That is very informative!!! I don't understand half of it but at least it explains things. Why couldn't Adobe just say that instead of keeping us waiting for a year?!

My guess is that when Illustrator went from 32 to 64 bit, the coordinate system stayed at 32-bit internally and the program was just updated to run on 64-bit systems, not fully utilize them. My assumption is that the coordinates are represented internally by a 32-bit signed fixed-point number: 1 bit used for the sign, 13 bits for the integer component and the remaining 18 bits for the fractional component. This would give a max size of 2^14 points (approx. 227.5 inches) with a precision of 2^-18 points (a hair under 6 decimal places in base 10) which seems to line up well with a few quick tests.

Moving to a full 64-bit coordinate system would solve this for the most part. It would not be "infinite", but I don't think an infinite canvas would really be necessary for most. Assuming the precision stays the same (18 bits), the coordinate system would have a max size of 2^46 points (just under 1 trillion inches or approx. 15.43 million miles!).

Another option would be to stay with a 32-bit coordinate system but use more bits for the integer component of the number at the expense of taking them from the fractional component. Every bit you move would increase the max size and decrease the precision by a factor of 2. This is basically what a “virtual scale” would do.

Some of the other posts suggest that Illustrator is being revamped behind to scenes to eventually support larger canvas sizes. Assuming that is correct and the coordinate system’s capacity is being increased, every part of the program which works with coordinates will need to be updated. I think we will see this implemented eventually but it may take the Adobe team some time to both make the changes, and ensure nothing gets broken along the way. There will likely still be exporting limitations but those would be based on file specifications more than Illustrator’s capability. For example, the JPEG format only officially supports a size up to 65,535 pixels square.

@Yasmim Not with Illustrator. But every other vector based design software does not have this archaic limitation. Affinity Designer is a great alternative, Corel draw has been around for years as well as any industry specific software.

is there any solution?

I was just about to start using illustrator for my sign sketching and ran into this problem...
Since I come from another application that has absolutely no limit to canvas or artwork size
this is a major roadblock for me.
So sad I won't be able to keep increasing my time working with Illustrator.
PS: Size of artwork is absolutely necessary when sending out files to 3rd party printers, it is basically impossible to tell everyone to "SCALE-UP" your artwork... some of them don't even know how to... —then it becomes a money issue so please fix this problem.

We are trying to generate a PDF sized 14 meters per 2 meters, because our print bureau cannot scale the a smaller pdf file while sending it to the plotter, would you please tell me how we do this with this canvas size limitation?

No, graphic designers for large scale printing are limited by the file size/ artboard size restrictions and it creates nightmare situations between designers printers and installers. There are plenty of other design software options out there that don't put these limits. I love eveyrthing else about illustrator except the size limitations- we've been pleading with you guys for this change for years. If you really want our feedback to improve your product then hear this- !!NO ARTBOARD SIZE LIMITATIONS- PLEASE!!-

I also posted to a more current discussion forum, maybe like 3 or 4 weeks ago.
Also a poster got in touch with someone at Adobe via Twitter, also posted current Adobe team members names.

ABOLISH THE CANVAS LIMIT commented · January 7, 2019 9:50 AM · Flag as inappropriate
I got a reply from an Illustrator project manager on Twitter

I asked if this will be implemented soon, and he said:

"Not yet. Busy with core architecture work to support this in the future."

ABOLISH THE CANVAS LIMIT commented · December 28, 2018 12:23 PM · Flag as inappropriate
Here is the list of Illustrator project managers. Yogesh doesn't work at Adobe anymore apparently.
I'm reaching out to these people on Twitter, hopefully we can actually get an update.

Anubhav Rohatgi
Neeraj Nandkeolyar
Sunny Ladkani
Varun Sharma
Vinay Pahlajani

Also, be nice.

Just an FYI, I've posted a request in the official Adobe forums for someone to take a look at this, in the event that this forum has been depreciated as a place for feature requests.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/10884178

Honestly, since there has been no feedback from Adobe since October 2017, I'm going to have to assume that this request has all but been ignored.

Soooooo Is there a solution for this or are we still suffering under senseless tyranny? I would really appreciate this improvement so that I can improve my work flow.

Anonymous,
While I agree a "scale" option would help it still doesn't fix the underlying issues..
I also create and work with files from a couple pixels all the way up to 400-500 inches. I run into this limitation a few times every month. Most of the time, its just short a few inches.. REALLY!!!

