Add the ability to scale the canvas beyond it's archaic 227 inch limits.

[MixManSC1]

Make working with large format designs at 1:1 possible. In other words add a size function for the canvas to be scaled beyond 227 inches. Of course this would allow scaling the artboards beyond that size as well. Not sure if there woudl be implications to allowing it to be unlimited. Us large format print and design companies are annoyed at this daily. Vehicle template packages are at 1/20th scale. Finish the design for the 54 foot trailer and ready to print, scale 2000%. Nope sorry, cant do that. Export the file and open it in some other vector app for the final scaling then export from that to the RIP.

Was really hoping to see this in CS6. Sadly not happening.

[Warren Heaton]

In the same way Photoshop added the PSB format (really large Photoshop file), we’ll probably see something along the lines of AIB format.  It is unlikely to be backwards compatible, but being up-to-date with Adobe apps is easier than it’s ever been.

Working at a reduced scale is very analog.

[Adam Stanning]

Exactly. I knew there was a good example and it was staring me in the face. The PSB was implemented as a response to the ever increasing demand placed on the software to create larger and larger files. This must have been quite a challenge in raster based software.

Working to a reduced scale is fine if the software recognises that scale, like CAD software. But holding a scale in your head as you work is as you describe very analogue. And I, the squishy fallible thing in that chain, have been responsible for quite a few rather catastrophic cock ups because of it.

[Adam Stanning]

Hi Jane, I know It’s user-to-user, it still surprised me that on an Adobe forum the response to such a simple suggestion would be ‘look elsewhere’. About 12 months ago Adobe actually contacted me in relation to this. It is obviously something they are acutely aware of. It’s great software I just believe that canvas size is one area it could be improved to accommodate modern printing capabilities, to the great relief of many users.

[Adam Stanning]

Hi Jane, I know It’s user-to-user, it still surprised me that on an Adobe forum the response to such a simple suggestion would be ‘look elsewhere’. About 12 months ago Adobe actually contacted me in relation to this. It is obviously something they are acutely aware of. It’s great software I just believe that canvas size is one area it could be improved to accommodate modern printing capabilities, to the great relief of many users.

[Bobby Henderson]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Adam+Stanning  wrote

It amazes me that the answer to a very reasonable suggestion on an Adobe forum is “find some other software then”.

No one single graphics application can be all things to all people. Different vector graphics applications serve different niches. You may not like my comments and responses, but the truth hurts I suppose. Illustrator's foundation was built with a certain print-based market in  mind. That was the original focus. It didn't matter if people in many other niche categories where graphics are created were using it. The bulk of Illustrator's early users were working in print.

So many people demanding much larger max art board sizes (or unlimited art board sizes) appear to believe this is something that would be very simple for Adobe to deliver. I think the situation is a whole lot more complicated. I have two big concerns about Illustrator accommodating much bigger art board sizes. First, will Illustrator's editing precision take a hit? Second, will the performance requirements be much greater? I don't think bigger art boards are going to come without some kind of cost, be it processing muscle required or quality. I've worked with plenty of CAD applications and industry-specific "CAS" sign making applications. Neither do very well at creating artwork in small sizes; objects turn into coarse trash. Those applications aren't geared for small size work. Illustrator goes the other direction. It's very precise for printed pages. But it struggles with giant size designs.

[troyb69233046]

How do you do that?

[Glen Charles Rowell]

Are you using Illustrator for floor plans? I tried drawing a few once but the line and shape tools didn't refresh the background when scrolling which makes using Illustrator really annoying. Illustrator CS6 still has the same problem as in CS3, CS4 and CS5. When I heard they remade everything I was looking forward to using the line and shape tools again but nothing has changed yet. Please fix Illustrator CS6 Adobe.

http://a4jp.com/design/3443.html

Glen

PS The pen tool doesn't have this problem but only the control points scroll the screen (*The refresh works here though).

[MixManSC1]

While I agree that the line/shape tools not refreshing the screen while scolling is also highly annoying at times I do not see how that issue is in any way even remotely related to the feature request of an expanded canvas and artboard. Maybe starting a different feature request or bug report thread on that would get that issue more attention Glen.

[vrtx]

I'm having the same problem. i have no intention to print, i just want to make a 1:1 scale floor plan of my office so we can easily design. I could just scale it down and convert feet to inches, but that's a lot of unnecessary math! I find it strange that i cant just have 1 inch equal 1 inch. how do interior designers work? do they use a different program? i decided just to open Cinema 4D and work from there since it allows me what ever size i want.

[Doug.S]

Perhaps the "answers" lie in a need to be able to use a "scale the drawing" tool?

