Revit 2018 in 2017

[Anonymous]

Is there ANY way to convert a Revit 2018 file to Revit 2017?

Can I save it on Navisworks and then Revit 2017?

Can I save it on IFC and then Revit 2017?

Any ideas are welcome!

[chrisplyler]

---

@benj wrote:

It is without a Doubt Autodesk is ahead of the Publisher pack.

Therefore, we should see a backward compatibility issue addressed via a new Revit platform patch update that can open a 2018 version from launching the 2017 version.

Pretty straightforward, don't you think?

---

No. No, I do not think it is pretty straightforward. I think it is a terrible nightmare of complexity.

Revit is not just lines between points like Autocad is.

If Revit adds a new feature...let's say something like vertical wall reveals...how can you possibly expect a model containing such a feature to work in an older version of Revit that did not have vertical wall reveals? Where would the parameters for the new feature be stored in the older database format?

Think about that, and try to give me an answer.

[RobDraw]

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

Solved? You can save an IFC file, but all families become in-place elements. This is seriously horrible. I dont understand why you keep making new versions of revit so everything just becomes incompatible. Dont understand why you dont just make one version of revit and just constantly update it. I bet if you did it that way, you would have alot more time to focus on actually fixing bugs and issues instead of focusing all your time on making the next version.

We have projects that sometimes last years. Sometimes a work-around is not a solution.

---

This is only a problem if a project gets started with the wrong version or updated from the required version. Sounds more like a training issue than a Revit one.

[candersonFG646]

Except that you cant train employees to use a version of revit that doesnt exist yet. Nor can you train designers on the notion of how long it takes for something thats out of your control to complete. What a response. Could use tips from the people that come here instead of making excuses to perpetuate it.

[RobDraw]

The topic at hand is backwards compatibility. That is only an issue when a project is either started in the wrong version or upgraded unnecessarily. 

What are you talking about?

[chrisplyler]

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

Except that you cant train employees to use a version of revit that doesnt exist yet.

---

What? What has that got to do with anything?

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

Nor can you train designers on the notion of how long it takes for something thats out of your control to complete.

---

Yes you can. They learn that with experience. I've been working with Architects and Engineers and Owners for thirty years. It didn't take me very long to figure out they types of delays they all cause and approximately how long to expect to wait. And I can train my new hires that subject material.

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

Could use tips from the people that come here instead of making excuses to perpetuate it.

---

He isn't making excuses. He's explaining why it is what it is. If you think "make Revit backwards compatible" is a useful tip, you just don't grasp how it works.

Any smart person that's in charge of designing a project, and who must outsource some of the work, will plan and REQUIRE other members of the team to work on the same version/platform. Any potentially outsourced member unwilling or unable to do comply doesn't get the job. That's the only solution to the problem.

[candersonFG646]

i think to keep it as simple as it needs to be. Im +1 to that CAD can go backwards but Revit cant. And that isnt efficient to deal with.

[RobDraw]

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

i think to keep it as simple as it needs to be. Im +1 to that CAD can go backwards but Revit cant. And that isnt efficient to deal with.

---

Don't you know that Revit is CAD?

What is this efficiency that you speak of?

Revit projects need to be in a specific version. How much simpler can it get?

[candersonFG646]

See messages #14 & 18. The point is to bring attention to how it can improve for its users.

To me, someone could have improved revit families that are standard in projects. And you would have to make sure they are saved in the oldest version available so everyone can use them. Sometimes thats not possible. And i just read the "solution" that you can save your file as an IFC, which destroys the revit families. You can save a CAD file to multiple previous versions, dont see why that cant be done with revit families.

[RobDraw]

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

See messages #14 & 18. The point is to bring attention to how it can improve for its users.

---

There is a different forum for your ideas. 

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

To me, someone could have improved revit families that are standard in projects. And you would have to make sure they are saved in the oldest version available so everyone can use them. Sometimes thats not possible. And i just read the "solution" that you can save your file as an IFC, which destroys the revit families. 

---

If someone knew about not being able to save to a previous version, they wouldn't create families in a newer version than the oldest version their company could use on a project. Again, it's a training issue or just plain bad planning. A lot of us have been there, sucked it up, and recreated the families in the older version. It's much easier the second time.

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

You can save a CAD file to multiple previous versions, dont see why that cant be done with revit families.

---

Actually (Auto)CAD doesn't always work with a simple save as command. Someone needs to export the file.

Just because you cannot understand it (even though it's been explained here) doesn't mean it is possible to implement. 

[candersonFG646]

Glad you have such a strong opinion. Should not let your ego get in the way of discussion.

[RobDraw]

What discussion are you referring to? 

[Anonymous]

---

@candersonFG646 wrote:

Should not let your ego get in the way of discussion.

---

The "discussion" should have been closed almost two years ago.  The "End of Discussion" was that Revit is not Autocad and there is no backwards compatibility keeping the model in Revit format.