Working with a scale option is BAD!!

1. What if I forget which option is on? oops. I just cost my company $1000 in printing plate materials.
NO..NO..NO!!!! Did I say.. NO!!!
2. there is also the issue that when pasting large objects. They sometimes cannot be placed because they will end up outside the canvas area. Thus we can't work and have to find other solutions.
3. You are wrong about its just math and we are working in scale.. WE ARE NOT WORKING IN SCALE... we are working in a 1:1 ratio ALL THE TIME. it never scales.. the units change but thats not the same as scaling.

Read thru these comments.. many say just add a document scale function, it would be good enough but it doesn't fix the real issue.
We pay almost $20,000/ year to adobe.. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS BEING IGNORED FOR SO LONG.
WE NEED LARGER CANVAS SIZES. PERIOD!!

Christoper,

You are right, it is just math. You are also wrong, people working for web graphics and other digital media use pixels in AI as a measurement.

It really doesn't matter of the "physical" size of the canvas in AI. Hence the reason why a virtual scale is fine. Once plugged you wouldn't even know it's a scale and setting a scale gives unlimited possiblities. Want to work with 1000"? Easy. A files doesn't have physical dimensions, it's just math equations. When you work with inches in AI you already working in a scale.

.There has to be a limit placed somewhere, especially for software that is the encompassing monoploy over so many different industries. Very specific software, like Flexi, is unlimited but its for one industry, even those files work in a scale unknown to the user....

I've designed things from web pages to car wraps to multi-story window wraps to large 200' signs on the Vegas Strip for the better part of 20 years and used AI since it was first released. The size of the canvas has never been an issue, have a virtual scale built in would be in best interest for those who use plug ins to make a virtual scale.

Say they lifted the canvas size to unlimited. Well, people would be designing these massive files and when they input it in the rip software they would not have enough computing power to RIP the image... As we all know that the rip software converts vector to raster.

Cheers

Setting up a vehicle wrap to print at scale is a headache. Designing is fine, but it's extremely frustrating when all I need is another 6 inches to have it at full scale.

Anon,

I completely disagree with your synopsis.

There are many valid reasons for having a bigger canvas, which have nothing to do with 'pixels' since we're dealing with vectors (math) and NOT pixels. If you want to deal with pixels, use Photoshop.

In the print industry we could have very simple layouts, but need to do them 'at scale'. I could have potentially have a 1000" x 1000" AI file that is only a couple hundred kilobytes in size. Have at scale eliminates the messy nature of having to deal with scaling. This is simply an old limitation in Illustrator that has never been modernized.

We don't want scaling, we want larger art boards as the OP stated.

Plug-Ins for Illustrator (like CAD Tools) already make Illustrator work in virtual scale. I have been working on a virtual scale in AI for many years. I would love to see this implemented in Illustrator which would remedy some funny quirks of using a plugin. It would work great for everyone. When working with pixels it will always be 1:1 and those working in metric/imperial need bigger.

No one needs a bigger canvas when working with pixels as this is typically used only for digital media and can support well over 8k (you can fit 8 8k monitors in an AI file.) Those who cram hundreds of assets on one file need to rethink their workflow, you never want to put all your eggs in one basket.

However, the people needing larger (I am one of those as I work on things to be produced in real life, not digital) can work in scale, you would not even notice you are working in scale after you set it. Being able to set different scales per layer will always be great. So even those the file is 1:1 in pixels, having your input boxes working in scale would be an excellent solution.

Abobe, let do another video chat sometime so we can discuss this project like the last projects we discussed a few months back. I've got some valuable insight with this subject as I've implemented in a professional environment for many years.

Yogesh, it might be a solution. But I don't understand if your scaling solution would be feasible, why would a 10x bigger canvas be a problem ?

I've been asking this for 20 years lol. Adobe hates the large and grand format industry. If they only knew how much they've cost me over the years in scaling issues.

Lots of other programs have no limit, there is no need to have a limit in illustrator and it should definitely be removed, when you're working on full size projects it really hinders the process not being able to view it all together.

Yogesh, Virtual scale would be acceptable. Removing the limit altogether would be ideal. 227.54 inches is so arbitrary it is infuriating. I need to layout something that will be 288 inches. They are just numbers. IT SHOULDN'T MATTER