Revit Ideas
Share ideas for future product features directly with the Revit team and collaborate on existing suggestions with your peers.
New Idea

Stop pretending Quadro cards are better than Geforce

Status: Archived
by Explorer sarsenault2CCSS on ‎02-27-2017 07:33 AM - last edited on ‎02-27-2017 07:34 AM |

Revit does not officially support Geforce cards, but they are a much better value than Quadro cards. The result is that architecture firms spend a lot of money on useless and slow Quadro graphic cards.

 

GTX.jpg

 

Please stop misleading customers to buy Quadro cards. This results in very slow models for offices that are spending a lot of money on useless cards. There is no reason to get Quadro cards for Revit, it is an impediment to performance, productivity and budgets.

 

The more people use Geforece cards, the better and more productive the Revit world will be.

Status: Archived

Hi @sarsenault2CCSS, the Revit team don't endorse the use of any specific card or manufacturer, so you can use any card you'd like if you feel confident that it works properly with Revit. As you can see in our system requirements we recommend a card that is "DirectX 11 capable with Shader Model 5." The message referenced above simply states that the specific card you are using has not been tested and that you have the option to turn off hardware acceleration if you start experiencing issues. If you're not experiencing issues then it is entirely reasonable to ignore the warning.

 

In most cases, Autodesk will support you no matter which card you are using (with the exception of explicitly unsupported cards). However if you happen to experience an issue and that issue turns out to be graphics card related, one thing to check with the manufacturer is whether the they will support a fix to the driver for a Revit-specific issue. Certified cards are typically certified by the manufacturer to work with Revit.

 

All that said, in over 5 years of being a PM for Revit, I've only seen a significant graphics card issue once and that had already been remedied by the manufacturer on more recent devices/drivers.

 

Last but not least, I am archiving this issue. This is not meant to imply a lack of importance - we are already reconsidering the messaging for graphics card warnings, but it is simply not possible for us to accept an idea with this title. It would imply that we were in fact doing so. 

Metric System wrongly used

Status: Archived
by Community Visitor estherran.biz on ‎03-15-2017 12:41 PM

As a Latina architect, I have used the metric system for years before I moved to the United States. The wrong use of the metric system have caused million dollar mistakes to this country in the past, for example the loss of a spacecraft. I do not think NASA uses the millimeter as a base unit for measurement!

 

Why do you recommend the use of the millimeter in the metric system as the base unit for engineering and architectural drawings? I am astonished when I see how bad the system is used and when I listened seminars, watch tutorials, and read your books using mistakenly the millimeter.

The millimeter is used in exceptions such drawing 1:1 scale for example to draw a nut or a bolt. I am sure that this situation is causing confusion but probably it is not too late to change the metric system using the meter as the base unit. A door, for example, is not 800 millimeters but it is 80 centimeters or .80 meters. After one meter, the centimeters is not the base unit anymore and the meter becomes the base unit, for example, 1.50 meters or 325. 80 meters.

 

I used in South America the comma for decimals and period for thousand and million. Besides we work clockwise as positive input and counterclockwise as the negative input, but if we have to use wrongly the metric system, the situation becomes very confusing. An urban plan supposed to be in millimeters also? Even a building will have millions of millimeters? In these cases the results will be astronomic. Every time that I notice the mistake, I feel discourage because your important company is the forerunner in drafting software and you are leading this ugly mistake recommending it to people involved in the use of your  multiple software.

 

I have used for years AutoCAD, Architectural Desktop, 3D Studio Max, Revit, and other software using the imperial system but when I see the use of these software in the metric system, the use is WRONG! I hope my comment would be useful. Thank you for your time.

Status: Archived

I am archiving this issue as it it possible to set the unit in a Revit project to anything that is desired. If there are specific suggestions for different templates, etc please feel free to file those as separate ideas.

Save as previous version

Status: Archived
by Advocate yavork on ‎05-19-2016 06:45 AM - last edited on ‎09-02-2016 01:44 PM |

Please Allow Revit files (either projects or families) to save in previous versions of the program. (Or at least the Families??)

