Bonjour à tous, J'aimerais proposer des améliorations du MEP. Il faudrait plus de liberté que ce soit la position et l'orientation des éléments ou la gestion des brides et des soudures du routage. Pouvoir mettre facilement des brides au niveau des accessoires de canalisation et pas aux coudes par exemple car pour le moment c'est tout ou rien. Pouvoir pivoter n'importe comment un Té ou un accessoire autour de l'axe de sa tuyauterie pour se raccorder sur n'importe quel tuyau provenant d'une autre direction. Enfin améliorer la gestion des petits angles qui mettent des messages d'erreur au lieu d'un coude faiblement cintré. Dans un milieu industriel ou les routages se croisent et se complexifient ces points me semblent essentiels. Show More

Bonjour à tous,   Je propose une idée d’amélioration des images : - Pouvoir bénéficier de la fonction "position enregistrée" comme pour les vues. I am proposing an improvement idea for images: - Provide the "Save Orientation/Position" feature for images, just like we have for views. Show More

Bonjour à tous, Je propose une idée d’amélioration des images : - Donner la possibilité de pouvoir recadrer les images. - Pouvoir bénéficier de la fonction "position enregistrée" comme pour les vues.   I am proposing an improvement idea for images: - Give the ability to crop images. - Provide the "Save Orientation/Position" feature for images, just like we have for views. Show More

Bonjour à tous Je propose une idée d’amélioration de l’outil aligner. Il pourrait être pratique que cet outil puisse fonctionner sur les vues quand on se trouve dans une vue dans une feuille de présentation.   I am proposing an improvement idea for the align tool. It would be very practical if this tool could work on views when we are located inside a view within a presentation sheet. Show More

Hi! We use the "Visible in Option" parameter frequently for our setups and showing correct documentation per view. However, this parameter only applies to Floor Plans, Sections, but not Elevations. It would be fantastic if this view applied to all types of views.   Thanks for the consideration! Show More

I often use "duplicate as dependent" to make plan views of different areas of the building but edit one big plan. Every time I do this though, I have to drag crop region lines from way out in the boonies. Could I draw a rectangle instead? Show More

Loading families into a project can be hard when the files are named somewhat randomly or come from different localization. This idea would be to introduce an interpretation mechanism on loading families, so that the app might offer something like 'The file you selected is a generic model, would you like me to (try and) turn it into a door family?'. This dialogue could be acknowledged by users with Yes, No (continue selection), Load anyway or Cancel. To stick with the example, this conversion could mention that the newly generated door from a generic model family needs consideration with its opening sketch. Show More

Restore the ability to resize duct, pipe, conduit, and cable tray runs along with their fittings using the Modify Multi-Select ribbon. Previous versions of Revit allowed users to select connected segments and fittings and modify their sizes simultaneously. In Revit 2027, users must resize the straight segments and fittings separately, adding unnecessary steps to a common MEP workflow. Reinstating this functionality would improve efficiency and provide a more consistent editing experience for MEP designers and engineers. Show More

Problem In landscape architecture projects, Toposolid Subdivisions are often used to represent the actual surface types of a site, such as: Asphalt Gravel Concrete paving Flower meadow Lawn Planting areas Currently, Toposolids and Toposolid Subdivisions belong to separate categories and cannot be scheduled together in a single area takeoff. This creates significant quantity management problems. Example Site area: 2,000 m² Subdivisions: Asphalt: 300 m² Gravel: 150 m² Lawn: 350 m² Remaining area: Flower meadow: 1,200 m² Today, Revit cannot automatically report these values in one schedule. Users must either: Schedule only the subdivisions and calculate the remaining area manually outside Revit. Schedule the host Toposolid and subdivisions separately, which results in double-counted areas. Use external calculations, spreadsheets, or custom workflows. This makes Toposolid Subdivisions difficult to use for reliable landscape quantity takeoffs and cost estimation. Proposed Solution Provide a way to schedule Toposolids and Subdivisions together. Possible approaches: Option 1 – Net Host Area Add a parameter that reports: Net Host Area = Toposolid Area − Sum of Subdivision Areas This would allow the host Toposolid to represent the remaining surface type automatically. Option 2 – Unified Surface Schedule Allow Toposolids and Toposolid Subdivisions to appear in the same schedule category. This would enable a complete surface takeoff directly from Revit. Option 3 – Surface Material Takeoff Introduce a dedicated site surface quantity schedule that automatically reports all surface types regardless of whether they are represented by a host Toposolid or a subdivision. Benefits Accurate landscape quantity takeoffs Better cost estimation Reduced manual calculations Reduced risk of quantity errors Improved BIM workflows for landscape architecture Better adoption of Toposolid Subdivisions in production projects Currently, Toposolid Subdivisions are powerful for modelling, but their usefulness for quantity takeoff is limited because areas cannot be reported in a complete and reliable way. Show More

