BUG REPORT - Revit 2020.2 - Material takeoff schedule hidden column

[sed0704]

Hi,

Just wanted to report a bug that I encountered. I was trying to make a material takeoff with the material name visible only in the header and the list of families and types under it, but it didn't work as expected.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Create a multi-category material takeoff
2. Add the fields "Material: Name" and "Family and Type"
3. Set "Material: Name" as "Hidden Field" in "Formatting" tab.
4. (optional, to demonstrate my intent) Sort by "Material: Name", check Header and Blank line, then sort by "Family and Type". Uncheck "Itemize every instance".

When clicking "OK" it gives the error in the screenshot.

How to resolve:

1. Uncheck "Hidden Field"
2. Click "OK" to get back to the schedule view
3. Hide the column in the schedule view (one way to do it is to right click on the "Material: Name" column and click on "Hide Columns")

When trying to edit the schedule fields/other options after using this solution, it gives the same error again. The same steps have to be repeated.

[barthbradley]

What would be the point of the Material Schedule is the Material was Hidden?  I don't think it's a "Bug". I think it is a "Hey! Bone Head Alert".  Maybe I'm misreading.  

[sed0704]

If it really was their intention to alert users that this is not allowed, then I expect I wouldn't have been able to go through with my solution, since it basically leads to the same thing, just in a different way.

I explain what I'm trying to do at the beginning of my post. "I was trying to make a material takeoff with the material name visible only in the header and the list of families and types under it."

You still see the material, but only in the header of each section instead of being repeated a thousand times for no reason. In my opinion it makes for a neater presentation of the schedule information. See below two example lists I whipped up quickly on Excel.

what I don't want

what I do want

I call it a bug, because if I wasn't supposed to be allowed to do it, then I still did it, just in a different way (check the solution in my first post). And if I was supposed to be allowed to do it, then why does it give an error when using one of the ways which should make no difference at all on the result?

[barthbradley]

So, you are saying you want to do this???:

If so, then why use a MTO? Why not an "Ordinary" Schedule like the Message says?  

[barthbradley]

---

@sed0704 wrote:

If it really was their intention to alert users that this is not allowed, then I expect I wouldn't have been able to go through with my solution, since it basically leads to the same thing, just in a different way.

You know, there are Road Signs that tell me I'm going the "Wrong Way", but I can choose to ignore them.  

 

[sed0704]

---

Why not an "Ordinary" Schedule like the Message says?  

---

Because "Ordinary" schedules don't allow you to sort by material name.

So, you are saying you want to do this???:

---

No, what I'm saying is I want to do this:

Notice the material name headers marked in red? Can you do this with an "Ordinary" schedule? I think not.

Is the following an objectively better way to do it?

As you might be able to imagine, when lots of types have the same material, the schedule would get flooded with needlessly redundant information.

[barthbradley]

I am not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand the point of the Schedule.  What is it quantifying?  Looks like it's just a list of Families and Types grouped under a Material Name header.   

[sed0704]

Looks like it's just a list of Families and Types grouped under a Material Name header.   

---

Exactly! It allows us to see clearly, for every material, which element types use it. We have other schedules like it that quantify more data, but this was just one of them.

As you can see, I was able to achieve from the start what I wanted, so my point with this post wasn't so much to ask for help or to complain, as to highlight an inconsistency in Revit's behavior around this, which Autodesk possibly hadn't noticed. Otherwise, for me, it's not a big deal.

Maybe they have other more important things to do, but if I could point to a potential bug that I encountered while working, then I thought, why not?

[barthbradley]