With so little new features I cannot believe Autodesk can justify upgrading the project database every year?

(If database is not the right term - please excuse my negligence)

I am sure it can easily go for 3-4 years before some of their "new features" requires upgrade to the database. Or find different workaround.

It has been asked and requested so many times on the forums and whitelists I am surprised is not first on the list.

Status: Archived

With regrets, as I am sure there are going to be a lot of people here who will be disappointed, I am archiving this idea. While we fully understand why this request is important and would be of great value to you, it is not feasible for us to add it to the Revit roadmap. Before you share your thoughts, I do ask that you please read my full response here as I will do my best to explain the reasons behind the decision.

 

First off, let me say that this is not a decision that we take lightly. Further, there is no motive that is not expressed in this post. Despite what a few posts here suggest, this decision has nothing to do with how we sell our products, nor is it a strategic move on our part. It is quite simply an exceptionally difficult (impossible?) technical challenge, which, were we to embark on fixing it, is unlikely to fully deliver on the expectations and experience that you deserve (more on this later). If backwards compatibility was an easy thing for us to do, we would do it in a heartbeat because we understand that this would enable workflows that are a true challenge today.

 

There are two ways we could approach the problem: freeze the file format or add converters that transform new data to old data to recreate the old file format. Let me address each one in turn.

 

To be quite frank, freezing the file format would significantly hamper the speed of Revit development as the majority of Revit features require changes to the file format. I took a quick look and by my estimation at least 14 of the top 20 ideas on this forum would require changes to the file format. Comparing our development build to the 2017 file, there are about 3,000 changes to the format. So, on average, there are over 10 format changes per development day. This also doesn't account for the fact that one change can have a huge impact. For example, the ability to have OR in filters could arguably be reflected as one format change, but that change could impact hundreds of views and sheets.

 

If we had to wait 3 years to get significant enhancements you, it would also mean we would it would be another 3 years before we could make further improvements/corrections to features. We often hear feedback that we don't improve the product fast enough; unfortunately this would aggravate, not alleviate the problem.

 

I also want to point out that we already make an effort to identify and work on improvements that don't require a format change. These changes are shipped as part of our point (previously R2) releases. We're excited that we are able to get these new features to you as soon as they are completed. That's why we’re all here on Revit ideas right? So that we can get you the improvements you need. I, for one, don't want to wait three years to make that happen.

So, approaching this from the other angle, why not save back to older versions? I'm going to give you three examples of why this is an exceedingly difficult technical challenge, and why, if attempted, it would not result in the behavior you would expect.

  1. Imagine for their birthday someone gives your kid a gift of alphabet blocks in a fancy gift box that is just big enough to house the blocks. The next year, someone else gives them a set of nicer blocks, but the blocks are 5% bigger in size. You want to keep the new set, but store them in the old box, but no matter how you try they just won't fit. In fact, if the box housed 36 (3x4x3) original blocks, the box will only house 12 (2x3x2) new blocks! You could start sawing the blocks I suppose, but I think that defeats the purpose of alphabet blocks. File formats work in a similar way, a small change in the definition can have a huge cascading effect on the look and behavior of the file.
  2. So why is the impact so big? Let's take our OR in Filters example again. In a greatly simplified solution, the change from AND to OR could be stored in one new true/false property of filters (true = AND, false = OR) in Revit X+1. Of course, Revit X has no idea about this property, so as far as Revit X is concerned all filters are AND. Now imagine saving back a file from Revit X+1 to Revit X where you've used OR filters in 10, 20, 100? views. If we literally copied the filter conditions back to the Revit X format, suddenly your filter would be an AND filter. What happens to those views? Elements change color. Or worse, elements appear/disappear. Schedules change. I could go on. Ok, so that's not a valid solution. Can we have developers write code that converts OR filters into AND filters and saves them that way? I'm a CompSci major and let me tell you - this is not straightforward code to write. And in some more complex cases I'm not sure it's possible to write it in a way Revit X would understand. This is why OR filters are being requested in the first place, right? Now imagine doing this for every one of the 3,000 changes…
  3. If that hasn't convinced you, here's a simplified element-based example. Friendly reminder: in Revit geometry is derived, not primary, data, so it's not necessarily even stored in the file. In a world where Revit X only knows how to create linear walls and Revit X+1 introduces arc walls, what would happen if you took a Revit X+1 arc wall and saved it to Revit X? Because Revit X code has no idea how to use the extra data, your arc wall would show up in Revit X as a linear wall!

