Wish generated for Steve Belli at Entegra Eyrich & Appel GmbH - in German support case no.: 12784911
Currently Revit uses one Hidden line style for all elements in a view if the "Show Hidden Lines" parameter of a view is set to "All".
Please, allow users to define different Hidden Line styles for the different Line styles used in views.
As an electrical engineer I would like to model my risers in 3D, connect them to panels and make riser diagrams. Theese cables can vary in size, length and weight and should be part of a collision control. They are quite crucial to everything that needs electricity in the building.
We need a lot to have a full- direct integrated tool between Revit and excel,
which enable us to export an excel sheet from Revit , update the schedule and the exported parameter values in excel , import again in Revit , and by default all updated data that has been modified in excel , to be updated in Revit too after import.
After loading a topography from DWG or Civil Structures Extension, they load into Revit with an undesired boundary shape.
By now we can define the boundary of toposurface by splitting the topography, because you can't change interior points into boundary points. I would like to overcome this workaround and draw or change the toposurface boundariesinto the topography sketch mode.
I'd like to be able to add notes to a schedule to add clarity to what some of the columns relate to and caveats about the data contained therein.
Currently this would be covered when we put the schedule on a sheet by adding a legend or similar but as the industry is progressing with BIM there is a much greater requirement to transfer schedules digitally in spreadsheet format. At that point they become separated from the associated drawing and for this reason I'd like these notes to be an embedded part of the schedule that would be exported when the schedule is exported.
For Ducts and Cable Trays the Offset should follow the Vertical Justification. For Example, if you draw a Cable Tray with the vertikal justification "Bottom" and an offset of 23cm, the offset displayed is 28cm instead. For our MEP people the situation is always very unfavorable, since they never look at the middle axis, but always at the top or bottom edge of a cable tray or duct.
It would be so great to name or add comments to a plan region.
Has anyone had success?
I am thinking of when you are working collaboratively, or even working on a long-term project by yourself; and you come across a plan region. There is no way to discern what you are concealing / exposing / intentionally displaying without cutting the plan region, taking a quick look, and then repasting it back to it's original location to regain the plan region visibility.
You can name scope boxes (different animal, I know). You can obviously name levels (getting warmer). I can't even group plan regions to name them through a group package.
Perfect scenario, hovering over a plan region or selecting it would display a name parameter.
If anyone has thoughts, tweet me: @jennifers_EUA
Before we can vote for good ideas, we have to be able to see them. We are now over 2500 ideas submitted. I can't realistically scroll through 130+ pages of ideas.
If this is going to be a serious platform for development and feedback from customers, it needs to be maintained better. With the automation tech today, this shouldn't have to be a burden for Autodesk.
Thanks all and hopefully we can get more out of this forum.
we need to add shared parameters to the view reference family as (building type , level indicator,.... ) mainly they are parameters driven from the title block.
we need this urgently in all our projects.
In some cases, it is relatively difficult to create a family for all the existing situations in real life. For example, a plumbing manhole. The latter can have from 2 to 4 (or even more) connections with, for each, different heights and slopes. The realization of such a family quickly becomes rather difficult to make and relatively unstable to modifications within a project.
The possibility of having virtual connections would solve many problems of this kind.
by 'revealing' the linked file, it is effectively continuing to hide everything else in it's path.
Legends Components are great, but they have a few unfinished strings. Please
Also, the list of components in the "Properties" window is a mess, it is not sorted alphabetically. It should be the exact same as the list in the contextual window and also bigger to allow for easier browsing and selection.
It appears that whenever Revit has any kind of issues with a network connection or connection to Revit server, it is only able to display the following generic error dialog to the user:
This dialog is not at all helpful in identifying what may be wrong with the model, server, or network. In all cases when a user is shown this message I end up having open up and search through their journal file in an attempt to figure out what's going on.
I understand that proper UX design typically does not expose internal error messages directly to the user. However, a message this generic is essentially useless.
It would be great if the detail about the exception thrown on the user's computer, or server were accessible through the actual error dialog
We've customized our icons to add the last two digits of the version number. This helps to tell them apart in the taskbar, desktop shortcuts, etc. (especially since 14-16 were so similar). However, it would be really helpful if we could have the version number appear in the "R" application icon also (in the top left, when Revit's running). This would be helpful when switching back and forth between versions.
See also this related idea:
Some default parameters, e. g. elevation in generic models, cannot be displayed in annotations; This means that we have to copy the values of those parameters into user-defined shared parameters in order for them to be displayable. Please fix that!
I am trying to fix the issue of The default software code written to convert "Fixture Units (FU)" to "Flow (GPM)" via Hunter’s Curve does not account for fixture units below 5FU for "Predominantly Flush Valve Supply Systems." It currently assumes 15.0 GPM for anything ≤5FU for “Predominantly Flush Valve Supply Systems”
Please develop the .dll file and .addin file so the Flush Valve System has the correct GPM for under 5FU so it does not assume 15.0 GPM.
To see more, please see these two posts.
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.