People keep asking and the answer is always no...you live with it.  Been using Revit for about 14-15 years, it really has not been an issue unless I built an awesome family for someone only to find out they told me the wrong project version.

If a team has to work on an older version of Revit, then there are ways around the licensing to allow it.  Your license/subscription admin needs to contact Autodesk support to have it configured.

Feel sorry for anyone getting updates on this old thread....hopefully you have unsubscribed by now.

[RobDraw]

If you unsubscribe you'll miss out on all the fun. It's the train wreck that keeps on giving. 

[Anonymous]

Nobody said I unsubscribed yet... 😉

Just giving the option to those that already moved on.

[benj]

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

---

@benj wrote:

It is without a Doubt Autodesk is ahead of the Publisher pack.

Therefore, we should see a backward compatibility issue addressed via a new Revit platform patch update that can open a 2018 version from launching the 2017 version.

Pretty straightforward, don't you think?

---

No. No, I do not think it is pretty straightforward. I think it is a terrible nightmare of complexity.

Revit is not just lines between points like Autocad is.

If Revit adds a new feature...let's say something like vertical wall reveals...how can you possibly expect a model containing such a feature to work in an older version of Revit that did not have vertical wall reveals? Where would the parameters for the new feature be stored in the older database format?

Think about that, and try to give me an answer.

You don't need to tell me the difference from 2d to 3d. I know that. I'm a licensed architect since 1986. The software in general NEEDS TO BE BACKWARD Compatible. 

For some reason an outsource ally in the business uses '18 & the current project on site is still '17. Simply save saveas 2017 version is IDEAL.

---

[Anonymous]

---

@benj wrote:

You don't need to tell me the difference from 2d to 3d. I know that. I'm a licensed architect since 1986. The software in general NEEDS TO BE BACKWARD Compatible. 

For some reason an outsource ally in the business uses '18 & the current project on site is still '17. Simply save saveas 2017 version is IDEAL.

---

---

Simply getting a 2017 license added to your subscription is the best thing you can do instead of crying that there isn't backwards compatibility.

Which technically...you should already have.  My subscription has 2020, 2019, 2018 and hey 2017!!!

As for your outsourcing....they need to be working in 2017 as well...if they can't do that then it is time to find someone else as they are probably using unlicensed software which is why they are stuck on one version.

[ToanDN]

---

@benj wrote:

---

---

You don't need to tell me the difference from 2d to 3d. I know that. I'm a licensed architect since 1986. The software in general NEEDS TO BE BACKWARD Compatible. 

For some reason an outsource ally in the business uses '18 & the current project on site is still '17. Simply save saveas 2017 version is IDEAL.

---

---

What you need is a proper BIM Manager and a BIM Execution Plan to ensure all parties are on the same version and build.  

[benj]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@benj wrote:

You don't need to tell me the difference from 2d to 3d. I know that. I'm a licensed architect since 1986. The software in general NEEDS TO BE BACKWARD Compatible. 

For some reason an outsource ally in the business uses '18 & the current project on site is still '17. Simply save saveas 2017 version is IDEAL.

---

---

Simply getting a 2017 license added to your subscription is the best thing you can do instead of crying that there isn't backwards compatibility.

Which technically...you should already have.  My subscription has 2020, 2019, 2018 and hey 2017!!!

As for your outsourcing....they need to be working in 2017 as well...if they can't do that then it is time to find someone else as they are probably using unlicensed software which is why they are stuck on one version.

...& u said "crying that there isn't backwards compatibility". What made u say that? Are u a customer same like me? or are u a spokesman for the developer? 

I'm a customer, & i can say what can be said from a customer...

---

[benj]

---

@ToanDN wrote:

---

@benj wrote:

---

---

You don't need to tell me the difference from 2d to 3d. I know that. I'm a licensed architect since 1986. The software in general NEEDS TO BE BACKWARD Compatible. 

For some reason an outsource ally in the business uses '18 & the current project on site is still '17. Simply save saveas 2017 version is IDEAL.

---

---

What you need is a proper BIM Manager and a BIM Execution Plan to ensure all parties are on the same version and build.  

---

Thank you, that's quite alright. In the real world, even if the entire BEP, project version mentioned, there are really elements in the transaction that need to be polished. I did not acquire the Outsource guys, the BIM director did & said he they were 1 of the best. Well, all of us in this forum found out they were not...

[Anonymous]

---

@benj wrote:

---

...& u said "crying that there isn't backwards compatibility". What made u say that? Are u a customer same like me? or are u a spokesman for the developer? 

I'm a customer, & i can say what can be said from a customer...

---

---

Um...yeah, I am a customer, been one for over 25 years.  I'm also the BIM Manager for my company and I know exactly what version and platform that all consultants are using on each project that we are working on and I also specify what version WILL be used when we are the primary on the project. 

As for the "Crying part"...that was the caps within your comment saying there "needs to be" backwards compatibility....

It has been asked for years...take a look at what happened to the oldest one..  https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/save-as-previous-version/idi-p/6337733  That will happen to all the ideas that have been asked for the same issue.