Hello Revit Community, I would like to share a few ideas for improving the basic operating in Revit. I will present them in this and next posts. Tab button doesn't work in Options Bar: If the user selects a duct and changes width in an Options Bar, he cannot go to the next field with Tab button to change Height, he hast to use mouse to do this. Small request to Autodesk for fixing that. Show More

Hello Revit Community, I would like to share a few ideas for improving the basic operating in Revit. I will present them in this and next posts. Overlapping symbols of size and Rotate function: In Revit 2026 still there  is this irritating problem with with overlapping symbols when clicking pipe or duct fittings. A small request for Autodesk for fixing that.   Show More

Please increase the range to 4 poles. Some of our projects use 4 poles. 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

Please enable the re-ordering and re-grouping of parameters in families.   Right now when I have developped a family, it's completely IMPOSSIBLE to re-organise its parameters. If the family has already been used earlier in a project (or template), you cannot change anything. Or described better; you can change everything in de family itself but when I reload it, the parameters get shuffled in the old groups and order... Could this be fixed, or am I doing something wrong? Show More

Ok, so you want to create one legend and 'add' it to many linked projects?   (i.e. creating a Door Types Legend for a large multi-model project).   The best way to do this would be to create a legend, and then link the legend view into the other projects - but the Linked View feature doesn't work with Legends.   There is no way to do this efficiently in Revit. The existing Linked View feature should be extended to legends.     Show More

I'd like to be able to change the tag appearance depending on the value of what is tagged. Basically, I wish it would be possible to change the appearance of the tag depending on the value of a shared parameter between the tag family and the project. Currently you can display the parameter value on your tag, but you cannot read this value and use it in formulas in th tag family to set the visibility parameter of different things for example.   Show More

In plan views, solar study do not take into account the topography / toposolid for the shadow projection. Instead one has to set up the level  the shading will be projected on "Ground Plane at Level". In hilly sites, this can be quite different if one uses Datum or Ground Level. The latest is obviously never flat. Therefore Shadows end up longer than they should be, while using Datum can make them shorter than they should be. Can programmer please remove the "Ground Plane at Level" box and ensure the shadows in Revit do read the topography? Show More

Hey Revit - Dev Team. Please let us cut all categories with loadable void-families.  Especially the "new" infrastructure categories, Stairs or Project-Families.   As simple as that 😉   Best Regards  Michael   @kimberly_fuhrman-jones I'm not sure if it is the same topic --> I guess the main topic here is to make families cuttable e.g. when I make a section of my building. I want to use Voids for all categories e.g. It is not possible to cut out a void of stairs. Show More

Often times, users will go through a project and set a bunch of "by element" overrides. Then later, a more sophisticated user will apply view templates. Applying view templates in this scenario will not result in consistent view settings, because the "by element" overrides will remain. I think it would be wonderful if; upon applying a view template, the user is prompted to reset ALL "by element" overrides in the view. It would also be nice to just have a button to do this independently of working with view templates. Show More

Hello Revit Community, I would like to share a few ideas for improving the basic operating in Revit. I will present them in this and next posts. Measured distance not readable: There are situations when measuring distance from one point to another the displayed value is hidden through the hint to which point the cursor snapped, and the user cannot read the distance. This should be corrected so that both displayed informations do not have conflict with each other. Such situations force the user to repeat the command and this makes work less productive. Show More

Disallow join ends from multiple selected walls simultaneously. Currently, we must select each wall individually to disallow join endpoints. Show More

I wonder why I never came across this before, but I am currently working on a project that has an aerial image imported into it. Probably to setup the site while waiting for surveyor data. Now I wanted to paste this very same image onto a slab only to find that Revit requires me to find the original find again in order to load it again. Why not offer image data from its own database? Well that would be the idea: Make use of whatever image data is already there. Show More

When modelling Cable Ladder in Revit, the Width parameter refers to the external width of the ladder. Unlike pipework, there is no Internal Width parameter available.   However, in industry standards for cable containment systems—including ladder, tray, and basket—the internal width is the critical dimension, as it defines the cable carrying capacity. The external width is largely irrelevant for engineering and construction purposes.   This limitation in Revit causes significant issues in design, coordination, and construction workflows. Since the Width parameter is the only one available for tagging, scheduling, take offs etc, models built using out-of-the-box families often contain a consistent 50mm error (25mm per ladder wall). As a result, LOD 300 design models frequently require substantial rework and re-coordination at the construction stage to avoid clashes, leading to unnecessary effort and cost.   This is core functionality that already exists for ductwork and pipework, so there’s no technical reason it shouldn’t be extended to cable containment. The default Width parameter should represent internal width, or at minimum, Revit should expose both internal and external width parameters.   Note: I'm aware of the existing workarounds, plugins, and alternative approaches, but all introduce time costs and additional risk. Examples include: Creating a shared parameter for internal width - Only project based, cannot be family based, which must be manually or Dynamo-updated (risk of human error or outdated data) Using manual text parameters (high risk and not recommended). Relying solely on cable tray fittings (not feasible when receiving models from external design teams using default Revit families). Switching to Fabrication MEP containment (our current approach), which requires deleting and remodelling ladders, as Revit does not support conversion from standard to fabrication containment. If you're a design firm then all design teams use the same Fabrication MEP catalog, which is unrealistic. This is a fundamental issue that affects many users and projects. A native solution within Revit would significantly improve accuracy, reduce risk, and streamline workflows across the industry. Show More

