Hi, we are using Revit 2027.2, and our projects are managed as Cloud Models on Autodesk Forma. Being able to view Issues created from clash detection results in the Forma Model Coordination environment directly within Revit would significantly accelerate the coordination and revision processes for designers. While the Issues panel under the Collaborate tab in Revit is expected to support this workflow, the fact that Issues created through Model Coordination cannot be displayed there represents a significant gap in the current workflow. The ability to view Issues in Revit only when they are created from certain sources limits the efficiency of the coordination process carried out within a shared cloud platform. As Autodesk encourages the integrated use of its different platforms, we hope that the Issue integration between Forma Model Coordination and Revit will be improved, enabling a more seamless and efficient workflow for design and coordination teams. Show More

Many MEP fabrication projects require a large number of Fabrication Services and Palettes. This makes it difficult for end users to manually find and select the correct content in the Fabrication Part Browser. We would like the Revit API to provide methods to: Set the active Fabrication Service programmatically Set the active Fabrication Palette programmatically Read the currently selected Service and Palette from the Fabrication Part Browser   Use Case Our company uses a large number of Fabrication Services for different media, installation methods, materials, and company standards. Instead of requiring users to manually navigate through the Fabrication Part Browser, we want to create a guided workflow in an add-in. The user answers a few predefined questions, such as: Medium (Heating, Cooling, Domestic Water, Ventilation, etc.) Installation method Material System type Based on these answers, the add-in should automatically select the correct Fabrication Service and Palette. Current Limitation According to Autodesk Developer Support, there is currently no public Revit API that allows applications to reliably read or control the active Service or Palette selection in the Fabrication Part Browser. The existing browser change events also do not cover all user workflows.  Benefit Providing API access to the active Fabrication Service and Palette would enable developers to create guided content selection workflows, reduce user errors, simplify training, and improve productivity in fabrication-based projects with large content libraries. Show More

I have been using Revit for a long time and regularly export drawings to PDF for review, quantity takeoff, and measurement in applications such as Bluebeam Revu. Although Revit supports PDF export up to 600 DPI, the PDF can become pixelated when zoomed beyond approximately 600%, making it difficult to accurately snap to corners, endpoints, and other geometry during detailed review and quantity calculations. I would like to request the Revit team to consider enhancing PDF export by combining high-quality vector and raster processing—preserving Revit linework, text, dimensions, and geometry as true vectors while using high-resolution raster processing for shaded views, images, and other raster content. An enhanced High Quality / Precision PDF Export option with better vector fidelity would significantly improve high-zoom workflows in Bluebeam and other PDF applications, while maintaining reasonable file sizes. This enhancement would greatly benefit AEC professionals involved in drawing review, QA/QC, quantity takeoff, estimation, and construction documentation. Note: I have attached one PDF file i have created. Show More

When you delete a line item within the filters section of the schedule properties window, Revit will delete all the filters below the one you select.  I want Revit to retain those filters below the one I removed.  It currently does not allow this in 2026/2027 and older. Show More

Allow Rebar to be Used Inside Loadable Families as Parametric Reinforcement I would like to propose a new capability in Revit that allows Rebar to be used inside Loadable Families as fully parametric and interactive reinforcement. For example, a structural column family could contain its reinforcement definition. A column type could have 4 main bars of 16 mm diameter, 8 mm stirrups, a defined spacing, anchorage length, and stirrup shape. These reinforcement elements should remain native Rebar elements and should be controlled by family parameters. If the column dimensions or family parameters change, the reinforcement should automatically update its position, distribution, and geometry. I tried to achieve this workflow using Nested Families, but Rebar cannot currently be used as a normal Nested Family component. This limitation forces structural modelers to work in multiple stages. First they model the structural element, then they model the reinforcement, and later they modify the reinforcement whenever the structural element changes. With this capability, the structural element and its reinforcement could be modeled as one intelligent parametric family. For example, a reinforced column family could contain the column geometry and its reinforcement rules. Changing the column height would automatically update the reinforcement distribution. Changing the column width or depth would automatically update the stirrup geometry and reinforcement constraints. The main benefit would be reducing repetitive modeling work and saving significant modeling time. Instead of modeling the structural element first and reinforcement as a separate process, users could define the reinforcement once and reuse the same reinforced family throughout the project. This would be especially useful for columns, beams, walls, foundations, footings, pile caps, and repetitive structural systems. The reinforcement should remain native Rebar and continue to support scheduling, quantities, documentation, visibility, clash detection, and project coordination. This feature would enable a new workflow in Revit: Parametric Reinforced Families. Model once, define reinforcement rules, and reuse everywhere. Show More

