We are now on the third version of Revit, 2026, since Toposolids were introduced in 2024, and the tool STILL needs major attention and revisions. Basic functionality and useability is appalling. How is this acceptable???!!! How can Autodesk and the Revit development team make a couple of minor revisions and then parade around with announcements as if they've solved major issues???!!! Toposolids are absolutely PAINFUL to work with because of the lack of basic functionality and useability. It doesn't have to be this way.    To again address some of the basic issues I posted THREE YEARS AGO:  1) when editing points, keep the selected points selected when changing views.  2) Provide the filter tool to be able to filter out the "lines" between points, so that points can be isolated and moved vertically.  3) In 3D view, make the selected points the center of rotating the view, as is typical in 3D views.  4) Provide the ability to specify the spacing of points when creating a Toposolid from imported ACAD files from surveyors and civil. Revit creates points along imported topo lines seemingly randomly, and the resulting toposolds look terrible. Contour lines are jagged are not representative of the actual ground surface.  5) Provide an edit mode "Modify Sub Elements", just the same as is used for "Edit Sketch". Toposolid (and Floors, as all Autodesk did was copy-paste the Floor tool and call it Toposild) are the ONLY tool in Revit that acts this way without having and edit mode. We are accustomed to certain tool functions and using the Escape button to exit commands. Pressing Escape one to many times when Modifying points and inadvertently exiting the Modify mode is infuriating and disruptive to productivity.  6) When adding points, keep the value in the Elevation: input box from the previous command. The value defaults to 0 when the command is exited, and the value has to be added when the command is run again.  7) More tools and functionality needs to be incorporated in Toposolids OOTB so that 3rd party add-ins, such as Environment from Arch-Intelligence, do not have to be purchased just to perform simple topo manipulation. The basic concept of being limited to using points to manipulate and modify contour lines when re-grading a site is archaic, time consuming, tedious, etc.   PLEASE address and fix these issues. This should all be basic functionality and UI programming. The current state of Toposolids is simply not acceptable. Show More

It would be very useful to have room color schemes work in Area plans. In large multi-family projects, we often need to show the Areas (apartment rooms calculated to the shape required by local housing guidelines, not to the wall boundary) of an area plan and the Room (total apartment SF) area on the same plan, and we would like to color them based on the apartment type. In our housing projects, we encourage the use of area plans for all plans since we always need to show 2 layers of information. Having to remake floor plans and lose info when we need to show a color scheme is very frustrating.  Show More

Horsepower is usually listed in fractions. A single schedule could have anywhere from 1/6 HP to 1-1/2 HP to 25 HP and beyond. Fractions need to be appropriately aligned. it is not industry standard to list these otherwise. Show More

When you create a panel schedule it gets named after the "Panel Name" parameter.   If you go and change that name later, the panel schedule name doesn't update.  This is a hassle for experienced users, but it causes SERIOUS confusion for newer users.   Thanks!   Show More

There should be a command that allows the user to make previously split Structural Steel Beams back into 1 singular beam. Lets say I split a W12x26 ten times and continue working on a different part of the project. Now I get redlines from the Engineer that says I only needed to split the beam nine times. Well by this time I've done a bunch of other work and its probably days or weeks later so I can't undo the split. There should be a "Mend" command that rejoins the picked segments into 1 segment. This "Mend" command could also be used on detail lines, line based detail components, columns, and walls. Probably not on Toposolids though.  Please comment if there's already a way to do this.    Show More

Currently linking or importing a PDF into a project is limited to 1 sheet at a time even if the original PDF has multiple sheets.  At my firm we create sheets the shows all the pages for a UL rated assemblies.  Sometimes there PDF's from the UL site can have 15 or more 8.5x11 sheets. I either have to click insert then LINK or IMPORT PDF, pick the pdf, pick which individual page # I want then post that one page, the repeat 14 more times.  My other option is to drag the pdf from my explorer tab on to the page, pick the sheet I want to add, and then do it again, saving a few seconds but still very tedious.  It would be nice if when I LINK or IMPORT the PDF I could pick 1 or more than one sheet that I want.  Revit then could do 1 of 2 things.  Give me a stack of all those inserted PDF's where I can place them off to the side and drag them in place one at a time which I will have to do either way, or they could maybe just be side by side in a big row in the order they were in the PDF.  Either works for me.  Just very frustrating to have to add the pdf pages 1 at a time.  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

Please add quickly the tool to crop any image format inside Revit : Jpeg, PNG, PDF.... This would be a simple but very useful tool to ajust images in sheets, and a very time saving.    Thank you very mutch ! We wait for this from long date in my Architecture company. Vincent Show More

