To be able to snap to defined points, such as “Strong or Weak Reference” planes like all of the other items in Revit when working with Revit Tee families.   Ability to control the snap points.  Items like Elbows need an intersection point at the center intersection along both Axis for dimensioning.            Show More

This issue use to work with previous Revit before 2026.  Would like to have the implementation of using nested families couplings to work with taps.  When connecting the taps with a nested coupling, Revit would throw out an error.  This does not happen prior to Revit 2026 and would like to have the feature be implemented back in.  Help article of Revit 2026 stated that this is fix, due to the instability of Revit crashing, but would be helpful for MEP designer to have this feature be put back in. Show More

Hello, It would be good if there was an option in certain Revit families to prevent the geometry from being mirrored. E.g. a Mechanical FCU which only has left hand side option. Or a single socket outlet which has the switch on the left. Connected items may be an issue, however, ideally these items can be grouped and mirrored, when mirrored, the items still appear correct, e.g. switch on the left.   Alternatively, it would be nice to have a simple method of scheduling which families are mirrored.   Regards David Show More

Revit provides structured integration between Air Terminals and Spaces. Air Terminals are clearly treated as space-serving elements and can contribute to ventilation and conditioning calculations in a logical way. However, Mechanical Equipment is not handled consistently, especially when it comes to internal heating and cooling loads. Mechanical Equipment families often contain critical parameters such as: Heat Gain (W) Cooling Load Sensible and Latent Loads Electrical Power Dissipation Yet Revit does not automatically transfer or aggregate these values into the associated Space, even when the equipment is correctly placed inside a defined Space. As a result: Internal heating gains from equipment are not summed per Space Internal cooling-related loads are also ignored Users must rely on manual schedules or Dynamo scripts The model contains the data, but Revit does not use it natively This is highly inconsistent and creates unnecessary workflow complexity. If Revit can associate Air Terminals with Spaces for HVAC load modeling, then Mechanical Equipment should support the same capability, especially since equipment-related heating and cooling contributions are fundamental requirements in real-world HVAC design. At minimum, Mechanical Equipment should support: Native Space Load Contribution settings for both heating and cooling Automatic aggregation of equipment heat gains and cooling loads per Space Consistent behavior across all MEP categories involved in load calculations Revit is positioned as a central BIM platform for coordinated building design, yet limitations like this make the MEP load workflow feel incomplete and outdated. I strongly encourage Autodesk to address this gap in future releases. Internal equipment heating and cooling loads should be a core function of Revit MEP, not something that requires custom scripting to achieve. Show More

It is required the possibility to select and use, inside Revit, the ifc class "IfcFlowTreatmentType" in ‘Export Type to IFC As’ attribute, according to the ‘Entity Inheritance’ defined by BuildingSMART. Currently, Inside Revit this Ifc Class is missing in the pick list of the attribute and it is a limitation for users in applying the Smart Building schema in particular when it is mandatory to follow the specific customers' standard object classification /Data Model. Show More

Summary: Revit should provide an official IFC export option that allows users to ignore the assembly container and export only the individual elements inside a Revit Assembly, without creating an IfcElementAssembly object. Problem: Revit always exports assemblies as IfcElementAssembly objects, even when this grouping is not relevant for downstream use. Users in IFC‑centric workflows often need sub‑elements to appear as ordinary building components, not nested inside an assembly structure. This issue has been raised in technical discussions, such as the longstanding SourceForge thread where users explicitly asked to export “the individual elements in an assembly as ordinary building components” instead of an IfcElementAssembly. Autodesk developers have acknowledged that exporting only elements could be supported as an option in the exporter, but the feature has never been implemented. Additionally, various support incidents show that assemblies can produce inconsistent or incorrect geometry when exported, reinforcing the need for more flexible export behavior. For example, Autodesk Support documents issues where assembly elements shift during IFC export, requiring users to disassemble assemblies as a workaround. Why this matters: Many contractors, estimators, and BIM coordinators rely on element‑level IFC data, not assembly‑level grouping. Assembly hierarchy often adds noise to the IFC structure and complicates element selection, filtering, and quantity extraction. Disassembling assemblies before export is not viable in real projects because it destroys modeling structure and introduces workflow risk. Current behaviors and bugs show that Revit’s handling of assemblies in IFC is inconsistent, further emphasizing the need for explicit user control. Requested Feature: Add a checkbox or export option such as: “Export Assembly Members as Individual Elements (Do Not Export IfcElementAssembly)” Show More

Be able to toggle from a horizontal oriented schedule (elements in rows, parameters in columns) to a vertical schedule (Parameters in rows, elements in columns). Currently Revit only supports a horizontal schedule.   This would allow more flexibility for what can be fit on a sheet. Vertical schedules especially makes sense for scheduling a few elements that have many parameters you need to schedule.  Show More

Please make it possible to add Yes/No parameters to MEP connectors. Take a radiator as an example, normally this has 6 connections, but we only use the tow of them. But as it is now, we need to have a family for each connection type but this its still the same radiator, witch is confusing fore the contractor and the quantities. Please se attached picture. Show More

  1. In Loss Method of duct fittings Properties, for the options "Specific coefficient" and "Specific Loss", it works for elbow, transition fittings(two connector fittings), and currently its limitation for Tee/Tap or Cross. so we have to use ASHRAE Table for these fittings.   Please add the option to specify the Loss Method as User Defined and apply the value to the Pressure Drop parameter, like when specific a coefficient, input both Main and Branch coefficient in Properties.   2. Currently when working with ASHRAE Table for different sizes, often shows”No ASHRAE table is applicable to the selected object" or incorrect table in Loss Method Settings dialog box.   For example, reading the table ER5-3 from ASHRAE standard, the table is only valid when Ab/Ac=0.5. But in engineering design working with ASHRAE Table，when Ab/Ac ≠0.5, we also refer to the value in table ER5-3.  Ab/Ac=0.5 is a test environment in ASHRAE, should not be the necessary condition. So please remove unnecessary conditions when looking for ASHRAE  tables in Revit. Show More