Perhaps the real limitation is math needed for ability to zoom-in deeper?  (I don't think so)

And of course if one mixes in any pixel/bitmap features, artboard size makes more sense as pixels don't resize well to a larger image like vectors; so scaling with pixels involved may create problems?  (They can be addressed)

I'm not trying to explain away why Adobe does not do any of the requests in this thread....because it can all be done in this day/age of higher performing CPU's and GPU's and HDDs and GB's of RAM and screen resolution. We are no longer in the days of DOS and 1980's....and the coding is not very difficult either now.

Most request "can" be done, it is whether Adobe thinks it is needed for their customers...who are asking for it here. C'mon Adobe listen and do....please.

[Meegah]

You dont ever do 1:1 scale architectural drawings unless its for parts design. Otherwise most programs, including the all powerful AutoCAD will lag and crash. I have never as a Landscape or Interiors designer used Illustrator or InDesign for architectural drawing unless as a client presentation on scaled down poster presentations.

[Meegah]

I feel the same way about billboard design, vector is scalable, but i just want to know how to set it up for optimum results. As powerful as my computer is, im not going to force it to render 1:1 scale. Its ludicrous and unnecessary. If you are that keen, design it on multiple boards or go hand do it, that's how silly the idea of 1:1 is.

[markr68986399]

I too work as an Exhibit and Landscape designer/builder and Illustrator is all I use; the Artboard 277 restriction is ridiculous and I cannot even fathom how anyone can defend a conversation "scaling all your measurements is more efficient than 1:1."   I never run out of RAM, though I do frequently run out of patience deciding what scale will fit everything within Illustrators restrictions.  Adobe... why don't you let us decide what our computers can handle.  I guess the argument could be... some computers can't even start Illustrator without crashing; so, if you need to make your program stable for everyone, why make Illustrator at all?

[rossul]

+1. Yes we need to lift this silly limitation. We use AI for US and we currently we hit the limits at ~60 screens, which is nothing for a CRM software. Add on top of that variations of the same screen.

Scaling doesn't work. We need rules, units and the pixel grid to act normaly, not to mention Align to Pixel...

[gubaba]

Agreed with MixManSC1. Please adobe, allow 1:1 scale. Us large format designers are really frustrated with this maximum artboard size limit in illustrator. I work with billboards and large scale environmental graphics and hate dealing with printing errors when printers accidentally scale artwork incorrectly (not to mention the maths involved).

[phlvx]

I am in the sign industry and while most of what I do can be done 1:1, larger projects require scaling. Yes there are work-a-rounds, but the bottom line is that in this day and age I find no practical reason for this limitation.

[Glen Charles Rowell]

It would just be nice if the software got updated like the company promised personally to me. I was told and promised to that there would be some updates to bugs but I'm still waiting. I hope it wasn't just lies. I trust Adobe is still working on the bugs.

[InvokeDesign]

I also hit the ceiling here, and wish I could go bigger. I'm designing 300dpi wall-coverings, and some walls are big. Yes, I can design at half scale.. but why MUST I?

[vrangel3]

The limitation of 227 inches is annoying! And why 227 inches? Why not 225 or 230 LOL. So freaking random. Anyway, I am an artist that does large scale murals and paintings and it would help to scale in real world. I have done the ratio conversion of 1/6, 1/4, and 1/2 scale YES I can do it but I find myself worrying about the accuracy rather than the design. and I have gotten burned by my own mishap calculations. Some artist are not very good with math such as myself. Go ahead and call me stupid for not understanding basic math , (I don't care) but the reality is that some of us cringe at calculating ratios!.....

In 93 at work I had almost run out of storage space and was asking for more Gigs. I had an computer engineer tell me that I should never use more than 3 Gigs in my life time on my PC. That the problem was I should manage my file sizes in a better way. "You artist don't understand HOW big a Gig is." he stated. I believed him because he was a computer engineer even though my gut told me otherwise. Occasionally I talk to him and sometimes remind him of 1993. He grumbles and changes the subject.

[Qwertyfly___]

And why 227 inches? Why not 225 or 230 LOL.

its not 227 inches.

I think you will find its 16384px

16384px / 72 = 227.55555......

and why 16384px?

my guess would be something to do with the following sequence.

4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, ....

on that note, I still have no idea why we can't just go to the next number in the sequence.

[Qwertyfly___]

my bad...

its 16383px

227.541666 inches

[Doug.S]

Use a scale of 1/10....easy to calc (move decimal one place) and any error shows as a BIG mistake so easy to catch

Works for all vector stuff....not so well for bitmap stuff

[zackw52655444]

know it all

eh?

[Qwertyfly___]

not everything,
I have no idea what you are referring to.

And no idea what tone of voice is inflected in the "eh?"

[billygunn1111]

I agree, my team converts large plot plans CADs in to AI for oil refineries with lots of detail and we need a much bigger artboard.  It seems silly that there is this restriction.

We have to create several artboards and then stitch it back together in Photoshop for the diagram.  It is a really inconvenient way to work and we would like to see this restriction lifted soon.