Just as the title says. Let us use voids to cut pointclouds. This would allow us to keep parts of the pointcloud visible as a reference while removing it in areas of demolition or excavation. For excample we could keep the pointcloud of the exterior landscape visible in elevations and sections while removing the demolished building or excavated landscape. Show More

We need changes to the fly-through-mode, especially when it comes to controls. - Scratch the need to keep RMB pressed to look around. Just let us look around without pressing it once fly-through-mode is enabled. The escape button would be used to exit fly-through-mode. - Let us control movement speed with the mousewheel. Clicking on Navigationwheel, rightclick, up / reduce movement speed is clunky and does not indicate how fast you are going, you always have to test it. - Let us control the focal length with alt + mousewheel. The navigationwheel is also unintuitive for this action. - Let us hold LShift to fly faster, hold control to go really slow. - We need an additional walking mode. Anchor the camera to the floor and allow us to walk up stairs. Maybe walls can get collision as well with doors having no collision so we can walk through them. These improvements would help tremendously when trying to quickly show customers or colleagues around the project or even just to get a sense of how a room feels from the perspective of the end user. Show More

Editing a group has a very convenient 'Add to Group' and 'Remove from Group' command that lets you add or remove objects to/from the group while you are in the process of editing. It works great.   It would be fantastic if design options could function in a similar fashion!!! Show More

Hello everyone,  The feature of Phasing in Revit needs to be rethought: The proper automation of model-comparisons would bring a big added value to the program.  Thanks in advance for voting for this necessary improvement. The Challenge Currently, creating accurate "As-built" drawings in Revit requires a manual, labor-intensive process. When a project undergoes significant field changes, users must manually split elements, assign phases, and manage visibility settings. In fast-paced environments, this workflow is inefficient and prone to error, especially when comparing a "Design Intent" model against a "Field Survey/Contractor" model. The Problem Revit lacks a native way to compare two versions of a model (or two separate linked files) and automatically categorize the geometric differences into Phasing. Manual Slicing: To show part of a wall as "Existing" and another part as "Demolished," we must manually use the Split tool. Lack of Delta Analysis: There is no "Compare Models" feature that identifies overlapping volumes vs. new volumes between two RVT files or Design Options. Suggested Solution: Automated Phase Mapping & Intersect I am proposing a feature that allows Revit to intersect two models (or a Link vs. a Live Model) to identify geometric deltas. Volume Comparison: An automated tool that identifies where Geometry A (Original) and Geometry B (As-Built) differ. Automated "Part" Generation: The ability for Revit to automatically slice elements based on the intersection of the two models. Visual Delta Reports: A view mode that highlights "Added," "Removed," and "Modified" geometry (similar to how Navisworks or BIM 360 handles versioning, but directly editable in Revit). Use Case During the construction of a hospital, the MEP and partitions are shifted 200mm in the field. Instead of manual splitting and re-phasing, the architect links the Contractor’s model and runs a "Phase Comparison." Revit identifies the shifts and creates the necessary "Demolished" and "New" graphics automatically based on the volume overlap. Show More

Built-in parameters that exist on specific family categories should be available for reference within the family editor. In a trapeze hanger family, rod lengths should be able to calculate directly from elevation data, but the elevation parameter is not accessible. This forces users to duplicate built-in values into custom parameters, creating redundancy and potential data mismatch. If a parameter exists, it should be usable in family formulas.   Unify parameter identity and remove the distinction between shared and non-shared parameters. Revit could: Give every parameter a GUID automatically Store identity internally (not a text file) Allow any parameter to be: Tagged Scheduled Exported Provide a Parameter Manager UI Allow GUID migration and merging Keep backward compatibility Shared parameters cannot have their tool tips or descriptions edited after creation, and moving parameter storage internally would allow metadata to be updated without breaking parameter identity.   Revit formulas are overly restrictive and lack many basic features found in modern parametric or scripting environments. Users cannot perform conditional logic based on text parameters, nor can they concatenate values to form meaningful strings. For example, creating a build ID like SU-10' from a strut type and length parameter is not possible using native formulas, even though this is a common and practical workflow. These limitations force unnecessary manual input or reliance on Dynamo and external tools for simple logic. Revit formulas should support basic string comparison, concatenation, and more flexible conditional logic.   System families cannot accept custom parameters, which creates major limitations for scheduling and data consistency. For example, conduit does not allow user-defined parameters, making it impossible to map its built-in length to a common parameter shared with conduit fittings. As a result, schedules cannot aggregate conduit and fitting lengths together. Allowing users to add non-geometric parameters to system families—solely for data forwarding and scheduling—would resolve this without compromising system family integrity.   Revit lacks a built-in mechanism to automatically keep dependent parameters in sync when elements are moved or modified. In many workflows, parameters such as Area, Level, Zone, or Location should update automatically when an element changes position. For example, if a trapeze hanger is moved to a new area, its area-related parameters should update immediately without requiring a manual script or external tool to be run. Add-ins like Evolve’s parameter sync demonstrate the value of this capability, but this functionality should be native to Revit. A built-in parameter synchronization framework would allow users to define rules or scripts that specify which parameters should update based on model changes, improving data reliability and eliminating manual coordination steps. Show More

