Can we have a simple toggle somewhere that lets us only show sheet numbers and not Sheet Number + Sheet Title while in revit. This would allow us to have more windows open when working through sheets in a set. I know what's on the sheet, I only need the number typically. Show More

r2025.4_Give the colour scheme dialog an export or save as button. Some of these similar looking windows already have them so you would not even have to reinvent the icon wheel. Show More

r25.4_I have pasted an image showing the designated BCF manager and some settings on to a project's landing page. Now - having recently been issued a new machine - I found the very same piece to be missing. So in order to use that same picture in an email to the IT department to install it for me, I selected the image and hit control C - only to find that is functionality is not there. Change that. Show More

I am going through our custom RFAs and would like to get a schedule of elements within the RFA that is only visible within the Revit Family Editor.   This will help with standardizing the build and nomenclature of the RFA elements.   Hope this is a possibility. Show More

hen placing contour labels on a sloped Toposolid Revit does not reliably orient the label text to read uphill — that is, from the lower elevation toward the higher elevation. In standard topographic practice (and in most international drafting standards), contour labels must always be readable from the downhill side, with the text facing upward along the slope. This ensures that anyone reading the drawing can immediately understand the direction of rise without needing additional notation. Currently in Revit: • Label orientation appears to be based on the direction the contour line was generated, not the slope direction. • The "Readability" parameter, where it exists in label families, does not consistently enforce uphill orientation across all contour lines. • Manual flipping of individual labels is the only reliable workaround — which is impractical on any site with more than a handful of contours. • There is no global setting that enforces uphill readability project-wide. --- HOW IT SHOULD WORK The correct behavior would be: 1. A project-level or type-level setting — such as "Readability: Uphill" — that automatically orients every contour label so the text reads from the low side toward the high side. 2. This orientation should update dynamically if the Toposurface is modified. 3. The setting should be accessible and clearly documented, consistent across all contour label family types. This is standard behavior in AutoCAD Civil 3D, where contour label styles include a built-in "Uphill" orientation option that works reliably across the entire surface. --- WHY IT MATTERS Landscape architects, civil engineers, and site planners rely on accurate topographic communication. Incorrectly oriented contour labels are not just an aesthetic issue — they can lead to misreading of site conditions, errors in grading design, and non-compliance with drawing standards required by municipalities and planning authorities. Fixing this would significantly improve Revit's usability for site and landscape design workflows, and bring it in line with industry-standard drafting conventions. I would appreciate this being reviewed by the development team and considered for an upcoming release. Show More

There should be an option to show the duct and pipe drop/rise symbols ONLY for ducts and pipes that are being cut. Same goes for their line weights. As the architect, it's helpful to see and understand which risers are which via the symbols, but I definitely don't want to see the drop/rise symbols at every change in elevation. The ductwork is often just faded into the background of RCP's, but in doing so, it lacks the graphic cue that one of those rectangles is a riser that's going floor to ceiling. Show More

It would be nice to have corner grips on view controls to adjust two sides at once. Applicable to crop regions, section boxes, section and elevation extents, etc... Show More

r2025.4_There is the Highlight in model feature. The idea is to complement this by Selection Box, too. It would save users hoping for an appropriate view to pop up and go directly to a 3D view just showing the selection plus a foot all around. Show More

Category: 3D Views / Section Box Description: Currently, the Section Box in Revit is limited to a rectangular, brick-like bounding volume. All six cutting planes are axis-aligned and can only be adjusted by dragging the standard face handles — there is no way to tilt, rotate, or reshape any individual plane of the box. Proposed Enhancement: Allow users to modify the geometry of the Section Box beyond its current rectangular constraints, using intuitive directional arrow controls (similar to the grip handles already familiar in Revit's family and mass editing environment). Specifically, the feature would enable: Tilting individual cutting planes — e.g., rotating the top or side plane by a given angle to follow a sloped roof or an inclined structural element. Adding intermediate cut planes — for L-shaped, T-shaped, or stepped section box configurations, useful when isolating complex plan layouts or multi-wing buildings. Arrow-based manipulation — directional arrows on each plane would allow precise angular and positional adjustments, with optional numeric input for exact values. Per-plane parametric control — each face of the section box could expose its own rotation and offset parameters in the Properties panel. Use Cases: Isolating sloped terrain or hillside buildings without clipping geometry unexpectedly. Creating section boxes aligned to non-orthogonal building grids (e.g., 30° rotated towers). Producing coordinated 3D views that match the actual section cuts defined in construction documents. Improving clash detection visibility on diagonal MEP runs or sloped structural members. Expected Behavior: When the Section Box is selected in a 3D view, each face would display a rotation arrow in addition to the existing translation arrow. A toggle in view properties or the right-click context menu would switch between "Standard (Rectangular)" and "Free-form" section box mode. In Free-form mode, the modified box shape would be saved with the view and remain persistent across sessions. Workarounds Currently Required: Users must multiply 3D views, combine view filters, or rely on third-party add-ins (e.g., Section Box tools in pyRevit or DiRoots) to approximate this behavior — adding complexity and file size without a native, view-bound solution. Priority Justification: This is a long-standing limitation that affects workflows for architects, structural engineers, and BIM coordinators alike — particularly on projects with complex geometries, sloped sites, or non-orthogonal grids. A native, parametric free-form section box would significantly reduce view-setup time and improve model navigation in collaborative BIM environments.  Show More