Tags have to be FIXED!!! Enough is enough already, FFS! Revit users have be asking, pleaded, and screaming for years, if not decades, for Autodesk to revise and fix the Tags. This includes multi-category, material, keynote, and all other tags where text is involved, when used to tag elements to display text annotations.    Tags should behave and have the same options as text annotations - and improvements - for the following: - horizontal and vertical alignment.  - ability to adjust width, with an actual dimension and not just randomly dragging a grip. The should be added to TEXT annotations as well.  - alignment and placement of leaders - left or right; top, middle or bottom.  - the drag icon ALWAYS at the alignment point of the text - top-left, top-right, middel-center, etc.  - allow send-to-back and bring-to-front graphic display options.    The problems with Tags are numerous, but here are some of the major ones:  - Having users go through the exercise and mental anguish of creating custom tags with invisible lines above and below to get leaders to align with the top line of text, and different widths, is an absurd waste of time.  - having the drag grip at the bottom center of the tag is very problematic, when coupled with not having the ability to send-to-back or bring-to-front, because when annotating details with tags that have multi-line text, the tags and other annotations inevitably overlap and the drag grip will get buried behind other annotations and not be visible or accessible for adjusting the location of the tag.  - In order to have tags with different widths and lines of texts, numerous family types have to be created. Do the math: 2 or 3 different widths (at least) to accommodate the amount of space available on the view, left and right justified, 2 or 3 three different lines of text (at least)... leads to too many family types.  - with the existing tag family, Instance Parameters are not possible, so you cannot create a height parameter to control the amount of lines in the annotation and keep the leader aligned with the center of the top line of text.  - And, YES, it's very important to have to ability to keep the leader aligned with the top line of text. Not just for visual graphic preferences, but to be able to clearly see when tags are overlapping and need to be adjusted.    The concept of tagging with Multi-Category, Material, Keynote and other tags for consistency and ease of changes within a building model is great, but Revit's lack of tagging capability makes annotating a very painful and laborious process. This is a prime example of how Autodesk and the Revit development team have no real world use experience with Revit on a daily basis.    Show More

Hello everyone, I’d like to propose the creation of a new official Revit category for Structural Masonry (Load-Bearing Masonry Walls). Currently, structural masonry elements are typically modeled using generic wall categories, which limits proper data organization, tagging, scheduling, and analysis. I have already developed a category structure aligned with the standard’s requirements, including parameters for strength classes, block types, grout properties, reinforcement configurations, and verification controls. This framework could serve as a solid starting point for Autodesk to integrate Structural Masonry as an official discipline within Revit, similar to how reinforced concrete and steel are treated. This addition would: Improve model coordination and classification according to BIM standards (ISO 19650, NBR 15965). Enable more accurate material takeoffs and structural documentation. Reduce the need for custom shared parameters and workarounds currently required by many firms. I’d be happy to share the proposed category structure and parameters with Autodesk or the community for further discussion and refinement. Best regards, Guilherme Garcia Show More

