Tinderbox Forum

Scrivener 3 and Tinderbox 7.x

Yesterday, Scrivener 3 was released.

While opening Scrivener-Documents with Tinderbox (by drag-dropping a Scrivener File onto the Tinderbox-Icon in the Dock) stills works in principle, it stopped bringing over the Text of the notes and it stopped as well filling in all the Scrivener-Attributes already implemented in Tinderbox.

Could someone kindly double-check this?

Cheers!

Confirmed.

Scrivener 3 made considerable changes to handling, custom metadata, bookmarks, and other features. I imagine it will take a while before Eastgate can examine the changed format and decide how to proceed.

1 Like

We’re on the case. Look for updates presently.

I have been using Scriv3, in their quasi-public-beta program, for many, many months now – actually wrote my forthcoming book entirely using this 3rd release. Just purchased the formal release version today.

It’s a great evolutionary step up from the previous also-exemplary versions of the program, but you’re right that it’s not fully matched with TB at the moment. My experience is like what you report: hierarchical structure and note names are correctly transferred, but not the text of the individual notes. I assume this is just a matter of Eastgate learning about the new coding protocols and adjusting accordingly.

A Scrivener 3 project can be exported in Scrivener 2 format – using File > Export > as Scrivener 2 Project. This is useful if you have a project updated since v3 but need the data for Tinderbox 7.x.

Good to know, had not focused on that! Thanks.

The issue has not yet been resolved in yesterday’s Tinderbox update 7.3.1.

Maybe in update 7.3.2?

It’s going to require a fair amount of development work. In the interim, you can move through Scrivener 2 format at modest inconvenience.

I assume Scrivener 2 methos still applies?

Exactly. Tinderbox 3 8 will avoid this small inconvenience, but Scrivener 2 import isn’t particularly onerous.

1 Like

So, @eastgate you suggest to go back to Tinderbox version 3 or is it a Typo and you mean Tinderbox 8?

I couldnt help myself… :)))))))). However, my old nick is stanblues999 and I only use it for one withering old post…the “replicate/cloning” concept so ’ apprecaite the support :wink:

I’ve exported as scrivener 2 however no images import back in. I’ve exported as files and then dropped items in Tidnerbox. The project size is tremendously larger in Tinderbox. A 1.5MB exported folder from Scrivener translates to roughly 12mb in Tinderbox. A 250MB Scrivener project exproted as files and folders amount to about 1.5GB in Tinderbox. I dont udnerstand why taht happens.


I’ve alo tried the Finder/Devonthink watch/autofetch method. It doesn’t fetch deeper than one level. For soem reason I thought I’ve tried this method a while back and it did fetch multiple groups and subgroups but I could also be jsut as wrong.

Tinderbox documents with images tend to be much larger, because Tinderbox images aren’t compressed. That’s a cost for our file format

Ok, that makes sense. If I wanted to go the “Agent image linker” route how would I go about that?. The image files currently reside on hundred of pages in my Tbx document. Do I have to go through each individual image file, export that file into an external folder? It would be a nightmare to have this process done manually. Can I automate this process and have all the image files stored externally and then use the image linker?

Anyone might help me with this matter?

This can’t one automated at present; you may have to live for the time being with larger documents, but that shouldn’t cause terrible troubles. (Tinderbox generally gives you less leverage with images than with textual information that can be searched and formalized.)

1 Like

When I import files to Tbx they are not sorted as the original project. Ive exported as fiels from Scrivener to mac. In the finder I’ve managed to sort all the containers per teh original source. For the life of me I can’t get Tbx to import these files in the correct order.

I’d like to get a bit of clarity from Mark on images and the Tinderbox file format. I have a Tinderbox file that is probably 200k of text max and around 5mb of image files–9 jpeg files each about 600k. The file size is c. 55mb. Does that seem right?

At first, I thought maybe Tinderbox does not garbage collect efficiently and there were deletions hanging around, but I found no discussion online of how to request a file “clean out”.

Now, if I’m reading Mark right, is it that Tinderbox stores images not in their native format with jpeg compression, in this case, but rather expanded with no compression? (Knowing the pixel dimensions of these images that seems right using back of the envelope calculations.)

If that is so, it would good to know that it is so. I’m finding that the performance of Tinderbox is not snappy with this file and I’m wondering if Tinderbox is not happy with c. 8mb image files stored in a few notes.

A cost of Tinderbox’s file format is that images are stored inefficiently on disk. That makes the document size large.

We can’t really know what “snappy” means or what, precisely, is slower than you like. Happy to look into performance issues.