    wall-format.png

So at least for model objects, if we can’t write back to data, can we somehow save the exact geometry? Maybe (assuming the geometry kernel hasn’t changed), however this would mean that all of the intelligent behavior that you expect with Revit would be gone. So the arc wall would show up as an arc, but you wouldn’t be able to change it and Revit wouldn’t know how to make it act like a wall (e.g. clean up wall joins, etc). It would be a geometry that does not understand that it is a wall, so at that point what we have is un-editable CAD, not BIM. Exporting to IFC and importing it in the earlier version will give you at least the same, and likely much better, geometry consistency.

 

All this is to say that if we were to save backwards without freezing the file format, we would be unable to guarantee consistency of view settings or contents and it will result in the loss of intelligent behavior for elements. In other words, views would look different and elements would be frozen. The amount of work to achieve this “broken” state would also be huge. Giving you an unpredictable backwards save would not really help you with collaboration problems, in fact, it would quite likely cause errors in your deliverables. We don’t consider this an acceptable solution from a customer experience perspective, which is why we have chosen not to pursue it.

 

So that brings us back to freezing the file format as the only option we can consider. I mentioned earlier that this would slow down our development process because it makes it harder for teams to fix bugs (yes bug fixes often require format changes) and hinder our ability to give you the improvements being requested right here in Revit Ideas. In truth, we are looking to change the process in the other direction. We want to give you the latest and greatest as soon as it is available. We realize that that means reworking our install infrastructure and experience so that it is easier for you to get the latest version and increasing the reliability of upgrades so that you are able to trust the quality of the upgrade. We have not done a fantastic job of this to date, so there is a lot of space for us to improve. The ideal state is the Google Chrome experience. How many of you know which version of Chrome you’re running? We realize that there is a lot more complexity to installing and updating our software than Chrome, so I am not implying that this is the right solution, but that kind of simplicity of experience is the direction we want to pursue. Wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t have to care about Revit versions in the first place? We think so and that’s why we’re archiving this issue. We understand that there is a problem, but we believe there is actually a better solution than backward compatibility.

Allow more than one sheet to contain the same view

Status: Archived
by Contributor BramBIM on ‎05-13-2016 04:39 PM - last edited on ‎10-27-2016 08:15 AM |

Whenever I want to create an overall plot of my project, and provide a different set of A3 copies for the building site, I have to duplicate all my views and rename them. Why not just a warning that could be ignored? Now it's forced on us.

 

Revit LT 2016 user.

Status: Archived

Thanks for your submission and for voting on this idea and thanks to everyone for the comments as well.  After evaluating this idea, we have decided not to add this to our roadmap and to archive this idea.  This idea currently does not fit into our plans.  Please feel free to resubmit the idea with additional use cases or information and we will be happy to consider it again.   

Purge Unused Family Parameters

Status: Archived
by Collaborator Hugh_Compton on ‎05-19-2016 02:32 AM - last edited on ‎09-02-2016 01:41 PM |

A 'Purge Unused Parameters' button would be very useful. 

Status: Archived

Thanks again for your submission, for voting and thanks to everyone for the comments as well.  We spoke to many customers about this idea at our Inside the Factor Live events and after consideration, believe that there are many cases where unused parameters are not simply unused, but not yet filled in.  Based on that feedback, we have decided not to add this to our roadmap and to archive this idea.  Please feel free to resubmit the idea with additional use cases or information and we will be happy to consider it again.