In Belgium we don't use up and down texts on stairs. You should be able to create a stair path type in a template that never shows this text.    Problem is that this property is currently instance, and you can't predefine the default value.    Turning it off in the visibility graphics is possible but then i'll either have to do it view by view, or assign a view template to every view, also new ones. I can uncheck the category for all views in the template but then when a user creates a new floorplan it will be back on for that view. I shouldn't have to use a view template on every new view to achieve this result.    Yes it's possible to right click a stair path > select all instances in view and uncheck it, but this is work that should not be there in the first place. Things like this should be avoidable with a good Revit Template. Show More

Instead of a giant pick window then filtering out what I want to be selected, just the same concept in reverse.   If I am working in a lighting plan and need to move or modify a lot of switches, a "pre-filter" so that my clicks and mouse drags to not grab anything but switches.    This exists for links/underlay/pinned elements, but would be nice if you could make it work for any category. Show More

We have a single revit template file for the entire company. And it has dozens of filters for all Disciplines. therefore the list of Filters is gigantic. I would love to filter this list of Filters by Discipline, so much easier. Show More

Transparency Settings for Filled Regions Currently, when using detail groups with filled regions across multiple drawings, the transparency settings applied through graphic overrides do not copy over. This creates inconsistency and increases the risk of human error. If we had the ability to assign a percentage of transparency directly to filled regions, it would: Ensure consistent visual representation across all drawings. Reduce reliance on graphic overrides. Minimize manual adjustments and errors when copying detail groups. This feature would greatly improve workflow efficiency and maintain design clarity Show More

A lot of times I will start a command (like Component, Window, Door, etc.) and then realize I need to load the component I need.  This is not a problem if you have the library saved locally since you can click "Load Family."  We really just need a button next to it for "Load Autodesk Family."   Show More

Hi!   For an organised layout, i currently have a lot of different tags in different colors for MEP systems. They each have another color for Supply air, Return Air, Supply Hydraulic cooling, Supply Hydraulic Heating,..   This creates a more efficient way of visualy connecting the correct information to the correct system classification. Esspecially if there are many elements on one plan.    Could Annotation Tags be Linked to the visual settings that are linked to a system classification? Currently I do this manualy as seen below. But it takes some time to change between annotation types.     Would be Awesome!   Bye! 🙂     Show More

      These are three schedules put into a sheet. Would it not be great if these could be right clicked and made into annotation families? All information required to make those are already there, from font types, sizes to orientations and parameters and text notes. While those shown are only ootb parameters this could also be an easy way to deal with user generated shared parameters circumnavgiating the sp text file. Show More

Since my colleague and I are working on projects that require frequently turning point clouds on and off in the model, we need the ability to assign a shortcut for the “Show point clouds in this view” setting. Currently, this isn’t possible. Our suggestion is to add support for assigning a shortcut to this option. Show More

It would sometimes be useful to be able to attach a wall's top or base with an offset - leaving a specified 'gap' between the top/base and the roof, ceiling, or floor.   Show More

