Welcome to ACC Ideas! View the ACC Product Roadmap here. Top-voted ideas may be considered for future development. Learn more about the feedback process here.
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
When importing Takeoff types out of a different project, currently importing a Takeoff type with the same name will create a new take off type with (1) after the corresponding name. It would be helpful if it is possible to overwrite the existing Takeoff type and automate that kind of workflow.
Thanks for the suggestion. When we first implemented this feature, we decided to take the "safest" route, as there would be no chance of losing information this way. And it is quite simple to reassign existing takeoff to a new takeoff type. Also, since the initial release we have added more functionality to help teams standardize their work across projects, such as the ability to define takeoff types in a template. More recently, we also added the ability to import takeoff types from a project into a template.
While we could still consider a small enhancement like this (if many users see it as a priority), I wonder what your expectations would be with some of these questions:
should the user be given the choice to overwrite vs. not? If yes would that be for all imported types or on a case by case basis?
should the user be able to overwrite takeoff types that have already been used? Or only ones that haven't been used? If the latter, would you expect a notification explaining these details?
if we allowed user to overwrite takeoff types that have already been used, what happens when the output definitions don't line up? or if there are user input values on existing takeoff items? should they be carried to the new takeoff type? should the user be required to enter all new input values? what if the new type doesn't have the same user input requirements?
In the meantime, we will leave this Idea in Gathering Support status to see if other users have the same needs.
Thank you for your response! You are absolutely right about reassigning a takeoff, which is not a big task. However, some people may find it "unnecessary" and would love an option of moving or replacing. when output definitions don't lineup, perhaps a editing popup for lining up can be useful (don't know if this is possible to create).
Everything is possible, it just comes down to managing our priorities and available resources 🙂 We'll keep an eye out for opportunities to enhance this functionality, and in the meantime let's see if other users vote up this request. Thanks for your feedback!
