Presently Revit will allow you add either the whole schedule to a sheet or, using the Z grip on a whole schedule, you may create a custom split layout that will allow your schedule to dodge other views on the sheet and control how much of the schedule appears in each subsequent segment.   This is a great function, but the problem is that once you decide where the splits are in one sheet, you can't reconfigure this in other sheets which share the same schedule. You can only place the whole schedule, or you can place each of the split segments that you created the first time. If you try readjusting on your new sheet, it will make the same changes to the previous sheet.   I propose that each instance of a schedule should be able to be custom split without affecting other instances of the same schedule that have been split differently. Show More

Proposed Functionality: Add a column within the Type Selector (Properties Palette dropdown) that displays the current Instance Count for each family type placed in the model. (refer image) Problem Statement: Currently, to see how many instances of a specific type (e.g., a 1375mm Robe Drawer) are placed, a user must either create a Schedule or find the family in the Project Browser, right-click, and "Select All Instances." This is a multi-step process that disrupts the modeling workflow.   Show More

Bonjour a tous,   Voici une proposition pour REVIT    Configuration des règles de nommage pour les exports   Pour les fichiers PDF Ajouter la possibilité de configurer des règles de nommage personnalisées pour les exports PDF, notamment lorsqu’on souhaite regrouper plusieurs feuilles en un seul fichier PDF. Pour les fichiers DWG Permettre la configuration de règles de nommage pour les exports DWG, afin de garantir une cohérence totale entre les noms de fichiers générés pour les exports PDF et DWG.   Naming Rule Configuration for Exports For PDF Files Add the ability to configure custom naming rules for PDF exports, especially when combining multiple sheets into a single PDF file. For DWG Files Enable the configuration of naming rules for DWG exports to ensure full consistency between the filenames generated for PDF and DWG exports. Show More

Hello.   Already discussed many times, but since nothing ever changes: Half the buttons are useless to me (and others), take up space unnecessarily, and most importantly, we accidentally click on them. For example, "Duct Placeholder" is completely pointless — nobody uses it in construction, and even on design projects engineers use real ducts. The right-click shortcut is too easily accessible; I click it unintentionally one time out of three, which is very frustrating. Level creation is in the Architecture tab. Why? Architects are not the only ones who need to create levels. Let me move it and delete the architect tab. In the Modify/Geometry tab, the tools available only work on walls. Let me remove them — they are useless to me. When starting a new project, it systematically asks whether you want to use imperial or metric (international) units. Only one country in the world uses inches, so why impose it on everyone? Let us set this once and for all in the general options, since we will never use those outdated units. And while we're at it, if an international version could be developed, it would benefit the majority of users and greatly improve performance — which is already quite questionable — by eliminating the systematic unit conversion calculations (yes, Revit processes everything in imperial units internally). The same goes for the options used to manage units. Being forced to click on each line, one by one, to switch from imperial to metric on projects or families defined that way... As if we had nothing better to do. It is so tedious and painful! Just add a main button to switch from one to another. 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

When adding components to a project you are usually allowed to space bar through different orientations of the piece. What I did not find (in R27) is keyboard short cut to flip to the next possible type or the previous type. You always need to move your mouse pointer to the property window and select a different type there. The idea is to change that. Holding down Ctrl or Alt might do the trick. Does that not change copy or not when rotating things? Show More

If you duplicate a group or family or... like "KK04" Revit creates a duplicatie named "KK04 2".   It would be very helpfull if the duplicate would autonumber up to "KK05"    Show More

Hi team, Revit Area Rules are useful for automatically adjusting area boundaries, but they do not always align with area calculation standards in different countries, regions, or client requirements. In practice, users need a clearer way to understand and correct how Area Rules are applied to Area Boundaries. Related support article:Revitのエリア境界線をすべて躯体芯で作成して管理する方法はありますか Current Issues 1. Area Rules do not always match local area calculation standards Area calculation methods vary by country, region, project, and client requirement. For example, standards may differ for wall centerline, interior face, exterior face, common areas, private areas, and service spaces. The current Area Rules are not flexible enough to cover all these cases. Related post: https://chatgpt.com/c/6a114f3c-4fd8-8322-809d-cd3060c6219c 2. It is difficult to correct boundaries when Area Rules are applied by mistake If Area Boundaries are created with Apply Area Rules turned on, or generated from rooms, the resulting boundaries may not match the user's intended calculation method. Currently, there is no clear way to simply remove or reapply Area Rules afterward. In many cases, users need to delete the boundaries and recreate them. 3. The status of existing Area Boundaries is difficult to understand After Area Boundaries are placed, users cannot easily tell whether they were created with Area Rules, manually created, or generated from rooms. The status is not clearly visible in Properties. Users need to select the boundary and check its behavior to understand how it is controlled. Improvement Requests Show the Area Rules status in the Area Boundary properties. Show how the Area Boundary was created, such as rule-based, manual, or generated from rooms. Allow users to remove or reapply Area Rules to existing Area Boundaries. Allow Area Rules to be customized by country, region, project, or client standard. The following improvement may be slightly helpful, but it does not address the core issue: Help | Misc Settings in Revit.ini | Autodesk https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/fix-area-rules-with-new-subordinate-area-type/idi-p/11831307 Show More

