When creating a PDF while using the PDF Export function, it'd be nice if there was an option to automatically open the PDF that was just created. 显示更多

It would be nice if it were possible for once to let a void in a model in place family cut through all families and have it cut through all other objects. Currently, it is often so unclear how to create a cutout somewhere, which leads to considerable frustration. It surprises me that this is still so difficult in Revit after all these years.   I often create a model-in-place solid and then cut it through the families. Why doesn't this work with a void of a model-in-place?   显示更多

The Revit API provides a method to get the phase mapping of a revit link via https://apidocs.co/apps/revit/2027/4d322c11-c2b3-a096-4f10-3b23c9112308.htm# Setting it however is still not possible. but it is a must for complex, long running projects. Please.   显示更多

At the end of 2026, Autodesk continues to release a new version of Revit every year. Our computers' performance is incredible, but Revit remains extremely laggy. The GPU is barely used, and nothing seems optimized. There’s a lot of talk about this. In every conversation about performance, the same advice keeps coming up: reduce details, split your file so it's not too big, purge, don't use IFC files, no DWG or PDF, etc. But actually, no, the problem lies with you, Autodesk. Projects are getting bigger, and the required details are increasing. It's not up to the users to adapt to the software (well, only to a certain extent). It's up to the software to adapt to the reality of the market. You have a monopoly, you charge a fortune for useless subscriptions and version updates, while blocking backward compatibility. In any other industry, you would have had a lawsuit for abuse of a dominant position slapped on you a long time ago.   Even though it's unrelated, a workstation with recent CPUs and GPUs like the ones we all have can run video games costing 50 €/$ with ultra-detailed graphics, calculating thousands of interactions, lights, physics, etc. And Revit, costing 400€ per month, can't even animate two cubes at the same time at 60 fps. Let's not even talk about a detailed building. Let's not talk about the slowness in creating a simple section or opening a simple view. Every action, every click is slow.   It's 2026, we're approaching 30 years of software development, and absolutely nothing has changed, or it has even gotten worse over time. May this post be massively upvoted, stay at the top of the list, and may the users/customers discontent become their priority. Rather than giving us a new icon and moving the options bar in the ribbon that everyone couldn't care less about.   Make your software work.   Thank you for reading. 显示更多

When hovering over an element, you learn its workset, family, category and type. Good. Why not also show its id? That is the idea. Like this perhaps:   显示更多

When initiating a new project for cloud worksharing, you select a hub, a project and a folder. Inside the folder, you only get to see other revit files already initiated for cloud worksharing. You happily hit save, see some progress window popping up - which does not run through but leaves you with an error message. In my case the file I was about to make cloud savvy had already been dragged and dropped into the folder in question. The idea is to show all files in a folder no matter whether they are appropriate or not. Those dumb files could be shown in a strike through decoration, just to show these names are not available anymore.   显示更多

