I have never understood it, why 'Underlay Orientation' is in the list to 'include' for view templates, but the Range: Base Level is not? I think Underlay Orientation should be removed from view templates completely. It makes no sense to be able to set an underlay, but a view template locks you out of setting to look up or down. To add insult to injury, when you activate Temporary View Properties underlay parameters are greyed out! (I have submitted this as a separate idea HERE). As it currently stands, everytime I create a plan view template, you have to remember to untick Underlay Orientation. Seems useless to be honest?
Whilst it crossed my mind to just include the Range to the view template to complete this, I would prefer underlays weren't part of view templates at all.
Thanks for voting!
It would be great to have the simple search functionality in both the OmniClass and Assembly code dialog box so you can simply search for a keyword to find what element you are trying to find the code for rather than expanding out all your guesses trying to find the correct code. I imagine this would be easy for the factory to do, similar to the search function in the Project Browser.
While your at it, We are able to add assembly codes to elements through a Revit Schedule but not OmniClass. If this could be changed so we could add OmniClass info through a Revit Schedule rather than have to open each family to add, this would also be beneficial.
I would like to have a parameter for the dimension linetype and dimension extension linetype to be available within the Type Properties window. For example, create a dimension that has the dimension lines to show as dashed, hidden, or any other linetype....same with extension lines. Only way to create this now is to select each dimension created and override by element....
Simliar to Autocad Architecture, as the BIM manager I would like the design teams to choose only approved families from a central design location. In autocad Architecture I could create custom project pallettes and push to the design teams, and update dynamically. This would also include a feature to reload a family in this project pallette and push to specified links, thus saving time from having to open in each link and reloading for minor changes in titleblocks mostly, but applies to all family types.
Rooms phasing parameter is specifically "phase" not "phase created". Thus on a new phase, the existing rooms are no longer there and we have to copy the existing one and paste it to new phase. It should be logical to have Rooms with "phase created and "Phase demolished" parameters.
Make it possible to add sheets to a sheetset via the properties palette (make a sheetset parameter)
This would give me the possibility to select sheets directly form the projekt browser,
add them to a new or existing sheet set.
and then from the print/export dialog quickly print/export quickly make some outputs.
And mabye fix it so that blank spaces in DWFx files doesnt get deleted.
And make it possible to avoid prefixes. so sheet number and sheet name is right.
In Revit the lines types you can have is really pathetic compared to AutoCADs - dashes, dots and continious lines. (And the ofcourse the Insulation that has its own button to make, and the revision cloud if that counts...). Would be very helpful to be able to make various line types with shapes in 2d - like tracks, talus and I thing that was already suggested - with text in it. Out from deperation (again) we are using detail line family with text in it to display ELEC, HYDRO, Xs (for fence), etc... but comes a curve and there the solution stops. We are also forced to do untinkable things to a surveyors drawings in order to preserve their line types in Revit.
For Panels have an option to change how the electrical load connected to the panel will be transferred:
Please add the ability to filter a schedule by Family, Family&Type or by Type this would eneble us to produce flashing shedules similar to the attached image. Each sketch would be a legend and the surounding fields are the properties for that type.
When users go to Manage A360 Models, the projects are displayed in a grid. If they are members of a number of projects, they could end up scrolling to find their project.
A list would be faster.
Currently publishing the active C4R to A360 requires the user to go into Manage A360 Models > Project > File > Actions > Publish.
Most of the time users are publishing the model they are in, so having a button similar to the Sync to Central buttons would cut down on clicks and make it faster.
With C4R, there is no way to access a model (assuming you are invited to the project) unless you are in the correct version or Revit.
So if I have a C4R project that hold Revit 2015 model files, then you must use Revit 2015 to access the model files, if I try to use any other version of Revit (Revit 2016, 2017…), I still do not have access to the model files, even if I try to access the model through Revit’s Manage Models, it will only show models for that version of Revit
I could go through the C4R project site and download the model files from there, but this will only give me access to models that someone has published, so I may not get the latest models (they could be month old).
With upgrading of Revit versions, If one is one Revit 2021, and I need to get access to my Revit 2015 C4R models, if I do not have Revit 2015, I cannot get access to the latest models to upgrade them to Revit 2021, so I cannot upgrade them to the latest versions of Revit.
If would be great if there was an admin area that was version agnostic to access the C4R model files, similar to the Manage Models interface through Revit, but again would be version agnostic.
As we move forward with version of Revit, our c4r project model files will become more and more inaccessible from the cloud, there needs to be a better management solution that gives us more flexibility in accessing our model files from the c4r service
It would be great if we can create a level matrix between linked files, like you can with Phases, so we can schedule and group by level when, include elements in links is selected.
Instead we need to fudge our way around this issue.
there needs to be a better way to split schedules across multiple sheets, the current method of duplicating schedules and using two filters to reduced the scheduled elements is poor. There must be a better way... even if we had to duplicate sheets, at least let us tell the schedule what row number to start from and end with i.e. sheet one - 1 to 30, sheet two - 31 to 60... etc.
Someone needs to find a way to update or add families and parameters to multiple models at the same time. It's always a pain when I need to update the titleblock/border or add a parameter and I have multiple buildings and multiple discipline models.
24 models to update
Yeah. That is painful when you have to do it for 2 or 3 projects at a time.
I would like to have an option to force all geometry to be exported as brep/Surface models. I have seen that some importers have problems with importing geometry correctly because the geometry is exported as IfcExtrudedAreaSolids. Rhino with IFC importer can't even import the file because of this.
Below is a wall that is exported from Revit to IFC and read into SimpleBim
Suggested by AREP
In order to prevent users to work directly on a central file :
Like any usual my Revit day, i am trying to export particular sheet from Revit model to CAD.
I doesnt have set. again its not easy make set for every day requirements.
I would suggest to have the more easy option to select the sheet from few hundred available sheet.
Like filter by drawing type, or filter by drawing series, can be like filter or grouping option like schedule.
Right now the offset of the pipeline is calculated from the centerline (placeholder). But in reality (in the field) it's always calculated from the bottom pipeline, bottom of the pipes inner circle or top of the pipeline. Right now we always need to add the radius to the offset to get the right minimum or maximum height. If the radius has to be changed, we also need to adjust the heights of all the pipelines. If we could set the placeholder as bottom, inner bottom or top of the pipeline, it'll should save a lot of time and prevents miscalculations.
We also have full-automatic excavators to dig sleeves for the pipelines, but they need the bottom of the pipelines in DWG. Right now we export a DWG from Revit and need to offest all centerlines with the pipe radiusses to and reconnect them all in AutoCAD. This is very time consuming and unnecessary if we could set the pipelines centerline as bottom of the pipe.
It is already possible to adjust the Horizontal and Vertical Justification, but we would like to see the placeholder moves with it. If its possible, it would be great to have all horizontal pipes as bottom and all vertical pipes as center of the same system. We hope this will be added to the next update. It would really improve the BIM to Field (and back) workflow.
Please review our Idea guidelines and best practices before posting a new idea, or voting on an existing one!
Created by the community for the community, Autodesk Exchange Apps for Revit helps you achieve greater speed, accuracy, and automation from concept to manufacturing.