Isn't it time to devise something a little more modern for patterns? Hard to believe that the 35 year-old PAT file format is still the "technology" of choice for this. Would love to see a modern pattern creator that could do any kind of pattern. Including: rectilinear, random, and especially radial. It is just silly that we have to use model lines and arrays or material hacks to simple brick arches or radial floor patterns.
A new pattern technology and editor please...
Come on. It's time to just let us make tables from scratch in Revit. No more crazy Excel workarounds and no more hijacking a category I'm not going to use and hacking its schedule. I just want to be able to make a simple table straight in Revit.
Please allow the revit template to hold predefined worksets. We use worksets in 100% of our projects and everytime we have to recreate them manualy (we don like the method to create project with worksets and use/copy that as it is prone for mistakes)
Worksets are invaluable part of our workflow.
In all Autodesk products, materials are used to indicate both materials and finishes. This is not ideal. In reality, a material is what a thing is made of and a finish is simply how it is, well... finished.
How about some examples:
A wall is made of studs and drywall. These would be the materials. I would go to the lumber yard and buy studs and drywall to physically build this wall. But the finish is what I would apply on top of the wall to finalize it. This could include items like paint, tile, wall covering, paneling, wainscot, etc.
A floor is made of joists (metal or wood), plywood or metal deck and concrete. But it can be finished with: carpet, tile, clear coat, paint or even hardwood.
In the real World:
You cannot build a wall out of paint or tile. You build it from brick or drywall or studs, you finish it with paint or tile or wall covering.
You cannot build a floor out of carpet or vinyl tile. You build it from wood or concrete, you finish it with carpet or bamboo.
I would like to see a Finish object separate from materials. And/or hierarchical materials. So finishes could be their own separate thing, or they could be a property of materials. I would prefer they be separate and referenced to materials so we could "mix and match". For example right now if I have four paint colors and planed to use them on varying surfaces like drywall, wood and concrete block. I would need to potentially repeat these "finishes" within the types of each category. Or I could define a separate material for the paint and then apply it as its own layer in the wall assembly (which is not ideal) or use the paint tool to apply it as an override on another layer (also not ideal), or define several variations of each "parent" material, such as: Drywall - Blue paint, Drywall - Red pain, Drywall - Green paint, Wood - Blue paint, etc. This is also not ideal.
And in the case where a finish schedule is required, it is very difficult to achieve without manual hacks and silly work arounds.
So please. Consider separating material from finish. And in the process, we get closer to the original intent of Revit: to build things in the software as close to how they are really built in reality as possible.
It would be great to be able to view rooms and spaces in 3D views, and assign color schemes to the views. This would assist with pinning down bounding issues, as well as allowing us to create things like stacked isometrics to convey how a building functions.
It would be useful to have a Worksharing Monitor for C4R projects. Multiple users attempting a sync with central (SWC) at nearly the same time can really slow down the overall syncing process for all the users. At least if we had a monitor similar to the Worksharing Monitor add-in we could check before initiating a SWC when someone else is already tying up the central file. Would it be possible to edit the current add-in to make it work with C4R?
I'm sure folks would also appreciate support for Revit Server.
We've all been there. Multiple users working on a central model coordinating who can sync when, either through the work-sharing monitor or a parallel group lync chat.
This has always seemed super inefficient to me.
My idea for C4R would be a stacking queue, so that while one sync is taking place you can add your sync to the queue so that yours will automatically be processed once the central model is available.
With this in place its not an un-imaginable leap that by knowing how may syncs are in the queue and volume of data that need to be transferred that an estimated waiting time could be given allowing users to plan their work and syncing more effectively.
I would like the ability to download Revit model versions without having to do a rollback from A360 C4R. Sometimes things need to be copied from older model versions back into the newer model and a rollback is rarely an option. The local version of Revit gives us that capability, but it is lacking in C4R. Downloading an archive copy occasionally gives some ability to 'go back', but it is certainly not as robust or convenient.
Anyone ever accidently delete something and then open an old model to cut and paste it back? I know I have :)
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.
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.