Coordination Models could be a powerful workflow for large projects. They load faster than standard Revit links, feel more lightweight, and the model comparison feature is easy to use even for less experienced users. For multi-gigabyte models, this could be an important way to reduce Revit load and improve performance.   Right now, the visual limitations make it difficult to use Coordination Models in real projects.   What works well • Models load faster than standard Revit links • Basic model comparison works and is easy to use • Good concept for large projects • Useful that you can see which model version is currently used in the Coordination Model   Current issues • Geometry and edges are not displayed accurately • Large coordinates cause elements to jump, distort, or display incorrectly • MEP models and architectural models show graphic errors • No annotations or dimensions are possible • Display settings like shadows do not improve readability   Important note With IFC Data Exchange it is already possible to filter models in Docs and load them in a simplified form. Tagging and dimensions even work there. This shows that these capabilities are technically achievable. Coordination Models would benefit greatly from similar functionality.   Goals / Requests • Fix the display issue so elements render correctly • Ensure that annotations and dimensions work once the display issue is resolved • If a direct solution is not possible, provide a workflow similar to IFC Data Exchange, where models can be filtered before linking and annotations or dimensions remain usable   Many users would adopt Coordination Models immediately if these issues were resolved. Improving this feature would make it truly valuable for large-scale BIM projects.   Notes regarding screenshots Overview of the Revit MEP model Original Revit families in the MEP model Display issue in the Coordination Model view of the same MEP model Same issue when linking the architectural model as a Coordination Model Comparison overview The model comparison feature is a great direction for authors, but at this stage it provides mainly a graphical overview and little actionable information. Show More

Guess what I am doing right now. Well this breath taking idea is to allow selecting multiple lines in the annotation edit window and move them all up or down. Show More

Grid Lines in Revit are severely lacking in location information. Unlike Level Lines which have the heights (can be set to Survey Point or Project Base Point), Grid Lines give no dimension info.   There should at minimum be the following as shown. Distance from Survey Point which would indicate its its directionality in brackets with an X or a Y (if the angle from Project North is between 45 & -45 is would show X, if its greater than 45 or less than -45 it would show Y) Angle from Project North Angle from True North   This would also give us the option to add the info into the Grid Bubble family as Labels similar to the Level Head. It would also give us a quick reference in the properties to know if a grid is in the wrong location without having to dimension it.   I just recently had a grid be rotated (not sure how) by 0.0000003deg without me knowing and it caused some major issues as we didn't notice until like 70% complete.   Show More

I have been using Revit since versions prior to 8.1. Revit has evolved over time but there has been little to no focus for Landscape Architecture. Our Australian Company (Urbis) took on Revit for Landscape back in 2017. We understand Revit was initially designed for Architectural and Engineering Disciplines. I am finding more and more Landscape Company's now use Revit. It would be great that Autodesk can put some focus on Landscape Architecture in Revit.   A good start would be to have the following; a) Softscape Revit Category? b) Hardscape Revit Category? c) A Fence Revit Category? d) A Landscape Tab with some basic tools (see Landscape modelling Notes below)? e) A Landscape Discipline in View Properties?   Landscape Modelling Notes; For Landscape modelling we generally use Architectural Floor and Wall Elements. It be great if the Floor element can be made into a Softscape Catergory. Site Component and Site tools can be added to the Landscape tab. Landscape will use other Architectural elements when required.   This would be a great start for Landscape Architecture for Revit moving forward.   Thanks [Passionate Revit user] Show More

Description: This request has been posted by Japanese Revit users on Revit Ideas (Japanese) as “切断ボックスの操作性向上.” It is a common usability request and was evaluated by the Revit User Group in 2025. We are reposting it here for the English Revit community. https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-aidia-ri-ben-yuforamu/qie-duanbokkusuno-cao-zuo-xing-xiang-shang/idi-p/13703334 Request: Currently, the triangular drag handles on crop boxes (or section boxes) are small and difficult to grab precisely, making it frustrating to adjust the box accurately. We would like the following improvements: Larger or more visible drag handles Clearer highlight or feedback when a handle is selected Improved usability for precise adjustments in 3D and plan views Rationale: Improving crop/section box handle usability will save time and reduce errors when adjusting views, particularly in complex models. Many users frequently encounter difficulty grabbing the correct handle. Although there are posts related to this request, it has not yet been fully addressed about size control and so on.https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/section-box-grips-are-too-small/idi-p/6433957?utm_source=chatgpt.com Show More