Allow text blocks to have a parametrically defined length. Labels and text fields often have varying text lengths, and it would be nice to allow for different graphic lengths depending on placement and surrounding conditions.  Show More

I would like to have the ability to customize the View Discipline settings.  Alternatively, get rid of the baked-in discipline settings, and add those settings to Visibility/Graphics.   Example: I'd like to have views displayed as a combination of the Mechanical and Coordination view settings.   Non-MEP elements to appear halftone automatically as provided by the Mechanical discipline setting. Pipe and Duct center lines to be visible as provided by the Mechanical discipline setting. MEP elements to display hidden when behind or beneath structural elements (walls, floors, columns, etc.).  This can be partially achieved by using the Coordination discipline setting with "Show Hidden Lines" set to "All".  However, I don't want all hidden lines to be visible and still want the auto-half tone for non-MEP elements. This is one of the most common complaints within our organization regarding the appearance of our deliverables. Show More

I created an idea already for this and piping, but forgot that is is not just piping. http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/pipe-duct-demolition-keeps-system-designation-and-stays/idi-p/6340415    All elements should keep the connection to their original system, or somehow maintain the relationship to the original system designation.   Within electrical if you demolish something that element is removed from the panel. If you have multiple phases and show elements on the panels at an early phase, you can't do this. So you have to just work around the phasing for those elements. NOT ideal.   If this was handled a bit differently then we could still use the native Revit systems and the native Revit phasing tools.   If a wall can infil after a door is demolished, I'd think something could be done about the phasing on the MEP side of things. Show More

It would be nice to have MEP connectors be available for connection in a linked model. Also, these connectors should be able to be added to a system or circuit. There are many projects where mechanical, electrical and plumbing are split into multiple models in various ways. It would be helpful to have the same system creation functionality across linked models. Show More

Is it possible to integrate an option in Revit that allows users to select their preferred insulation type and thickness when modeling a duct or pipe, rather than having to add it as a separate step? Show More

currently when you try to schedule elements that have different values for a particular parameter, Revit changes the cell to appear blank.  Revit should allow the schedule to list the different values.  Could be by default or as a check box option per field.       Show More

See attached image. TLDR: When adding a Project (Shared) Parameter you can only add it to the entire Category leading to Parameters in Families which do not need them. There are 3rd Party apps built to clean up Parameters in Families but this needs to be native in Revit.   More info: When adding a Project (Shared) Parameter it would be extremely helpful to select only specific Families of a Category. The option to add to the entire category is greyed out at the bottom of the dialog, can there be an option to Specify Families? Adding a Parameter to an entire Category results in unnecessary Parameters in Families leading to confusion. The current solution to only add a Parameter to as specific Family is in Family Editor which is tedious when adding Parameters to multiple Families. The option to add a Parameter to all Families of a Category is available when adding the Parameter in the Family Editor, there needs to be an option to Specify Families in the Project environment. Let me know if I'm missing something or if there is a 3rd party app that is an "easy button" for this. Thank you in advance. Show More

Out of the box revit pipe slope has been difficult since the beginning and hasn't really improved over the years. Please consider and vote for the following improvement to revit pipe sloping.   Under "pipe types" users can already create any number of pipe types with custom names which is a great feature. A very impactful addition to this would be to allows users to custom set the size ranges and pipe slopes they want for each size and "pipe type" that is created (Sanitary, Vent, Domestic Cold Water, Natural Gas, etc).  As a rough example, if a user creates a "sanitary" pipe type and they want all horizontal piping from 1-1/4" to 2-1/2" to slope at 1/4" per foot, and all horizontal piping for 3" and up to let's say 8" to slope at 1/8" per foot, they should be able to control what slope they want for each pipe size. Also, including a "no slope" or similar button to disable slopes on a "pipe type" would be beneficial. That way a user can define what pipe types they do not want to slope (such as domestic water, natural gas, etc).  If you intend to draw somewhat accurately in revit you have to check the pipe slope every time before you draw a pipe, even in the same system. This is a huge setback. Drawing a 2" sanitary pipe at 1/4" per foot slope may be correct, but then you may immediately need to draw a 4" sanitary line which may need to be at 1/8" per foot slope. This is very cumbersome and can lead to issues. Also, if you go to another pipe type revit retains the last slope you used so it can cause issues in other systems (such as water or gas).  Another downside to the current sloped piping in revit is that when you draw a vertical pipe and then extend a horizontal pipe from it and then at some point you need to grab the grip at the end of the horizontal and drag it around the slope changes. It may go from 1/8" per foot to something crazy like 139/256" per foot slope?!?  Users should be able to control slopes more freely and not need to manage it every time they draw a pipe. Please consider this upgrade/feature in the near future as this would be beneficial to those doing plumbing design and sloped piping in revit.   Or if someone who is knowledgeable with coding can create an add-in/app to override the out-of-the-box revit slope issues that would be a huge help. Or some plumbing designers can work with the autodesk revit team to create something that would be great.   Pdf attached with some initial thoughts.    Please vote for this even if you are not a plumbing designer. Plumbing is a very overlooked part of Revit. Thank you all!   @iainsavage  Show More