More advanced and modular View Templates I would like to have more advanced options for setting up and managing View Templates in Revit. At the moment, View Templates work well for controlling the general appearance and settings of a view. However, they become limiting when the same type of view needs to be displayed differently depending on the context. For example, I might create a View Template for a Construction Plan. This template would define all the general settings for construction drawings, such as visibility, detail level, graphic settings, annotation settings, etc. However, imagine a project where the building consists of three separate sections. I may want to create construction plans where the active section is shown normally, while the other two sections are displayed in halftone. Currently, this would require me to create three separate View Templates: Construction Plan – Section 1 Construction Plan – Section 2 Construction Plan – Section 3 The problem is that these templates are almost identical. The only difference is which section is displayed normally and which sections are shown in halftone. This becomes particularly problematic when the general construction plan settings need to change. If, for example, I want to change how certain categories are displayed, I would have to update all three View Templates individually.   What I would like instead I would like View Templates to support a more modular or layered approach. For example, I could have: View Template: Construction Plan General construction plan settings Visibility/Graphics Detail Level Discipline Annotation settings General graphic settings And separately: View Template: Section 1 Section 1 shown normally Section 2 shown halftone Section 3 shown halftone These could then be combined, so that the final view effectively uses: Construction Plan + Section 1 The same Section 1 template could then be applied to any view where Section 1 needs to be the primary focus, regardless of whether it is a construction plan, ceiling plan, reflected ceiling plan, etc. Likewise, the general Construction Plan template could be used consistently across all construction plans.   Why this would be valuable This would make View Templates much more maintainable and consistent. If I change the general construction plan settings, I would only need to change the Construction Plan template once. That change would automatically affect all views using that template, regardless of which building section they are displaying. Likewise, if I change how the sections are graphically separated, I would only need to change the relevant section template. This would avoid having multiple almost-identical View Templates and would make it much easier to maintain consistent drawing standards across larger projects. Essentially, I would like to be able to separate "what type of drawing is this?" from "what part of the building am I focusing on?" The first would be controlled by one View Template, while the second would be controlled by another. These settings could then be combined or layered to create the final view. This would make View Templates significantly more flexible and scalable, especially on projects with multiple building sections, phases, disciplines, or other recurring graphical variations.   Alternative: More advanced filter logic Another possible solution would be to make View Filters significantly more advanced, for example by introducing conditional logic such as IF/ELSE statements. A parameter could be added to the view itself, for example: View Section = Section 1 The filter logic could then use this parameter to determine how elements should be displayed. For example: IF View Section = Section 1 → Section 1 shown normally, Sections 2 and 3 halftone IF View Section = Section 2 → Section 2 shown normally, Sections 1 and 3 halftone IF View Section = Section 3 → Section 3 shown normally, Sections 1 and 2 halftone This would allow the same Construction Plan View Template to be used for all three views, while the view-specific parameter determines which section receives the normal graphical representation.     The key point is that the user should not have to create multiple almost-identical View Templates just because one small part of the graphical representation needs to change.   显示更多

Issue IFC Export Incorrect Storey Assignment for Linked Block Model Issue Description We are encountering incorrect storey assignment when exporting IFC from a block model that contains linked Revit unit models. Scenario: - A typical unit model is created with levels named:   - "Ref Base"   - "Ref Top" - This unit model is linked into a block model which uses actual project storey levels:   - "1st Storey"   - "2nd Storey"   - "3rd Storey" Observed Issue: - Wall elements originating from the linked unit model retain their original level assignment:   Location > Storey = "Ref Base" - Instead of being mapped to the host block model level (e.g., "1st Storey") This results in incorrect spatial hierarchy in the exported IFC. Expected Result - Elements from linked models should inherit or map to the host model storey (block model level) - IFC spatial structure should reflect:   Project → Site → Building → Storey (e.g., 1st Storey) - Required for proper coordination and IFC-SG compliance   Actual Result - Linked model elements retain original internal level names ("Ref Base") - Incorrect Storey assignment in IFC spatial hierarchy   Conclusion   Revit is preserving authoring-level relationships rather than building-level spatial relationships. For modular residential workflows, the host block model represents the authoritative project spatial structure, while linked unit model levels are merely internal references used for content creation.   The exported IFC correctly preserves source model level assignments but does not correctly represent the physical spatial containment of elements within the host building storey hierarchy.   显示更多

Please add a global setting for admins to block the ability to exclude objects from groups. There should optionally or additionally be an instance option to enable the ability to exclude members in a group instance. I'm a BIM manager, and I see how often people accidentally delete elements from a group. So often. This is not a feature that is often used. It's rarely used, while excluded elements happen on our project constantly and create issues. It creates more problems than it helps to resolve.  显示更多

When synching to a central model, users are asked to leave a comment. This field is mostly left blank. If this is the second time you run into this prompt, because something went wrong the first you tried, chances drop even more that a comment entry will be made. The idea is to make use of revit's internal log that feeds the undo command. In its menu, you get to see the sequence of edits you performed on your model. The last n characters of this log could provide a useful comment or at least more useful than nothing at all. This premade comment would then be already selected when the sync dialogue pops up, ready to be overwritten by the first user key stroke. That is unless that key stroke is enter. The figure n could be a number picked from the revit.ini file, be held somewhere in the options right next to the number backup files or both. Commands like "Modus Verdeckte Elemente anzeigen ein/aus" could be exempt from the process - as they would not survive reloading anyway.  显示更多

