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
@sasha.crotty Our statements can both be correct. I think it should be fairly easy to implement and you're saying it's not as easy as it seems. What that would mean is probably that the module responsible for this is an old piece of legacy code that no one wants to touch, or it was coded in such a way that gave no thought to future modification. But if that's the case, it should probably be refactored anyway, which would be more difficult. Would you be able to ask exactly why the code owners think it would be difficult. In general terms obviously, I'm not looking for proprietary information haha.
@RobertAGlover I work for a contractor and we do design-builds so I use Revit to create documents as an engineer and installer. 100% agree that 3D models are becoming more important and being provided along with contract documents more often. Some engineers don't like to share the models sometimes because the models make everything clear. Especially how you can tell they gave no thought to fitting everything above the ceiling. When I get models (for reference only) and find problems, 99% of the time I can show that the problems exist in the documents too, because they were generated from the model. So I mark them up there and send in RFIs.
Color is a powerful tool, although I typically use it more when creating documents for the guys in the field because those drawings are usually more detailed.
While I understand that it is complex feature, I think that most non-noob users expect this feature in the next 5-10 years. Realistically, we expected it in the last 5-10 years and are visibly disappointed and perhaps even confused.
We know what we can do with Excel, and now PowerBI. BIM is all about data. It would follow that BIM is able to do intelligent things with this data, beyond taking a lot of manual data entry from users or having to export and import the data to modify it through 3rd party apps.
I see the 10 years anniversary of this issue arriving very quickly in three years and here were are saying it will never happen.
Meanwhile I look at the roadmap for Revit 2024 and I see only a few things that are worth it: 3D topography, (buying and integrating UNIFI?) and what seems like minor bug fixes or aesthetic changes like the dark theme. There's no talk of fixing Legends or adding more intelligent parameter formulas.
We'll continue to wait for this feature :hourglass_done:
I'm not aware of anyone suggesting this. This idea's status would be set to "Archived" if it was not being considered for the roadmap. Larger things are harder to get on the roadmap, but that doesn't make them less important. This is why your votes here are so important - it helps reinforce the value. I get why this is important, but there's also a value to having data to back up assumptions.
How could we convince the development team that this is important? In my opinion, all of the features presented in the 2024 new feature presentation do not collectively add up to the impact that this one feature would.
"How could we convince the development team that this is important?"
With over 10,000 Ideas here on the Revit Ideas, we are working on better ways to manage and find topics that are important to our customers. 10,000+ Ideas = 10,000+ customers who are passionate about each of their Ideas and feel that their Ideas are the most valuable, and we get that. Our product team members, including myself, Sasha, Harlan and others are constantly combing through the Ideas for possible selection and potential, but not always guaranteed, implementation. I suggest watching this YouTube video where Sasha explains the process of choosing what is added to our roadmaps.
We certainly value your feedback. If you would like to have more direct input concerning features in development, we encourage you to join our Revit Preview Release and follow our new Revit Public Roadmaps.
I mean, you are asking for votes, but this is the 23rd idea with the most votes, it's #17 if we don't consider ideas that have been implemented already.
It's been active for ~7 years, so it was identified early as being important.
846 votes is pretty high considering that the most votes a Revit idea has ever had is 2604.
You can imagine that a few of us have kind of given up on voting after seeing results like these on some core obvious missing features. Also, the usual thing that happens is that an office of 300 people will all want the same Revit feature (like proper Legends), but only one or two of the BIM nerds will actually take the time to vote. Most regular people don't spend their time participating in the social activity of trying to discuss and improve the software they use every day, especially if they see the effort as futile.
@Samuel.Arsenault-Brassard I totally agree with you! Votes, conversations, none of it APPEARS to matter. I've had that argument with the Autodesk Moderator team before. The Ideas station is a crowd source for ideas at this point and not actually how they determine what will be done. As stated above, this topic is heavily voted, highly active, long lasting, and STILL not implemented. Meanwhile things that have almost no votes get done.
Barton Malow has a dedicated account rep at Autodesk and I'll be passing this along that chain as well. Maybe that will help push it more than the useless (IMHO) Ideas page.
@RobertAGlover wrote: Barton Malow has a dedicated account rep at Autodesk
Oh boy, he name dropping! Haha. But you raise a good point. Even if the voting does matter, the fact that it appears not to matter is a problem in itself and probably why @Samuel.Arsenault-Brassard speculates that many people are skeptical of the voting system.
@sasha.crotty wrote: This idea's status would be set to "Archived" if it was not being considered for the roadmap
I'm not saying this is the case, but it's entirely possible Autodesk leaves them open even though they aren't considering them in a sort of "pocket-veto" fashion.
I watched the video Kimberly posted and here are my comments:
1) The video is 2 years old, so keep that in mind. It doesn't seem like much has changed though.
2) "I think we lurk a little too much and we can be more in there to actually, tell people just "hey, we hear you, we've seen this idea." (from Harlan) and "Even if I'm not looking at Revit Ideas it is absolutely something that we, look at and review." (from Sasha) and yet ideas that have been around since the start and are highly voted and active aren't being commented on until there are issues.
3) What are you using to determine what ideas are reviewed (as in your regular reviews mentioned in the interview)? Is it just the new ideas? Is it the issues with the most votes? Perhaps the issues with the highest average "rank" (ex: 3 votes, a level 8, and level 6, and a level 4 = a score of 18 with an average grade of 6.). The only other thing I can figure is that you use a magic 8 ball. Since there are so many issues you must have some way of prioritizing them. Just curious what those factors are, because we (the user base) don't see it. Sasha even said in the video: "My job as a project manager is to look for kind of repetition or consistency. ... I say, okay, there's a kernel there, there is something we can do because now all of a sudden we have a broad applicability to a lot of people." is this idea not broadly applicable enough?