 

The Factory

Revit Legend Component Sizing

Status: Archived
by Advocate michael_coffey on ‎04-06-2016 05:36 AM - last edited on ‎12-05-2016 12:26 PM |

When adding an elevation view of a curtain panel (door/window/etc), there should be an option to adjust the height and length of the component, not just "Host Length".  This way we can show doors as the correct size, such as 3'-0" x 8'-0" or 6'-0" x 9'-0".  We now have to draw this type of door on the legend because we cannot make it look correct.  This can introduce errors if the door family were to change.

Status: Archived

Thanks for your submission and for voting on this idea and thanks to everyone for the comments as well.  After evaluating this idea, we have decided not to add this to our roadmap and to archive this idea.  This idea currently does not fit into our plans.  Please feel free to resubmit the idea and we will be happy to consider it again.

The Factory

Make BIMobject useable

Status: Archived
by Contributor galen_dbvw on ‎02-20-2017 07:05 PM

Im really disappointed that Autodesk let BIMobject launch when it is so obviously flawed. The company has a very clear mission statement:

 

"BIMobject corporation is built around a network of companies and partners all over the world. Our ambition is to be the link between the complex technology around CAD & BIM and assist our customers, the Building product and interior manufacturers to successfully develop & manage digital replicas of their products as BIM objects"

 

however, they fail to mention the end user. Its clear that the company is so manufacturing facing that they forgot to make their library easy for us to use.

 

 

BIMobject is not user friendly for a number of reasons:

 

  1. its slow
  2. limited functionality with any BIMobject window open
  3. no settings
  4. very poor search algorithm (I can give a dozen examples if you like)
  5. search is unreliable, sometimes doing a raw text search, sometimes taking you to a category
  6. categories don't align with how architects and engineers generally categorize this stuff
  7. Revit family category not listed (despite having many other classifications)
  8. some families are in metric (even with the United States Region turned on)
  9. some families are not in the same version as revit requiring upgrade
  10. type catalog .txt files not available.
  11. quality control (marvin windows are broken by a shared parameter issue)

Seek wasn't broken in as many ways. You should have made sure that BIMobject would provide a somewhat decent and working solution before endorsing them and their app.

Status: Archived

Thanks for your feedback. I am archiving this issue as the Revit team cannot make improvements to BIMobject. I encourage you to continue the conversation with the BIMobject team.

The Structural Content Generator extension has been left off Revit 2017 Extensions. Please add it as the lack of this tool it will stop most Structural Engineers locally to upgrade to 2017 and rather stick to 2016 where the tool is available. Structural draftspersons/enigeeers use this tool at the start of every project to generate the steel etc they'll need in the project.

Status: Archived

 I'm gonna archive this one for the explanation provided in the comments before.

 

instead, please be specific about any content requirements and add them to the Ideas separately, so that it could increase the probability of making them implemented. thank you.

background color

Status: Archived
by Advocate KarolPiroska on ‎01-30-2017 05:43 AM

I think it would be great if there was an option to change the background color similar way as in Autocad. Or at least an options to change color for views and sheets (same as default ones in Autocad - black model space and white sheets). I know there is an option to change background color but that is a global setting, changing it everywhere.

Staring at the white background all day, day after day is not that pleasant.

Status: Archived

As mentioned, there is a setting to set the background color for views and sheets currently.

 

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea to control this separately. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

ViewCube dropdown list limitations

Status: Archived
by Enthusiast thierry.m on ‎06-16-2016 07:04 AM

Right click activates a dialog, select Orient to View, select Sections ... how do you scroll a list of +100 Sections? Similar to Floors. The only option are the small arrows at the top and the bottom of the screen and hold down the mouse button. You can't even use the scroll of your mouse.

 

You can't select Details to Orient your 3D View?

 

WISHES:

  • add a scroll bar for faster navigation;
  • the possibility to select Details;

 

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

openings

Status: Archived
by Enthusiast sonicer on ‎10-15-2016 03:03 PM

Better function for create rectangular or circle opening in wall or floor plan..