Current behaviour When Revit decides whether to display an element in a view, it tests all family geometry against the View Range — including geometry that is not modelled: symbolic lines, masking and filled regions, text. As a result, 2D graphics extending beyond the outline of the element's solid geometry cause the element to appear in views that its actual geometry does not reach at all. With symbolic lines this is confirmed: removing them from the family stops the element from appearing in a level where it does not belong. Autodesk has also confirmed the underlying mechanism on these forums — adding a line to a family changes its bounding box. Typical case A family contains a symbolic marker drawn in two planes so that it is legible both in plan and in section. When the element is rotated 90° around a horizontal axis, the vertical plane of the marker stands upright, crosses the floor above and the element starts to appear in the plan view of the upper level — even though its solid geometry is entirely within the level below. The drawing then shows an element that is not physically there. This is not limited to one category. Any family with symbolic graphics extending beyond the outline of its solid geometry behaves the same way. Request Whether an element falls within a view should be determined solely by its modelled geometry. Anything that is not modelled and serves only for annotation should not enter this calculation. This does not have to apply everywhere The current behaviour is deliberately used as a workaround — an invisible line is added to a family so that it reaches the cut plane and the element becomes visible in plan. That workaround must keep working. Revit already treats categories differently in this respect: only Windows, Casework and Generic Models are shown above the cut plane. Extending that principle would be enough — let the behaviour be defined per category, or as an option on the geometry itself, so that each family type can be set to whatever makes sense for it. Nothing existing would break. 显示更多

When I start Revit I turn off "Recommended for you" and I turn on filter to show models only. After restarting Revit those settings are forgotten and everything is at default. I don't want to see "recommendations", ever! 显示更多

Hello, If I want to open a file just to read, it is not possible. I actually only need to look at the project, make a few cuts here and there, and check the drawing, but I do not intend to change anything. Our draftsman updates the plans. In Autodesk AutoCAD you can open this as 'read-only'. Can you arrange this here as well?   显示更多

Let me register the following request based on a customer feedback from DACH. Currently the VG dialog/ Imported Categories may point so such dwg data that are embedded in specific Families. The idea would be to give better indication here about the host/ root element of the actual data (in this case family) to be able to find the refrences easier. So if a dwg layer is placed within a family, than list the imported category under the specific family within the VG/ Imported Categories, 显示更多

I like to share imported IFC files directly in Shared Views.  显示更多

When editing annotations, these often come showing multiple values of the same type. Length, Width and Height spring to mind. The really whoopy idea is, why does not revit offer to put the format the user just adjusted to use for all other parameter of the same type? The users can always refuse. 显示更多

Current revit 2027's family editor window title will tell you that you are using Autodesk revit 2027 - your family filename - view type and view name. Would it not be great if the currently edited family type were mentioned as well? I find that beneficial and this is the idea. @autodesk you could try this out in a dot release, preferably 2022, and see whether somebody takes notice. 显示更多

When editing annotations to accomodate a new set of shared parameters, you often just substitute an old parameter with its new version. This needs to be done by adding the new parameter, move it up to where its previous version was or is and then you continue to add prefixes, suffixes, line breaks and the occasional format adjustment. This idea is to allow to mark one parameter on the right and substitute it with one on the left. If the parameter on the right just marks a position for the new parameter to insert (as it would in schedules), we would need another symbol for the substituting feature. 显示更多

There is currently no dedicated workflow or design workspace in Revit for substation and HVDC modeling. Critical components such as flexible conductors, busbars, power cables, clamps, connectors, and associated hardware must be modeled using generic tools, resulting in inefficient workflows and limited design intelligence.   Introduce a dedicated Substation/HVDC design toolset with purpose-built tools and intelligent families for flexible conductors, busbars, cables, clamps, connectors, and related electrical infrastructure components. A vertical-specific workspace would streamline modeling, improve accuracy, and better support the requirements of transmission and substation projects.   显示更多