Content Catalog - Version Lock

[ViviNyehuusAndersen]

Administrators should be able to select which Revit versions each Content Catalog collection applies to.

In the collection settings, there should be a list of supported Revit versions with checkboxes, for example:

☑ Revit 2025
☐ Revit 2026
☐ Revit 2027

If a Revit version is not selected, the collection must not be visible or available for download or insertion when Content Catalog is opened from that version of Revit.

This is necessary because company standards, classifications and parameters may change between Revit versions.

In our organization, Revit 2026 content follows some danish standards, while Revit 2027 content follows ISO.
Using content from the wrong collection could therefore introduce incorrect classifications and parameters into a project.

The version selection must be controlled by an administrator and function as an actual restriction—not merely as a search filter or warning. In 2027 we have chenge all parameters, and this is not the first time. So I need to be able to lock cataloges to versions.

[Ric_Weber]

@ViviNyehuusAndersen, in order for your 2027 content to follow the ISO standards, I assume you are needing to rebuild the families.  Therefore you will need to upload the new 2027 content.  So users using Revit 2027 will receive that 2027 content automatically and not the previous versions.  No need for any filter in that case.  

Remember, everything is in one "bucket" so to speak, so those families that have not yet been updated to the ISO standards will continue to be available in 2027 because they have been updated.  Collections are not individual "buckets".  I like to think of them as specialized tags.  

Now, to your issue though; you want that only those families which were uploaded as 2027 to appear for your users.  This is where tags can come in handy.  On those families which you have updated for the ISO standards, you could add a tag "ISO for 2027+".  Then recreate a Saved Search which only shows families with that tag.  Saved Searches are the meat of Content Catalog.  

Use your saved searches.  Teach your users not to use the Browse for Content tab at all.  I wish the admins could turn that tab off completely.  With a saved search and tags, you can make your searches work for you. Per the roadmap https://www.autodesk.com/blogs/aec/roadmap/aec-data-model-roadmap/ it looks like the Search and Browse will be merged.  Of course, that's been on the In Progress list for a while now.  

A filter by Base Version could be helpful.  So you could only see content that had a Base Version of 2027...  again, that would be back to the Saved Searches and Filters to do though.  I'd suggest putting a comment in that item in the roadmap.  

[ViviNyehuusAndersen]

Hi,

I understand the suggestion, but unfortunately that approach will not work in an organization of our size. We have around 2,000 employees, and the reality is that users often do not read instructions, naming conventions, tags, or saved search requirements. They simply search for content and use whatever they find.

Today we have content from multiple Revit generations and disciplines. For example, some electrical content originates only for 2023, and then fore 2024-2026, and now to 2027, structural content from 2024-2025, fire protection content from 2026, and so on. Without a strict version separation, users will inevitably download and use families that are not compatible with their project or Revit version.

The result is that families do not behave as expected, projects become inconsistent, and we end up spending significant time on support, troubleshooting, corrections, and rework. That creates a substantial cost for the business. Because of this, we cannot rely on users selecting the correct tags, collections, or saved searches every time.

For us, version separation needs to be enforced by the system rather than by user behavior. If content for Revit 2027 exists, users working in Revit 2027 should only be presented with compatible Revit 2027 content.

Another challenge is the requirement for preview images. With thousands of families in our library, requiring an image upload for every family creates a very large administrative overhead that is difficult to justify and maintain.

Unless these challenges can be addressed, I do not see Content Catalog as a viable solution for enterprise-scale content management in our organization.

Kind regards,
Vivi Nyehuus Andersen