In the material appearance window, I would really like to see an option to quickly modify a texture.    I mean, it would be great to have a few simple sliders there, to adjust brightness, contrast, hue and saturation.  It would also be useful to have an option to mix (blend / fade / tint) the texture with a plain color. (I think some legacy appearences had it, but with some limitations). Currently I think there's only a brightness slider, already set to 100%, which makes it kind of useless (what if I want to make it brighter?).   Usage scenario: As a designer, I usually just want to choose a material appearance asset, that vaguely ressembles to what I'm looking for, then quickly adjust it to have desired color and texture intensity, and that's it - that's really all I need, appearance-wise.    In another words: In most cases, literally almost any wood / concrete / bricks, etc. texture from the default library would be fine, if only we had an option to tweak it simply and quickly, without the need to modify the texture separately in Photoshop, which of course adds a lot of unnecessary and cumbersome steps to a process which in fact could be really simple.           Show More

Civil infrastructure like bridges, tunnels, retaining walls are mostly in complex alignments with multiple spirals, curves, lines. When you need to show longitudinal section of the structure its impossible. We can not make accurate formworks drawings due to that. We can not show rebar distribution in longitudinal section, when element is in any type of curve. When we need to annotate section of any adaptive component, dimensions are snapped to first start or end of the element, not the vie of the section.   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

This image says it all. Right now, only the "Free End" option for leaders allows snapping to the endpoints of the leaders. This should also be a default for "Attached End".    Show More

This should be an easy one. I know something similar has been suggested but nothing was ever implemented. We have the option to select text and convert to all caps, but it would be helpful to be able to toggle all caps (via the highlighted button or similar) within revit so that any text that you input is uppercase. It's been a standard for a long time that annotations are in uppercase.   I have an old habit of looking at the keyboard for the first 5 words or so. This always results in me re-typing those first 5 words, usually when I switch to another program. Revit is literally the only program that I would ever use all caps in.   I know it seems minor to most that read this, but I would be willing to bet that there are a ton of us with this same issue. In the big picture, it is minor, but it seems like it would be an incredibly easy feature to implement for one of the talented engineers at Autodesk.      Show More

Currently in Revit, the leader attachment point for Text Notes (e.g., top-left, middle, bottom-right) does not persist between sessions. While the "Create Similar" tool retains the leader configuration temporarily within the same session, this preference resets to the default center attachment every time Revit is closed and reopened. This requires repetitive manual adjustment for every new text note if a different leader origin is preferred (e.g., always from the top-left corner). This lack of persistence slows down documentation workflows and introduces inconsistency across sheets. Ideally, users should be able to: Set a default leader attachment point (e.g., top-left) for all new Text Notes Save this preference in the Revit.ini, project template, or user interface settings Optionally control this via View Templates or Text Note Types Please consider exposing leader attachment defaults as a configurable setting. It would significantly streamline workflows and eliminate repetitive UI steps. Show More

  Dear Autodesk Revit Development Team, I would like to suggest an enhancement for the Cut Profile tool. Currently, when we use the Cut Profile tool, the lines are drawn with only one default line style. However, in many real-world documentation scenarios, we need to adjust the line style of these profile cuts to match different drafting standards or graphical representations. Unfortunately, the Linework tool does not affect Cut Profile lines, and there is no way to change their style after creating them. Therefore, I strongly recommend adding an option to select a Line Style when drawing or editing a Cut Profile. This would provide more control and flexibility for producing clean, standard-compliant drawings. Thank you for considering this improvement for future versions of Revit. Best regards, GHASEM   Show More

It would be a nice addition to Revit Schedules to have OR filter capabilities similar to what has been added to normal View Filters. This would greatly increase are filtering capabilities, especially when scheduling items from Linked Models. In our case we often generate Revit based drawing lists that include elements from linked models, but often do not want to include items from all linked models. Also reducing the need for Shared Parameters for simple filtering and organization.   View Filter Option added for Filtering Asking for OR option similar to that of view filters Show More

Add a current phase option to the Select All feature for when the change only applies to one phase of the project. Show More

The Revit Issue Add-in is a great idea for collaborating on models using ACC. You can view issues created by other users directly in Revit, which helps you resolve them or simply improves communication. As I mentioned, the concept is excellent — but the practical use in 2D is limited. You can view and create issues in 3D, which is great for coordination, but not precise enough for creating project documentation. That’s where 2D would be ideal. Unfortunately, you can’t create issues in 2D views, which defeats the main purpose of the Revit Issue Add-in. You still have to open a web browser to create those issues, which goes against the core idea of the add-in — allowing Revit users to manage issues without leaving the software (or at least not as often). I believe that the ability to create issues directly in 2D views would be appreciated by a large number of users, and without this feature, I don't consider the add-in to be complete. Show More