One would think this would be a simple function since AutoCAD has been able to do it for years; but it would be great if Revit gave the ability to control how the ends and corners of lines work, especially for drafting/model lines. Currently, every single line in Revit is rounded. This is blatantly apparent on thicker lines and makes it look like the drawing was done is MS Paint. Imagine how much better looking and more easily readable drawings could be if the ends and corners of lines had the option to be rounded, squared, filleted, and so on. Especially when one is adding in Fire Resistance linework where all the short dashes turn into dots. If those dashes could remain squared then it might be possible for a thinner line to be used which would help in making the drawings easier to read. Show More

Some parameters, are not shown in Properties Panel even though it is a valid value for the specified element. Ex.: Structural Foundations does not show built in Volume parameter in Properties Panel. So for a rapid value check you need to create a entire schedule, just to see an element Volume value. Structural Columns does not show built in Length parameter in Properties Panel. So for a rapid value check you need again to create a entire schedule, just to see an element Length value.   Every existing parameter should be available in Properties Panel, and if there are too much of them, allow user to select which ones will appear. Show More

Summary Revit locks phases into a fixed chronological order that cannot be changed after creation. Real projects—especially data centers, utilities, and healthcare renovations—frequently require resequencing due to commissioning paths, outage windows, equipment delays, or field conditions. Today, teams must rebuild phases manually, reassign elements, and repair views and schedules. Request: Add a native capability to reorder phases safely and automatically. 🎥 Video Explanation: I walk through this missing feature, why it matters, and how Auto‑Sequence Phasing would work: https://youtu.be/PQb8OvfRn68   Problem “Revit enforces a fixed phase order that cannot be programmatically or interactively reordered after creation.” This causes: Large amounts of rework Broken phase filters, views, and schedules Misalignment between model and real construction sequence Reduced trust in Revit for 4D or execution‑driven workflows   Proposed Solution: Auto‑Sequence Phasing Enable dynamic phase reordering with automated updates to all dependent data. Key Requirements Drag‑and‑drop phase reordering Automatic remapping of Phase Created / Phase Demolished Safe updates to phase filters, view templates, schedules, and sheets Preview/audit mode before committing changes API support for automation Consistent behavior for linked models   Why It Matters This is a core data model limitation, not a workflow tweak. Utilities validate the need; data centers amplify it. Benefits: Eliminates manual phase rebuilds Reduces documentation churn Maintains 4D alignment when sequencing changes Improves as‑built accuracy Expands Revit’s value in sequencing‑driven industries Show More

Request: Include a parameter to extract the length of a sweep.    Problem: Trying to complete a take-off for the length of sealant around uniquely shaped windows. For rectilinear windows, I can do twice the height + width but for arched windows or ellipse, there is not a simple formula. I'm proposing adding a parameter to provide the length of a sweep, such as that used for the window frame. This could be a read-only parameter to provide that info without affecting the family or modeled element.  This could be utilized in other functions like modeled-in-place walls sweeps (needed for sloped sweeps like the cornice on a gable wall).  Show More

One of the biggest sources of error in BIM is manual type naming. A simple yet powerful improvement would be a native Revit feature that allows users to auto-generate Type Names by concatenating selected parameters.   For example, a window type name could be built from: [Width] - [Height] - [Frame Material] → 1200 - 1500 - Alum   This would: Reduce manual errors Enforce consistent naming Make schedules and tags more reliable   Ideally, the Revit template could select 2–3 parameters in the Family Editor or Type Properties dialog, choose a separator, and have Revit build the name automatically.    BIM is only as good as the data we put in — and naming mistakes shouldn't compromise that.   Would love to hear if others see value in this or have workarounds without dynamo work arounds.  Show More

