There is currently no "Or" capability in filter rules, which makes it very difficult/inefficient at times to filter. For instance: assume I only want to see walls that contain CMU or Concrete in the type name. I can create a filter for Just the concrete walls easily, and do the same for the CMU. But one filter with OR could easily accomplish the task.
I would be a blessing to have the stair tool more robust and full of parameters that allow one to create a detailed and exact staircase. Adding core and finish layers as you would in a wall. Determining the end conditions more precisely, with better control. The more detailing control the merrier.
Allow Revit views to dock to dual monitors when extended across both monitors.
More and more, BIM coordinators are interested in looking at the key performance indicators of a Revit model - both currently and over time.
The single-most important metric in Revit is the number of errors and warnings in the model. Unfortunately, it is not really possible to extract this most important information using the API. Yes, Jeremy once pointed out that there's a windows hack to trigger the Manage Warnings via the UI (which then will report the warnings via FailureProcessing) - but this is not really a reasonable API solution. It is fragile.
I think the three reasonable ways to accomplish this somehow would be:
- Make an API which triggers the failures (much like hitting the Manage Warnings button).
- Make an API which just retrieves the information directly
- Make an API which executes the Manage Warnings + Export command to send the errors out to an HTML file (not that good, but it's far better than what we have today).
This would open the door for a wide variety of mechanisms for BIM coordinators and technologists to understand the warnings, build dashboards and even manage the process of reducing the errors on a project.
Every time a view based on a level is renamed a popup appears asking "Would you like to rename corresponding level and views?" While I'm sure there are situations where you might want to do so, in general the answer is NO. It isn't desired and it is easy to accidentally rename views and levels. There should be a setting to prevent the question from being asked. A user setting might be the easiest, but a project setting would be handy for templates. There should be a checkbox for "don't ask me again" to help users find that it is a setting when the box pops up as well.
This idea comes from reading other's requests for a schedule browser and a family browser. What if the existing project browser just had the ability to organize the Schedules, Legends and Families similar to what we currently have with Views & Sheets. (Browser Organization under user interface currently only has two tabs, Views & Sheets, but why not add tabs for Legends, Schedules & Families). This would allow us to duplicate Schedule Types and Legend Types and setup Browser Organization to list schedules and legends into groups the way we prefer. (We currently can duplicate schedule and legend types, but it doesn't do any good because the browser can't be organized for those items).
It would be nice to be able to insert/link Navis NWC files directly into Revit. This would satify the need when you don't get Revit models from Owners or Outside consultants. The ability to bring the 3D geometry from NWC would be terrific. Right now we can only look at it all together in Navisworks following the modeling effort which is not very efficient
Residential projects often use groups as a way to manage repeated units. however there is a need to schedule these groups as a way of quantifying labeling in a tag on plan and so on. If groups were able to be treated much like most model component categories and be scheduled this would allow for simple management of Unit type for residential project and much more on just the management side of things when you need to locate and clean a model of groups.
Goal: Remove the differences between Text and Tags and streamline the process
With the Text changes in 2017 - Text 3/32" Arial is not exactly the same size/letter spacing/line spacing as Tag 3/32" Arial - Needs to be fixed ASAP (ref: http://bdmackeyconsulting.com/revit-2017-text-edit
The differences between Text Font rendering and Tag Font rendering has caused many headaches and required many users to fix A LOT of existing annotation families with nested text. Why are two systems being carried? the letter G in arial 3/32" font should be the same regardless of whether it is in text or in a tag/label.
2017 Text improvements were nice - but they were only 50 % of the words that appear in drawings. We want 100% consistency.
(repost 1 from previous removed post)
Currently, if someone has access to a C4R project, they have WRITE access to ALL files:
Yes, we're working on a team, but mistakes can be made. Even within our own office, people are only granted write access to projects that they're working on (in part to reduce folders being accidentally dragged around). In C4R, I trust that our client (or other subs) wouldn't INTENTIONALLY open my Revit model and start modifying stuff without telling me, but what if they're just opening it to look at something (and forget to detach) and accidentally make a change, or there are some warnings that they just dismiss when constraints are updated & windows/doors move? Not to mention all the permission issues that could occur if things AREN'T saved (and therefore also aren't relinquished)?
I'm sure a lot can be avoided by training, but it's training in OTHER firms. I'd just personally have a lot more peace of mind if I knew "this model is ours, that one's theirs". Always having an up-to-date link CAN be great (in most cases, though I've done submittals with intentionally old links when there were large changes close to the deadline) but I don't want to have to keep doing a model compare, or looking at the history, to see if anyone else has touched our model that shouldn't have...
This is somewhat similar to this idea:
The idea of structural connections within Revit is great. Although the current method of defining a connection can be a bit cumbersome. What would be amazing would be if we could predefine certain connection configurations for connections that we would commonly use. This would significantly improve productivity. There are so many configurations for any given connection, which is great, but at times makes it cumbersome when you have to do the same modifications over and over to create a similar connection type. I guess what I am saying is if I spend the time to configure a connection type, then I want to be able create a similar connection without having to go through all the different connection configurations.
Expand Steel Connections extension for Revit, and make its integration with Advance Steel flawless. I would like to see all connection macro in Advance Steel come to Revit Steel Connections. Parametric reinforcement components, are welcome, not old, Structural Detailing extensions.
We are working with multiple consultants and a partner architecture firm and need to be able to share our shared parameters through A360. The only way to do this currently is to upload to A360, and each individual firm has to download and place on their network, and then point to the file. Can we just point to the file on A360? Same scenario for keynote file, would help with collaboration immensely to be able to share these files live the way we are sharing our models.
Do the new structural connections subcomponents (plates and bolts) be a schedulable and markable.
This must be good for counting full steel mass and bolts, doing a detail drawings for small projects by Revit.
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.