Hello! I've been working on a 6 phase renovation project, and one of my frequent frustrations has been modeling existing ductwork and piping. By default, it comes in as new work on the phase I have my view set to, which is fine when you're modeling new work, but that hasn't been the case for most of my work on this project. If I want to model something that will be existing or demolished, I have to model it as new initially, then change the phase created/demolished of the element, THEN change the view filter to show previous + demo to be able to see the work. I could keep everything on the show all phase filter, but that makes it hard to see with all the content in this model.   It would be nice if I could set the phase created/demolished BEFORE placing the content, so that I would only have to edit the properties of the element and phase filter once. Show More

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

If you place something in a view, in which some worksets aren't visible and have a wrong workset selcted as "current" (because you worked in a different view/workset before). Instead of just displaying the yellow info textbox, an option for a selection window, of the visible worksets, would be usefull. This way you wouldnt need to change/remove the just placed object and select the correct workset, and do it again. Instead you could change your workset, while placing things, so they dont become invisible.   I cant imagine a case where you would want to place something and have it become invisible immediately.   Show More

Revit currently only allows copy and paste between projects open in the same session. This makes it difficult to transfer elements when working with multiple Revit windows or versions. Other design software supports clipboard operations across sessions, and adding this to Revit would: Improve productivity for users working on several projects at once Remove the need for time-consuming workarounds like exporting groups or linking files Make Revit more consistent with user expectations from other design tools Please consider enabling copy/paste between separate Revit sessions to streamline workflows. 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

Es wäre hilfreich, wenn man den Hintergrund sowohl von Text als auch Maßtexten auch in eine Farbe zuweisen könnte und nicht nur Transparent oder Undurchsichtig. Show More

For some time, I have worked around Revit's dumb host element quirks and accepted them; however, they really do need to be addressed. Right now, the biggest gripe is with ceiling-hosted families.   This is probably a great example of something programmed without understanding how users might approach it. The default template has a ceiling element, an unattached reference plane, and a Reference level. Seeing this, I would assume the level actually mattered, and thus would think to model something like this. However, nothing here works as expected. The reference level has 0 connection to the real level data. It's essentially there for Level association but not actually reading or controlling any real elevation. Where most families use this for the host, this does not. You can almost ignore that it's even there and just model from the ceiling. I know this, and generally have avoided ceiling-hosted elements anyway, but we have a lot of designers who want to control lighting fixtures by AFF not offset from the ceiling, and that is logical; it's how designers work, and this family template even makes it seem possible. There is even precedence with the multi-level family template (which i have tried as an alternative but since ceilings aren't on a datum typically and are modeled to be offset from a level not their own, this doesn't work).   Most fixtures are better off being face-based, but when creating hanging fixtures, this is a desirable feature. Especially if (for example) the aff could be a type or instance, allowing for easily changing AFF across the project without worrying about where the top base sits, as it would be attached to the ceiling above.   I imagine this is possible in general, but maybe not in Revit's code. If not, then at the very least, maybe make it clear which elements actually are real level references and use something more like the room calculation point to signify level association.    What would be even better, if possible, would be to have a way for face-based elements to be aware of their levels and faces. For example, if I place a fixture on the ceiling, the face host understands its face is a ceiling and is aware and able to reference the level below, allowing for using this AFF feature.  Show More

It would be nice to be able to select all visible rooms/areas at once and to turn visibility on/off for all of them at the same time, then only select the ones that need to be turned on. Basically, it would be really useful if Ctrl and Shift worked while selecting items in the list ((, Show More

Hello, Enable the export of Revit 2027 Extended Properties to the IFC format. This would allow enriched element metadata stored in Revit to be preserved during export. The exported IFC file should include Extended Properties together with existing element data, while maintaining property names, values, and data types where possible. This enhancement would improve interoperability with downstream applications that rely on IFC data. It would also make the new Extended Properties capability more valuable beyond the Revit environment. Customer benefit: Customers can avoid metadata loss during export and reuse richer BIM information across coordination, analysis, data management, and interoperability workflows. Show More

i am often trying to fix views and being able to compare the details of a view template could be extremely helpful Show More