Problem Toposolid Subdivisions are a promising tool for modelling roads, paths, plazas, lawns, planting areas and other landscape elements. However, subdivision boundaries currently do not influence the triangulation of the host Toposolid. When creating a subdivision, Revit does not automatically generate elevation control points or breaklines along the subdivision boundary. As a result: Terrain triangulation remains uncontrolled. Surface transitions are often inaccurate. Additional manual points must be placed throughout the model. Unexpected triangulation artefacts occur. Precise grading workflows become difficult or impossible. Example A common landscape architecture workflow is modelling a path with a defined cross slope and longitudinal slope. The path edges represent critical design lines that should control the terrain geometry. Today, subdivision boundaries do not act as terrain control lines. Users must manually add many elevation points to force the desired surface behaviour, which becomes increasingly difficult on larger projects. Current Limitation Subdivision boundaries are only geometric boundaries. They do not function as: Breaklines Feature lines Grade control lines Triangulation constraints This limits the usefulness of Toposolids for detailed landscape and site design. Proposed Solution Allow subdivision boundaries to participate in terrain triangulation. Possible implementation options: Option 1 – Automatic Breaklines Every subdivision boundary automatically acts as a breakline. The triangulation must respect the boundary geometry. Option 2 – User-Controlled Setting Add a property: "Use Boundary as Breakline" which can be enabled or disabled for each subdivision. Option 3 – Dedicated Terrain Control Lines Introduce a new Toposolid element similar to Feature Lines in Autodesk Civil 3D. These lines would: Control triangulation Carry elevation information Define edges of pavements, walls, swales and grading features Benefits More predictable terrain modelling Reduced manual point placement Better grading accuracy Better road and path modelling Better landscape architecture workflows Improved site design documentation Reduced modelling time Why This Matters Landscape architects often use subdivision boundaries to represent the most important design elements of a site: Path edges Pavement edges Retaining walls Swales Planting boundaries Grade transitions These boundaries already contain the design intent. Allowing them to act as breaklines would significantly improve the practical usability of Toposolids for real-world landscape architecture projects. Existing Autodesk Precedent Autodesk has already demonstrated the value of breakline-based terrain modelling in Autodesk Civil 3D, where Feature Lines and Breaklines are fundamental tools for creating accurate and predictable terrain surfaces. Bringing a simplified version of this capability into Revit Toposolids would significantly improve site and landscape workflows while allowing users to remain within the Revit environment. This would help close one of the most important gaps between conceptual terrain modelling and production-ready landscape design in Revit Show More

I recently found out that it is not possible to register an updater at the document level, EVEN THOUGH there is an API method that claims to do this: RegisterUpdater(IUpdater, Document) Registers the updater for a specified document, which means the updater can only be triggered by changes made in that document.   But as Jeremy Tammik says in this earlier post: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-api-forum/register-updater-multiple-documents/m-p/9592248/highlight/true#M33512   It is incorrect to register an updater multiple times for each open document.   I am dealing with issues where an updater will be triggered from some other open document, even though every updater is supposedly registered to a single document using the method above. The triggers also are only added to each document separately.   It is unbelievable to me that this has not been addressed already. This is crucial for getting updaters to work properly.   Show More

When making a parameter for a Revit family in the Revit family editor I would like to have a way to select if the end user of the RFA will be able to choose for themselves if all parameters in a given set of parameters will have the same value.   In the situation all parameters will not have the same value allow the user to enter each of the values independently.   Conversely If all parameters will have the same value allow the user to enter in any one parameter and all the others populate automatically.   I know that we can work around this by generating different RFAs or RFA types with each data entry style. But I believe implementing it would be helpful and could minimize the quantity of RFAs and their management in our library. Show More