Most things in revit get some sort of auto-generated name like scope boxes or new types. The idea would be to offer something similar for reference planes. Nothing fancy, something like Reference Plane 1 for the first one. Or it could be something like that curly bracket construct as is done with new 3d views. That way these auto-named ref planes could be excluded from showing inside the project browser (that is if that idea ever takes off at all). Show More

In Revit 2024 through 2026, the new Linked Toposolids functionality produces only an approximate representation of published Civil 3D topography surfaces when datasets exceed 50,000 points. This is a significant regression from previous Revit versions.   Using the same Civil 3D dataset, we have compared Revit 2023 Linked Topography (Toposurface) and Revit 2026 Linked Toposolids. Attached imagery clearly demonstrates the geometric discrepancies between the two. The Revit 2023 workflow produced an accurate representation of the source surface, while the current Linked Toposolid implementation does not.   Why this is an issue: An approximate terrain surface is not acceptable for infrastructure projects such as: Bridges Marine structures Transport infrastructure The current behaviour introduces design and construction risk, particularly because: Users may not realise the surface is approximate Levels, set‑out, and clearances may be taken from incorrect geometry On Current projects, our teams are being forced to: Abandon Revit topography workflows entirely, reverting to IFC or DWG‑based workflows. This is a regression in coordination, documentation, and productivity. Maintain legacy software versions (Revit 2023) solely to preserve surface accuracy. This is not sustainable long‑term and risks losing AutoDesk support. Impacts: Increased coordination effort between Civil and Revit models Slower documentation workflows (loss of reliable contours, labels, view templates, etc.) Increased risk to design accuracy and downstream construction outcomes   Idea to Implement: Removing the 50,000 point limitation on Linked Toposolids Reinstating the Revit 2023 Linked Topography (Toposurface) functionality in later Revit versions. Show More

In many real-world refurbishment projects, when a door is removed from an existing wall, the resulting opening is often retained—or filled in a way that differs from the original wall construction. In Revit, however, demolishing an existing door automatically triggers an “infill” behavior that closes up the opening with the original wall type. This is both unrealistic and irreversible, forcing users to accept an unwanted wall patch. In actual practice, once a door is removed, the opening may remain as-is, be filled with a different wall type, or be repurposed in other ways. Having Revit automatically restore the original wall type is counterproductive and does not reflect typical site operations. It also removes the ability to keep a true opening without cumbersome workarounds. Proposed Solution User-Controlled Infill Settings Provide a setting (at either the project or element level) that allows users to choose whether an opening should remain or be automatically infilled when an existing door is demolished. Let users specify which wall type (if any) is used to fill the opening. Flexible Phase Behavior When a door is demolished in the Existing phase, give the user the option to leave the opening intact or fill it with a new wall. If the user wants to keep the opening or place a different wall, Revit should not force the infill to match the original wall type. Better Alignment with Real-World Workflows This change would more closely mirror actual construction processes, saving time and effort in creating workarounds or re-modeling openings. It would also provide clearer phasing documentation and more accurate takeoffs for demolition and new work. By introducing a user-defined or project-wide “Preserve Opening” setting, Revit’s demolition workflow would become more flexible and realistic, significantly improving modeling efficiency for renovation and refurbishment projects. Show More

I would like to suggest an improvement in the interoperability between Civil 3D and Revit, specifically regarding surface exports (by ifc or dwg) and their visualization in Revit. Currently, when surfaces are transferred from Civil 3D to Revit, the triangulation lines remain visible, which negatively impacts model clarity and presentation quality. It would be highly beneficial to have an option to control or suppress the display of triangulation lines in Revit, allowing the surface to appear as a clean, continuous element. Additionally, providing better control over material assignment during or after the import process would significantly improve usability. The ability to easily apply or override materials for imported Civil 3D surfaces in Revit would enhance visualization workflows and reduce the need for workarounds. These improvements would streamline coordination between platforms and result in cleaner, more presentation-ready models within Revit. Show More

As vezes queremos deixar o texto das cotas com uma cor e a linha de outra. Gostaria de poder configurar a cota já com cor de texto separado de cor de linha Show More

Please make all MEP elements visible in plan regions when adjusting View Range. It is illogical that certain categories do not display. Alternatively, add a feature such that Plan regions can have their own model category selections independent of the View settings.   This is driving me nuts. Its been known about since 2025.    Please fix / prioritize for next Revit release.   Thanks.   https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/In-Revit-RCP-views-duct-is-not-visible-inside-plan-regions.html Show More