 

rectangular with top and botton elevation parameter and circle with axis height from level.

 this parameter must be readable in tags

thx.

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

scheadule paintings from all categories

Status: Archived
by Explorer krzadach on ‎08-29-2016 04:49 AM

Hi,

I'd like to create schedule of paintings using "As paint" parameter and include all categories that were painted.

It would be great if I could include Columns, beams and so on. I do not only paint walls floors and ceilings.

And painting columns in family editor doesn't work because that painting is not recognized as: "As Paint" material.

I'd like you to make all areas created with: Paint tool to be "As Paint".

 

Thanks! 

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

When you modify and then close a family you get two warnings.

Firstly:

First.JPG

Then when you click yes you get:

Second.JPG

 

Do others find the double warning annoying?

 

Would a combined single message box be more appropriate?

 

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

Rectify Point Issue

Status: Archived
by Contributor Bandelero on ‎11-08-2016 09:28 AM

Revit tend to use a dash as a point which is simply annoying, esp. since you end up getting a long dash at the beginning and end of the supposedly pointed line.

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

Control tabs

Status: Archived
by Advisor gh_ar on ‎11-07-2016 11:02 AM

 

Added feature to control tabs Hide or show at any time Such as AutoCAD.

 

Because they do not always use some tabs.

 

Control tabs.jpg

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 5 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

Isolate categories

Status: Archived
by Enthusiast laurenk on ‎08-17-2016 08:52 PM
As per autocad isolate tool:
Prevent selection of categories whilst working with one category.

Ie. If im working only on floors but need to see the relationship to other elements. Allow me to temporarily lock the other categories so i dont have to tab through 5 items to select the floor.

Autocad deals with this quite well, can we bring this into the revit toolset please?
Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

Override graphics of linked elements

Status: Archived
by Advocate michael_coffey on ‎08-16-2016 11:33 AM

Add ability to change the graphics of linked element on a per view basis.

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

The reinforcement summary units have been wrong for a while and need to be fixed.  A link to the forum discussion is below.

 

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-structure-forum/area-reinforcement-tag-layer-summary-units/m-p/6...

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

Save last shared parameter path per project

Status: Archived
by Advocate jkidder on ‎11-03-2016 09:42 AM

Currently Revit shows the last used shared parameter file on any project.  I would like to see the last used shared parameter file path saved on a per project basis to avoid confusion and mistakes.

 

For example might be working on three projects:  A highly custom project with lots of non-standard shared parameters, a project on a typical office template, and a test project where I'm experimenting.

 

The last used path dominates, so if I've been editing the test project with it's own shared parameter file and go to work on the regular project I'd see only the test values.  Likewise, if I'm working in the custom project I might accidentally save a new shared parameter into the office shared parameter list.  If I jump into a project using the default template I have no indication if that project has a project specific file for extra shared parameters.

 

It would be helpful if each shared parameter also saved it's origin path to help in locating the correct shared parameter path to add that parameter into other file.

 

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

Yes/No visibiity settings per view

Status: Archived
by Contributor dvilleneuve on ‎11-01-2016 11:40 AM

There are situations where you want to create a Yes/No parameter to control the visual display of a family for a particular view. However if you toggle this property on or off for 1 particular view the display properties are applied to all and any view that same family is visible in.

 

Can we allow an option within a families Yes/No parameters to choose and select either:

 

Option A: Yes/No applies to all views

 

or

 

Option B: Yes/No applies to only that particular view

Status: Archived

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

Submit Your Ideas

Share and shape product ideas.

Submit an idea
Idea Guidelines

Please review our Idea guidelines and best practices before posting a new idea, or voting on an existing one!

Revit Exchange Apps

Created by the community for the community, Autodesk Exchange Apps for Revit helps you achieve greater speed, accuracy, and automation from concept to manufacturing.

Connect with Revit

Twitter

Facebook

Blogs

Youtube