Bonjour à tous Intégration native des profils verticaux (reliefs/creux) dans les types de murs et toitures   Description : Actuellement, Revit permet d'intégrer des profils (en relief ou en creux) directement dans la structure d'un type de mur, mais cette fonctionnalité est strictement limitée à une orientation horizontale en vue en coupe. Pour représenter fidèlement une façade en bardage métallique ondulé (sinusoïdal ou trapézoïdal) ou un bardage bois vertical, nous sommes contraints d'implanter manuellement les profils en relief ou en creux verticaux, un par un, ou d'utiliser des solutions de contournement complexes (comme les murs-rideaux). C'est une manipulation fastidieuse, chronophage et inefficace pour la gestion de la maquette.   Solution proposée : Implémenter une fonctionnalité native dans la fenêtre Modifier le type (Composition de la couche) des murs et des toitures permettant d'intégrer des profils horizontaux ET verticaux directement liés aux couches de matériaux. Cette logique existe déjà en partie pour les dalles, où l'on peut attribuer un profil à une couche pour simuler un bac acier (plancher collaborant). Il serait pertinent d'étendre ce fonctionnement aux outils Murs et Toitures, afin qu'une couche de finition puisse générer automatiquement une géométrie de profil sur l'ensemble de la surface. Native Vertical Sweeps and Reveals inside Wall and Roof Type Assemblies   Description: Currently, Revit allows users to add profiles (Sweeps and Reveals) natively within the structure of a Wall Type, but this functionality is strictly limited to horizontal orientations in section view. When designing architectural facades with vertical corrugated metal cladding (such as sinusoidal or trapezoidal profiles) or vertical timber cladding, we are forced to place Vertical Wall Sweeps or Reveals manually, one by one, or use complex workarounds (like curtain walls). This process is tedious, time-consuming, and inefficient for model management. Proposed Solution: Implement a native feature within the Edit Assembly dialog of Wall and Roof types to incorporate both horizontal and vertical profiles directly into the material layers. This solution already partially exists for Floors, where we can specify a structural profile layer to represent a composite steel deck. A similar workflow should be introduced for Walls and Roofs, allowing a finish layer (such as cladding) to automatically drive a specific profile geometry across the entire surface Show More

Reading another idea to automatically change an new element's workset to something visible, I wonder whether it would not be a good idea to visually hint that the current workset is not currently visible. Well so here it is: Yellow and black ant line around view to show current workset is off. Show More

Can we have a simple toggle somewhere that lets us only show sheet numbers and not Sheet Number + Sheet Title while in revit. This would allow us to have more windows open when working through sheets in a set. I know what's on the sheet, I only need the number typically. Show More

Dear Autodesk Team,   My name is Edoardo Bernardi, BIM Manager supporting multidisciplinary teams working with complex linked and nested‑link Revit environments. I would like to submit a concise feature request that could greatly streamline datum management across coordinated models. Currently, Grids, Levels, and Reference Planes do not offer an "Attachment/Overlay" visibility behavior similar to model links. As a result, users must manually control their visibility—either by turning them off in each link or by managing dedicated worksets. While worksets provide a more structured approach, both methods still require repetitive manual adjustments, especially in projects with deep nested linking. Introducing an Attachment/Overlay property for datum elements would align their behavior with link visibility logic and allow teams to standardize workflows such as: setting datum elements to "Attachment" in the URS (host) model; setting them to "Overlay" in all other linked models. This would automate visibility across nested links, reduce manual overrides, and improve consistency in coordination views, without replacing existing workset‑based strategies. I believe this enhancement would be highly beneficial for BIM Managers and coordination teams working in multi‑file, multi‑disciplinary environments. Thank you for your attention. Kind regards, Edoardo Bernardi BIM Manager Show More

r25.4_I have pasted an image showing the designated BCF manager and some settings on to a project's landing page. Now - having recently been issued a new machine - I found the very same piece to be missing. So in order to use that same picture in an email to the IT department to install it for me, I selected the image and hit control C - only to find that is functionality is not there. Change that. Show More

There should be an option to show the duct and pipe drop/rise symbols ONLY for ducts and pipes that are being cut. Same goes for their line weights. As the architect, it's helpful to see and understand which risers are which via the symbols, but I definitely don't want to see the drop/rise symbols at every change in elevation. The ductwork is often just faded into the background of RCP's, but in doing so, it lacks the graphic cue that one of those rectangles is a riser that's going floor to ceiling. Show More

I am going through our custom RFAs and would like to get a schedule of elements within the RFA that is only visible within the Revit Family Editor.   This will help with standardizing the build and nomenclature of the RFA elements.   Hope this is a possibility. Show More