how come is it possible that user cannot control the visibility of the Tags from attached model (in grey color) in the meaning : "what is below and what is on top" ?  (even i have attached model as an "underlay") design for sheets in final state looks very messy though    please call for action to do with this silly issue something Show More

One of the biggest sources of error in BIM is manual type naming. A simple yet powerful improvement would be a native Revit feature that allows users to auto-generate Type Names by concatenating selected parameters.   For example, a window type name could be built from: [Width] - [Height] - [Frame Material] → 1200 - 1500 - Alum   This would: Reduce manual errors Enforce consistent naming Make schedules and tags more reliable   Ideally, the Revit template could select 2–3 parameters in the Family Editor or Type Properties dialog, choose a separator, and have Revit build the name automatically.    BIM is only as good as the data we put in — and naming mistakes shouldn't compromise that.   Would love to hear if others see value in this or have workarounds without dynamo work arounds.  Show More

This image says it all. Right now, only the "Free End" option for leaders allows snapping to the endpoints of the leaders. This should also be a default for "Attached End".    Show More

In many real-world refurbishment projects, when a door is removed from an existing wall, the resulting opening is often retained—or filled in a way that differs from the original wall construction. In Revit, however, demolishing an existing door automatically triggers an “infill” behavior that closes up the opening with the original wall type. This is both unrealistic and irreversible, forcing users to accept an unwanted wall patch. In actual practice, once a door is removed, the opening may remain as-is, be filled with a different wall type, or be repurposed in other ways. Having Revit automatically restore the original wall type is counterproductive and does not reflect typical site operations. It also removes the ability to keep a true opening without cumbersome workarounds. Proposed Solution User-Controlled Infill Settings Provide a setting (at either the project or element level) that allows users to choose whether an opening should remain or be automatically infilled when an existing door is demolished. Let users specify which wall type (if any) is used to fill the opening. Flexible Phase Behavior When a door is demolished in the Existing phase, give the user the option to leave the opening intact or fill it with a new wall. If the user wants to keep the opening or place a different wall, Revit should not force the infill to match the original wall type. Better Alignment with Real-World Workflows This change would more closely mirror actual construction processes, saving time and effort in creating workarounds or re-modeling openings. It would also provide clearer phasing documentation and more accurate takeoffs for demolition and new work. By introducing a user-defined or project-wide “Preserve Opening” setting, Revit’s demolition workflow would become more flexible and realistic, significantly improving modeling efficiency for renovation and refurbishment projects. Show More

Adding shared parameters you should be able to select all and add to a family at one time. Instead of having to add each one individually. Show More

With families being needed to have more parameters added.  An enhancement to have additional data parameters to connectors is needed.  This can help when adding additional parameters to the connection for designers ability to determine what is needed Show More

I would like to propose that system families could also read the information of the rooms they belong to in the schedules like the loadable families, they could even use <varies> when they exist in more rooms   Show More

This idea is to have the option to either pin (and I mean Super Pin, like the other suggestion) EVERYTHING in the whole model.  The point would be to effectively lock down the entire thing so that only specifically selected items could be individually unlocked guaranteeing that unexpected items, that you can't see, aren't affected by the edit.  Conversely if you want to make a global change (like relocate, for example) you can un-pin the entire model in one click, ensuring that everything is included. Show More

It would be useful if schedules could be filtered based on sheet collection. Specific example, I have a project with multiple buildings on the same site and I'm using sheet collections to produce multiple drawing sets from the same model. It would be nice to be able to have just one door schedule (or drawing index, etc.) so I can easily work on all the elements in the model, but then have the schedule filter by when I place it on a sheet. Show More

Automatically create room elevations and axonometric views giving a view crop offset and the type of view. Show More

Most improvements in new Revit versions, while beneficial, often consist of minor adjustments that could easily be included in an upgrade or service pack. Adopting this approach would allow more time and focus for deeper, more meaningful enhancements. It would also help standardise the software version used across different projects. Currently, the constant release of new versions leads to several issues: Projects often rely on different Revit versions, creating inconsistencies; Multiple installations take up significant disk space; Upgrading families and project files becomes more complex; Opening older projects can be confusing or problematic. Additionally, a typical construction project — from early design stages to completion — usually spans around four years. This means users often end up having at least four different Revit versions installed simultaneously, just to keep up.   One ideia could be to release a new version every two years for example. Show More

Would it be feasible to add a polyline feature in Revit similar to AutoCad's, with the ability to tag length or area if polyline is closed, and attach the symbols at start or end?     Show More

I would like to be able to include keynote symbols (customizable, hexagon, triangle, circle, square etc.) within the keynote schedule around the number that they already correlate with. Preferably the same file and symbol as the keynote family. Evan a separate family that can be loaded into both the keynote and into the schedule would work.  I think its comical that such a basic and standard practice of architecture was overlooked in a program designed for specifically for architecture.   Show More

Please implement the filtering method used in view filters for schedule filters. I've seen so many similar ideas: Like "OR" filters, ability to create more filters than the defined in the schedule, and others. If it were implemented like the view filters, it would solve all those issues, and many more. I mean, so many schedules are used for data control and project model healthy, and what better way to achieve this than to being able to use the same filters in both views and schedules. Show More

Revit LT has everything I need , almost... Can't you allow rendering software plugins, like Twinmotion (and others) I'd even be willing to pay for it. Show More

  When linking an IFC4 file in Revit, it would be beneficial to have the ability to map the IFC Renovation Status to a Revit Phase, or to have an alternative method to utilize IFC phasing.   Currently, when an IFC file is linked in Revit, all phasing information is disregarded. Correcting this issue requires significant workaround efforts. Additionally, if the IFC file is updated, the phasing corrections need to be reapplied, rendering the 'link' option and IFC4 impractical when phasing is utilized within the file.   Show More

I find it would sometimes be useful to have a 2D 'model text' that shows in all views in the same way that model lines do. As it is, the model text has to be a 3D modeled 'object' with a depth and a material, and it does not display properly at smaller sizes. Being able to convert text between 'model' and 'detail' types would be handy too (the same way we can convert model line to detail lines and visa versa). (There may be some reason this is not possible and it maybe that I'm misunderstanding something about the current model text). Show More

Prior to upgrading the current project we are working in from Revit 2022 to Revit 2025, we were able to drag MEP parts from the node on either end of the fitting as long as it was an independent piece and unattached to another. After upgrading to 2025, this function is no longer possible. The current work around is to drag the piece you want to adjust from where it is connected, set it aside, make the modifications, then use the create similar function and reattach the cloned part, then delete the old one. Prior to the upgrade you could have drug the piece set it aside, make changes then drag it back over by the node and reattach. Much simpler and faster that way. Now any independent piece only allows the quick connect function from the node after being placed or disconnected. Bringing back the old function allowing us to drag MEP parts from the node would be very beneficial and much more efficient.  Show More