a certain number of portal rows. But this has the disadvantages described in an earlier post. Obviously when a layout containing all 8 portals is previewed, all the space taken up by empty portal rows, or portals with no related records, can slide up... but then its no longer editable, which I want it to be before the user goes to a layout for a print out. Maybe what I'm after just can't be done???
  13. No, tables 2 to 8 are all independent of each other. I can't/don't want to put tables 2 to 8 in one table, because each has a lot of fields unique to that table. Also, each record in each of tables 2 to 8 can potentially generate a purchase order... and a purchase order is linked to an individual specification (i.e. a record in any one of tables 2 to 8). Putting all the tables into one would result in over 300 fields in one table. Using one record for every single element would leave 90% of the fields empty and cause problems with the user interface. At the moment I do have them coming through onto Table 1 via eight portals, but it causes problems with the user interface again... because when a user is reviewing a summary of all the quote lines, screen space means you have to limit each portal to a certain number of rows. If on a particular project there are no related records for tables 2 to 4, for example, that screen space is wasted. If I've set 4 portal rows for, say table 5, but there are 5 elements, then if the user doesn't notice that the scroll bar on the side of the portal has changed colour, they won't see the fifth element....
  14. Tables 2 to 8 contain specifications for different components of a direct marketing print project. Table 1 draws them all together as a single quote for the client. Table 2 is envelopes, which need different fields in order to be specified to a supplier than continuous stationery print (Table 3) and so on through to Table 8 which is for postage costs. Table 4 is sheet or web fed print items. There would typically be 2 envelopes items, (but sometimes only 1), generally only 1 continuous stationery item (but frequently none on a low volume project) between 1 and 4 print items, and so on. They really aren't the same things. However the fields which I want to draw into the Table 1 quote ARE the same (Title of element, quantity of element, cost of element etc). I've been trying to get a 'Quote Lines' Table to work. This would ideally hold these common fields, related to Tables 2 to 8. Then, as you say, it would be easy to show them on Table 1. But try as I might, I can't get it to work with each field only existing in a single table. Whatever I try, I end up with a schema that means a script has to create a copy of the common fields in an intermediary table (eg Quote Lines). Apart from the principle of not holding data in two places, it is also proving very difficult (for me at least) to write a script which copes with the complexity of checking whether a Quote Line record already exists of not before creating a new record, if it does exist just updating it, and also making sure users to produce quotes which don't reflect changes that have been made to the common fields... I just feel this scripted creation of a duplicate record is probably barking up the wrong tree entirely.
  15. I posted this problem earlier but in an incomprehensible way. Hope this is clearer... A record in Table 1 may have several or no related records in Table 2. The same record in Table 1 may have several or no related records in Table 3. The same record in Table 1 may have several or no related records in Table 4 (and so on for tables 5 to 8). What I want is to have a few fields from each of Tables 2 to 8 showing through a single portal on Table 1. If, for the sake of argument there were 2 related records in each of Tables 2 to 8, my portal on a Table 1 layout would show 14 rows. Obviously I need some kind of linking table. Is this possible, and if so how?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.