Comment 7 for bug 184550

Thanks for the info.
To be honest, I added the 3rd point as an afterthought, as it is not the core of the report, I just thought it best to merge the issues. The main point is to remove the overlapping paths and resultant subpaths, or holes. Without the latter, though, I'd still either have to use Simplify and meticulously go over every path to fix them, or import the drawing into Illustrator and fix it there with its more flexible command.

For a lot of things, the current Simplify setting is just fine, but for cleaning up lineart, the needs are a little different. I found in inking a complex drawing, where I attempted to imitate my hand inking (with physical brush and ink), that Inkscape became increasingly bogged down as the filesize increased with the massive amount of nodes. As mentioned above, I imported it into illustrator to try and reduce the number of nodes without overly affecting the shape of the brushstrokes. There were over 84,000 nodes with a filesize of 5.7Mb, with the nodes packed tight. I reduced it to around 13,000 nodes with a filesize about 500kb with no significant damage to the drawing (I don't know if there's a way to get statistics in inkscape, but Object Properties would be a good place for it. But that's another matter).
It occurred to me that it depends on the speed of the stroke, a very fast stroke has a reasonable amount of nodes, whereas a slow careful one is ridiculously tightly packed, so it seems to me that a "cleanup" needs to be performed on the conclusion of a stroke, both for the removal of the overlaps and holes, and for reducing the complexity where needed.
I've attached an example from the abovementioned drawing, where the single line shown had 495 nodes, ridiculously high you must admit, and after simplification in illustrator, it had only 37. That's 7% the number of nodes. Given, that's with tweaking of the controls in illustrator's Simplify command.
Improved control over the simplify command could also help, but bug#170152 which requests this has been marked Invalid. I made a comment there, but it seems it won't be taken seriously.

Please tell me if you think it best to split this into a separate report, as it seems you are more willing to do the former, and less the latter.