Intelligent Standards Mapping & Cloud Synchronization for Revit Summary Native Revit tools for intelligent mapping and cloud-based synchronization of graphic standards, materials, families, and other project elements. This would enable efficient model cleanup, standards unification, and consistent quality control across projects. The Problem Current Revit workflows lack efficient tools for: Mapping and replacing non-standard elements during import or cleanup Maintaining consistent standards across multiple projects and templates Managing duplicate or similar elements that vary slightly in naming or properties Synchronizing standards from a single source of truth Transfer Project Standards and third-party tools like Ideate Explorer provide partial solutions but lack intelligent mapping, memory of previous decisions, or cloud-based synchronization. Proposed Solution 1. Intelligent Standards Mapping System Core Functionality: Map graphic styles, materials, line styles, text types, families, and view templates, and more, to approved standards Remember mapping decisions to build automated cleanup routines over time Apply mappings automatically when elements are imported into projects Support multiple mapping profiles (e.g., separate mappings for families vs. projects vs. templates) Key Improvements Over Current Tools: (such as Guardian) Replace, not just rename: When mapping an element to a standard, actually replace it with the correct version from cloud standards (not just rename the non-standard one) Intelligent duplicate detection: AI-assisted identification of similar elements that differ slightly in naming or parameters Smart removal rules: Distinguish between used and unused elements If an element is mapped for removal but is in use → map to correct standard instead If unused → allow removal Prevent accidental deletion of in-use content Exclude system-locked elements from mapping lists to reduce clutter Admin-level control: Restrict mapping configuration to BIM managers/leads while allowing standard users to benefit from automated cleanup Workflow Example: Import a family or link a model Mapping system identifies non-standard elements User reviews suggested mappings (only for new/unrecognized items) Approve changes → mappings are remembered for future imports Over time, imports become nearly automatic with minimal review needed (but always available) 2. Cloud-Based Standards Synchronization Core Functionality: Store complete standards library in Autodesk Construction Cloud (ACC) Sync graphic overrides, view templates, annotation families, line styles, materials, and filters across projects Integration with Content Catalog for family standards Benefits: Single source of truth for company standards Automatic updates when standards are refined Consistency across projects without manual template management Version control for standards evolution Implementation Suggestions: Integrate with Content Catalog as a "Company Standards" partition Support standards collections (e.g., "Healthcare Projects," "Education Projects") that can be mapped to different mapping profiles When syncing standards that reference families (like section heads/tails), automatically pull those families from Content Catalog Use Cases BIM Manager Perspective: Quickly audit and clean up consultant models before linking Establish standards once, apply everywhere Reduce time spent on manual cleanup and QC Project Team Perspective: Import content with confidence that standards are maintained Consistent graphics and annotation across all sheets Less time troubleshooting "why does this look different?" Multi-Office Firms: Synchronize standards across geographic locations Maintain brand consistency while allowing project-specific variations Why This Needs to Be Native to Revit Third-party solutions face limitations: API restrictions prevent true element replacement (can only rename) Security concerns with external cloud storage solutions Limited access to system-level elements and change management Incomplete coverage of all Revit element types Autodesk has the ability to: Access deeper API functionality for true element replacement Leverage existing ACC infrastructure for secure cloud storage Integrate AI for intelligent duplicate detection and similarity analysis Provide enterprise-grade security and IT compliance Additional Considerations This system could evolve to include: AI-powered standards recommendations based on project type Conflict resolution when multiple mapping rules apply Audit trails showing what was changed and when Standards compliance scoring for projects Integration with Revit schedules to identify non-standard elements Conclusion As a BIM manager, the ability to intelligently map and synchronize standards would transform how we maintain model quality and consistency. Current tools get us partway there but are held back by API limitations and security concerns. A native Autodesk solution could set a new standard for BIM quality control and would provide immediate value to firms of all sizes. Having used tools like Guardian, it's clearly a life-changer. With deeper control and more resources, Autodesk could take it from a major useful tool to a total game-changer! Show More

I've posted about this topic before, but I cannot find the topic searching for it.    The bottom line is make it more easy and functional to find and address warnings. The warnings are currently is archaic, counter-productive, not user-friendly, and very frustrating.    Revit's WARNING function is very problematic for project development and delivery - not just a HUGE FRUSTRATION and ANNOYANCE - in that many times the WARNING box will not allow to show the warnings being flagged. It only gives the options to cancel the command or delete the conflicts.    First: not having the ability to show what is being deleted forces us to guess at what Revit is deleting, and then having to recreate the info. This seems to primarily involve Spot Dimensions, Elevations, and Spot Slopes. Now knowing what info is being deleted and then having to guess and recreate it leads to potential lack of information, or misinformation.    Giving us an element id is nearly futile. You cannot select and copy-paste the element id to paste in into a notepad, so you have to type it. and, yes, all this takes excessive extra time that is unnecessary and frustrating, and greatly impacts workflow and productivity. It takes far too much time and mental anguish trying to understand what is being flagged as a warning and trying to resolve it or re-create it.    Second: why are so many minor things - such as spot elevations - being flagged as warnings and not simply updating when a model element is adjusted???!!! In this example, I'm adjust the bottom and top offsets of foundation walls and exterior walls by 1". Why is Revit not updating these spots dim's when the walls are adjusted. PLEASE investigate and improve how Revit deals with such minor changes and annotations. One major intention of BIM and Revit is to have a coordinated model that adjusts when changes are made. This lack of functionality leads to excessive time in reviewing the entire building model and views to ensure the proper info is show and not missed.      Show More

Trying draw Railing for an industrial project. Lets not even go down the road of how cumbersome it is using railing tool.   Now in order to draw railing I was initially using columns, but this gets confusing when creating schedules where the posts(columns) are in a separate schedule and if I create multi-category schedule I cannot easily show the weight as an example as it seems to not show schedule specific items.    I then found out to get vertical framing you draw it horizontally and rotate it 90 deg now its vertical. This would make sense especially from a scheduling point of view that your elements are not in multiple schedules     Show More