4) Programs like the Beta program and related feedback, only provide feedback on the new features or otherwise what is being worked on. It is not a great venue for suggesting whole new features or functionality, as that train has already the station.
5) Will Navisworks ever see any development... like at all? It doesn't even have an Idea station, so that's another reason I don't feel like Ideas is actually being worked on.
6) Providing a response like "we heard you" is not nearly as useful as actually seeing things done. The nearly canned response from Kimberly earlier is another reason the Ideas are useless. When we do get a response, it's usually some pretty generic. I'd rather see something like "We understand this is an important issue to many users. We are currently discussing formulas with the development team and hope to have an update _____." Then actually have an update then. Right now communicating with Autodesk by any means is like yelling at a black hole. You feel like you did something, but there is no visible difference. Even things like closing a 7 year old idea that you didn't know about, merging similar ideas, etc. I get that its a full time job, but it seems like it's only a couple peoples' part time responsibility. This feeds right into Jeff's closing comments about transparency and "letting the customers know the why".
FYI I'm not just some random user:
Architectural and construction expert technologist with almost 23 of industry experience
Have taught and used Revit and Navisworks professionally for 15+ years
Revit 2012 Certified Professional
3ds Max 2011 Certified Professional
Board Member Charlottesville Revit Users Group
Board Member of the National BIM Standards US v3 and v4
OH!!! I Should have read the old comments earlier, @sasha.crotty you can't say you didn't know about this issue (see comment from earlier today) when you commented on it repeatedly last year.
> entirely possible Autodesk leaves them open even though they aren't considering them in a sort of "pocket-veto" fashion This implies some sort of sinister intent (I think?). That would require a lot of mental energy that is better spent on building product.
I work for Autodesk, was a Revit PM for many years, so I know how it works. If you've ever met me you'll know that I do my best to be as transparent as possible because I believe you, our customers, deserve that. So I will tell you a few things. You may choose not to believe me, but please note that I am here because I am trying to help you since I actually believe in your cause.
So, here goes:
1. yes the votes do matter (!)
2. no, the votes are not the only factors taken into consideration (please watch above linked video or read some of my previous posts if you're interested) 3. This is not easy much like hard tradeoffs when creating a building aren't easy 4. The commentary here explaining why this is important is already helping your cause 5. The people posting here want to help you (really!), making it personal doesn't help anyone
>you can't say you didn't know about this issue I didn't? I said I stood by my earlier statement, which implies I agreed with my earlier post and therefore acknowledged having posted previously. What I said last year was, if this was as easy as some people believe this to be, it would have been done already (additional info: because I would have made it happen). I too wish it was easy.
@sasha.crotty wrote: This implies some sort of sinister intent (I think?).
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting this is what is going on, but I also didn't mean for it to sound as it implied sinister intent, because I don't think it has to. In my opinion, if this was the case, it'd be more likely to be apathy rather than sinister intent. Like "Oh this idea is popular, but I cant really be bothered right now. Keep it open just in case".
A sinister viewpoint in my mind would be: "We aren't interested in ever doing this, but this idea is popular and archiving it may upset a lot of users"
Again, I am not saying either of these are the case because I do not know, I'm just saying I doubt there is any real obligation to archive ideas where there is not an intent to ever implement them.
I will however stand by my opinion that 7 years is more that enough time to implement this feature. 7 years is enough time for a team of 3 programmers to create a Revit-like application from scratch and implement every feature on the ideas page.
"years is enough time for a team of 3 programmers to create a Revit-like application from scratch and implement every feature on the ideas page"
LOL no, that is (unfortunately) delusional. Perhaps GPT3 will be able to code that someday.
---
It's a tricky situation, we appreciate a lot of the work that Sasha and other members of the AD staff does, but there are these major things missing for multiple years with seemingly no solution in sight, so there's a major issue somewhere between all these frustrated users and the end product that is not changing to satisfy that over so many years.
It's like we need an updated angry letter from the industry every year to get things moving beyond a shock reaction to protect stock prices for investors.
-
Thanks for being the BIM psychologist and politely listening and replying to us Sasha. I know there are widely varying levels of politeness, insanity, experience and knowledge across the users. Please light up a candle and pray to the Revit gods that we get some sort of text formulas in Revit at some point in the next century 🙏
YES PLEASE! We had an issue recently where we needed to sort by a 5th field in a Feeder Wire Size Schedule that we've created, combining 2 of the fields would have given us the proper look, but only if we could then sort by that combined parameter in the schedule, which is not available. Having a way to concatenate the 2 text parameters into one from inside the family and then being able to sort by that (concatenated) parameter value in the schedule would have fixed our issue. Instead we are forced to have schedule notes to call out what is going on with the funky looking scheduled fields.
This is a real bug bear, I can't believe Autodesk just ignores us user for so long but are happy to introduce "new features" such as User Interface Modernization which apparently was introduced in the Ideas Forum.. what a joke.
As the saying goes: "In my utopian world, I wish Revit includes this feature"
The title says it all, it removes an unnecessary extra layer of type naming for families and removes user error if they don't match.
Type Name = Type Mark : Type Description
Example Scenario:
Let's pretend we have a furniture family that's parametric with 12 family types in the one family). Your interior designer consultant places their scheduled codes on a markup sheet such as CH.01, (Chair Type 1). My workflow is to always put the type mark in the type name property so it can easily and quickly be searched within the project browser or by placing a component. Imagine having your Type Name property parameter read the Type Mark and the Description Parameter. It kills 2 birds with one stone and removes user error and automates our workflow just that little bit more.
I think I like the idea more with Mike's modification. Allow us to choose how the name is generated. The process could look similar to putting a label together or combining parameters on a schedule.
This would make finding families in the browser soooo much easier.
