At the end of 2026, Autodesk continues to release a new version of Revit every year. Our computers' performance is incredible, but Revit remains extremely laggy. The GPU is barely used, and nothing seems optimized. There’s a lot of talk about this. In every conversation about performance, the same advice keeps coming up: reduce details, split your file so it's not too big, purge, don't use IFC files, no DWG or PDF, etc. But actually, no, the problem lies with you, Autodesk. Projects are getting bigger, and the required details are increasing. It's not up to the users to adapt to the software (well, only to a certain extent). It's up to the software to adapt to the reality of the market. You have a monopoly, you charge a fortune for useless subscriptions and version updates, while blocking backward compatibility. In any other industry, you would have had a lawsuit for abuse of a dominant position slapped on you a long time ago.   Even though it's unrelated, a workstation with recent CPUs and GPUs like the ones we all have can run video games costing 50 €/$ with ultra-detailed graphics, calculating thousands of interactions, lights, physics, etc. And Revit, costing 400€ per month, can't even animate two cubes at the same time at 60 fps. Let's not even talk about a detailed building. Let's not talk about the slowness in creating a simple section or opening a simple view. Every action, every click is slow.   It's 2026, we're approaching 30 years of software development, and absolutely nothing has changed, or it has even gotten worse over time. May this post be massively upvoted, stay at the top of the list, and may the users/customers discontent become their priority. Rather than giving us a new icon and moving the options bar in the ribbon that everyone couldn't care less about.   Make your software work.   Thank you for reading. Show More

When hovering over an element, you learn its workset, family, category and type. Good. Why not also show its id? That is the idea. Like this perhaps:   Show More

Current behaviour When Revit decides whether to display an element in a view, it tests all family geometry against the View Range — including geometry that is not modelled: symbolic lines, masking and filled regions, text. As a result, 2D graphics extending beyond the outline of the element's solid geometry cause the element to appear in views that its actual geometry does not reach at all. With symbolic lines this is confirmed: removing them from the family stops the element from appearing in a level where it does not belong. Autodesk has also confirmed the underlying mechanism on these forums — adding a line to a family changes its bounding box. Typical case A family contains a symbolic marker drawn in two planes so that it is legible both in plan and in section. When the element is rotated 90° around a horizontal axis, the vertical plane of the marker stands upright, crosses the floor above and the element starts to appear in the plan view of the upper level — even though its solid geometry is entirely within the level below. The drawing then shows an element that is not physically there. This is not limited to one category. Any family with symbolic graphics extending beyond the outline of its solid geometry behaves the same way. Request Whether an element falls within a view should be determined solely by its modelled geometry. Anything that is not modelled and serves only for annotation should not enter this calculation. This does not have to apply everywhere The current behaviour is deliberately used as a workaround — an invisible line is added to a family so that it reaches the cut plane and the element becomes visible in plan. That workaround must keep working. Revit already treats categories differently in this respect: only Windows, Casework and Generic Models are shown above the cut plane. Extending that principle would be enough — let the behaviour be defined per category, or as an option on the geometry itself, so that each family type can be set to whatever makes sense for it. Nothing existing would break. Show More

Hi, we are using Revit 2027.2, and our projects are managed as Cloud Models on Autodesk Forma. Being able to view Issues created from clash detection results in the Forma Model Coordination environment directly within Revit would significantly accelerate the coordination and revision processes for designers. While the Issues panel under the Collaborate tab in Revit is expected to support this workflow, the fact that Issues created through Model Coordination cannot be displayed there represents a significant gap in the current workflow. The ability to view Issues in Revit only when they are created from certain sources limits the efficiency of the coordination process carried out within a shared cloud platform. As Autodesk encourages the integrated use of its different platforms, we hope that the Issue integration between Forma Model Coordination and Revit will be improved, enabling a more seamless and efficient workflow for design and coordination teams. Show More

It would be nice if it were possible for once to let a void in a model in place family cut through all families and have it cut through all other objects. Currently, it is often so unclear how to create a cutout somewhere, which leads to considerable frustration. It surprises me that this is still so difficult in Revit after all these years.   I often create a model-in-place solid and then cut it through the families. Why doesn't this work with a void of a model-in-place?   Show More

Restore the ability to resize duct, pipe, conduit, and cable tray runs along with their fittings using the Modify Multi-Select ribbon. Previous versions of Revit allowed users to select connected segments and fittings and modify their sizes simultaneously. In Revit 2027, users must resize the straight segments and fittings separately, adding unnecessary steps to a common MEP workflow. Reinstating this functionality would improve efficiency and provide a more consistent editing experience for MEP designers and engineers. Show More

When initiating a new project for cloud worksharing, you select a hub, a project and a folder. Inside the folder, you only get to see other revit files already initiated for cloud worksharing. You happily hit save, see some progress window popping up - which does not run through but leaves you with an error message. In my case the file I was about to make cloud savvy had already been dragged and dropped into the folder in question. The idea is to show all files in a folder no matter whether they are appropriate or not. Those dumb files could be shown in a strike through decoration, just to show these names are not available anymore.   Show More

STEP imports in Revit are currently brought in as a single, non-editable block with very limited control over the imported geometry. Users cannot explode the model into individual components, retain or reassign materials effectively, organize elements into subcategories, or simplify overly detailed geometry for project use.   Autodesk should enhance the STEP import workflow by providing native tools that allow imported STEP geometry to be converted into manageable and editable Revit elements by explode geometry.   Having a Simplify tool similar to Autodesk Inventor would be a significant advantage, allowing users to quickly generate BIM-ready, performance-optimized geometry without relying on external applications or complex   Show More

The electrical connector in our Revit families provides Apparent Power (kVA) and Power Factor parameters. However, our load equipment data is generally specified in Real/True Power (kW). To accurately represent the design load in Revit, I would request that a Real Power / True Load (kW) parameter be made available directly at the electrical connector level.   This would help us to: Enter the equipment load directly in kW, as provided in the design/load schedule. Avoid manually converting kW to kVA using assumed or separate power factor values. Ensure the equipment load in Revit aligns directly with the approved electrical load schedule. Improve consistency and accuracy in panel schedules, load calculations, and equipment schedules.   For example, if an equipment load is specified as 100 kW with a Power Factor of 0.80, the apparent power can be calculated as: Apparent Power (kVA) = Real Power (kW) ÷ Power Factor = 100 kW ÷ 0.80 = 125 kVA   Therefore, if we could assign 100 kW directly to the connector as the Real/True Power value and specify the Power Factor as 0.80, Revit could derive the corresponding 125 kVA Apparent Power automatically.   The important point is that Revit's current electrical connector functionality is primarily based on apparent power (VA/kVA)   Your design input is 100 kW, but the connector workflow requires you to work with the apparent load (125 kVA) and PF. So the engineer/BIM modeller has to do this conversion: Design Schedule → 100 kW → PF 0.80 → 125 kVA → Revit Connector Whereas your preferred workflow is: Design Schedule → 100 kW → Revit Connector → PF 0.80 → 125 kVA         Show More

Currently in all Revit versions, anyone can use the Move command, with Disjoin option checked, to move and unpin any pinned model elements silently without any warnings. This does NOT align with Revit Help Documentation which states "when a modeling element is pinned, it cannot be moved. To move or delete it, the element must first be unpinned using the pushpin control."   This defect often causes pinned/protected model elements to be unexpectedly moved, unpinned, and potentially deleted. There is an old post from 2021 already talked about this issue.  https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-architecture-forum/move-command-moves-pinned-elements/m-p/10745795#M96126   This introduces a big loophole in the project production workflow, and could cause rework and confusion in model submission. It also adds unnecessary challenges to the Digital Project Delivery workflow.    I highly recommend Autodesk Revit team fix this issue asap.  Show More

When editing annotations to accomodate a new set of shared parameters, you often just substitute an old parameter with its new version. This needs to be done by adding the new parameter, move it up to where its previous version was or is and then you continue to add prefixes, suffixes, line breaks and the occasional format adjustment. This idea is to allow to mark one parameter on the right and substitute it with one on the left. If the parameter on the right just marks a position for the new parameter to insert (as it would in schedules), we would need another symbol for the substituting feature. Show More

Many MEP fabrication projects require a large number of Fabrication Services and Palettes. This makes it difficult for end users to manually find and select the correct content in the Fabrication Part Browser. We would like the Revit API to provide methods to: Set the active Fabrication Service programmatically Set the active Fabrication Palette programmatically Read the currently selected Service and Palette from the Fabrication Part Browser   Use Case Our company uses a large number of Fabrication Services for different media, installation methods, materials, and company standards. Instead of requiring users to manually navigate through the Fabrication Part Browser, we want to create a guided workflow in an add-in. The user answers a few predefined questions, such as: Medium (Heating, Cooling, Domestic Water, Ventilation, etc.) Installation method Material System type Based on these answers, the add-in should automatically select the correct Fabrication Service and Palette. Current Limitation According to Autodesk Developer Support, there is currently no public Revit API that allows applications to reliably read or control the active Service or Palette selection in the Fabrication Part Browser. The existing browser change events also do not cover all user workflows.  Benefit Providing API access to the active Fabrication Service and Palette would enable developers to create guided content selection workflows, reduce user errors, simplify training, and improve productivity in fabrication-based projects with large content libraries. Show More

Revit needs a way to control draw order between model categories, particularly where projection linework overlaps cut linework.   The attached example shows a simple condition: a wall is cut in plan and displays with a heavy black cut line. Baseboard is modeled as casework, aligned correctly with the finish face of the wall, and is displayed in halftone so that it remains graphically subordinate to the wall.   In the Revit viewport, this displays correctly (first image). The heavy wall cut line takes visual precedence over the lighter casework projection line.   When printed to PDF, however, Revit ignores this hierarchy (second image). The halftone casework line is drawn over the heavy wall cut line, creating small gray lines across or beyond the wall edge. The printed drawing therefore does not match what Revit displays in the viewport.   This is especially frustrating because the model geometry is correct. Moving the baseboard away from the finish face would misrepresent the actual construction simply to work around a printing/display issue. Raster processing, Linework overrides, changing line colors/weights, and other workarounds do not adequately solve the underlying problem.   There are really two related requests here: PDF/vector output should preserve the graphical hierarchy displayed in the Revit viewport. If Revit already determines that the wall cut line visually takes precedence on screen, the printed output should reproduce that result. Users should be able to control draw priority between model categories. Revit already provides Bring to Front / Send to Back functionality for certain 2D elements. A similar system for model graphics—perhaps through Visibility/Graphics or Object Styles—would allow users to establish that, for example, Wall Cut lines take precedence over Casework Projection lines. This would be useful far beyond this particular baseboard condition. Architectural drawings rely heavily on hierarchy: cut elements over projected elements, primary construction over secondary finish elements, new work over background information, etc. Lineweight and halftone are only part of that hierarchy; when lines overlap, draw order matters as well.   Autodesk has previously documented the specific behavior of halftone/gray lines printing over black lines under Incident ID 111621. A user-controllable draw-priority system—or simply ensuring that vector output matches the viewport—would provide a proper solution rather than requiring project-specific graphic workarounds. Show More

Let me register the following request based on a customer feedback from DACH. Currently the VG dialog/ Imported Categories may point so such dwg data that are embedded in specific Families. The idea would be to give better indication here about the host/ root element of the actual data (in this case family) to be able to find the refrences easier. So if a dwg layer is placed within a family, than list the imported category under the specific family within the VG/ Imported Categories, Show More

Change Detail Level by Filter.   When creating a filter, allow a different detail level to be applied based on filter. Show More

When you delete a line item within the filters section of the schedule properties window, Revit will delete all the filters below the one you select.  I want Revit to retain those filters below the one I removed.  It currently does not allow this in 2026/2027 and older. Show More

There is currently no dedicated workflow or design workspace in Revit for substation and HVDC modeling. Critical components such as flexible conductors, busbars, power cables, clamps, connectors, and associated hardware must be modeled using generic tools, resulting in inefficient workflows and limited design intelligence.   Introduce a dedicated Substation/HVDC design toolset with purpose-built tools and intelligent families for flexible conductors, busbars, cables, clamps, connectors, and related electrical infrastructure components. A vertical-specific workspace would streamline modeling, improve accuracy, and better support the requirements of transmission and substation projects.   Show More

Raster printing is Not Great.  I think most of us want the following upgrades to raster printing:   1) Vector printing should handle more features.  Depth cueing and shadows are the two biggest pain points for most users.   2) When raster printing must be used, the embedded image should be higher quality.  Revit internal PDF export is the worst, creating fuzzy JPG embeds.  Printing to PDF through Bluebeam creates higher quality embedded images, but it's still a fuzzy mess.   3) Hybrid raster-vector printing.  Render as much as possible through vector graphics, then use a raster underlay for what cannot be done through vector.   4) Raster printing always prints WYSIWYG, but vector printing has quirky behavior occasionally.   Perhaps this will all be fixed (wiped away like a bad dream) when the new rendering engine is stable, mature, and ships to replace the current rendering engine.   ---   The below links are all threads about raster printing.  While these threads are not necessarily all about identical issues, and some threads contain nuances not captured in my summary above, these are all threads complaining about raster printing.  This thread exists to rally together all past votes and make the complaints easier to see.   https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/exporting-elevation-with-depth-cueing-enabled-as-vector-during/idi-p/14055525 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-printing-with-raster-underlay/idi-p/7565402 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-shadows-in-hidden-line-prints/idi-p/6330690 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/raster-printing-change-embedded-jpg-images-to-png-format/idi-p/11389094 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/add-to-raster-printing-message-information-on-the-use-of/idi-p/9207269 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/wysiwyg-amp-vector-printing/idi-p/7085229 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-option-for-export-to-pdf/idi-p/12764115 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/print-nwd-nwc-links-on-revit-sheets-as-vectors-pdf/idi-p/7908186 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-atop-raster-when-printing-with-coordination-model/idi-p/12084197 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/enable-pdf-export-with-black-lines-and-color-patterns-and-raster/idi-p/11762199 Show More

I have been using Revit for a long time and regularly export drawings to PDF for review, quantity takeoff, and measurement in applications such as Bluebeam Revu. Although Revit supports PDF export up to 600 DPI, the PDF can become pixelated when zoomed beyond approximately 600%, making it difficult to accurately snap to corners, endpoints, and other geometry during detailed review and quantity calculations. I would like to request the Revit team to consider enhancing PDF export by combining high-quality vector and raster processing—preserving Revit linework, text, dimensions, and geometry as true vectors while using high-resolution raster processing for shaded views, images, and other raster content. An enhanced High Quality / Precision PDF Export option with better vector fidelity would significantly improve high-zoom workflows in Bluebeam and other PDF applications, while maintaining reasonable file sizes. This enhancement would greatly benefit AEC professionals involved in drawing review, QA/QC, quantity takeoff, estimation, and construction documentation. Note: I have attached one PDF file i have created. Show More