Revit allows users to insert schedules from other Revit models and reuse their schedule setup and formatting. However, this workflow is limited when the source model is a Revit Cloud Model hosted on Autodesk Construction Cloud and the source model is not open. I would like to propose the ability to select a Revit Cloud Model and transfer a schedule to the current model without opening the source model. The transferred schedule should preserve its complete configuration, including fields, filters, sorting, grouping, formatting, calculated values, headers, footers, conditional formatting, schedule appearance, and Filter by Sheet settings. For example, a company may have a standard Cloud Model containing approved schedules with predefined company standards. Users should be able to select this model, select a schedule, and transfer the complete schedule configuration into the current project. The proposed workflow would be: Select Cloud Model Select Schedule Transfer Schedule Configuration Use the Schedule in the Current Model This would be especially useful for BIM teams managing multiple projects on Autodesk Construction Cloud. The goal is to transfer not only the schedule data, but also the complete schedule definition and formatting so that it can be reused as a BIM standard. This feature would reduce repetitive setup work and make schedule management across Revit Cloud projects much more consistent and efficient. 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

Currently in all Revit versions, anyone can use the Move command, with Disjoin option checked, to move and unpin any pinned model elements silently without any warnings. This does NOT align with Revit Help Documentation which states "when a modeling element is pinned, it cannot be moved. To move or delete it, the element must first be unpinned using the pushpin control."   This defect often causes pinned/protected model elements to be unexpectedly moved, unpinned, and potentially deleted. There is an old post from 2021 already talked about this issue.  https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-architecture-forum/move-command-moves-pinned-elements/m-p/10745795#M96126   This introduces a big loophole in the project production workflow, and could cause rework and confusion in model submission. It also adds unnecessary challenges to the Digital Project Delivery workflow.    I highly recommend Autodesk Revit team fix this issue asap.  Show More

Please add more information to the tags than just Elevation from Level. Level Name and Elevation are also missing. These values should be pulled directly from the Scheduled Level parameter. This information should be available in all tag types, including Multi-Category Tags. Show More

In previous releases of Revit there was an options bar that automatically appeared when modeling piping. Here, you could type in the diameter, elevation, and hit apply a few times to easily create risers with all options being conveniently right next to each other. With the new release of Revit 2027, I asked the AI assistant how to make this menu appear and it said this feature was intentionally removed. Could this be added back in? I feel like it made life much easier.  Show More

Currently, the Reset to Crop command always resets Grid and Level extents to the Model Crop Region. Although the Annotation Crop Offset can be adjusted numerically, Datum Elements (Grids and Levels) completely ignore the Annotation Crop and always extend to the Model Crop Region. I understand that Datum Elements are intentionally associated with the Model Crop because they are not purely annotation elements. Autodesk Technical Support has already confirmed that this is the current intended behavior after consulting the internal team. However, this request is not asking to change how Datum Elements work. Instead, I am requesting an optional documentation workflow enhancement that would allow users to choose which crop boundary should be used when executing Reset to Crop. Suggested Implementation When using Reset to Crop, provide an additional option such as: Reset Datum Extents To: Model Crop (Current Behavior) Annotation Crop (New Option) or alternatively, add a View Property: Datum Extents Reference Model Crop Annotation Crop This would work in a similar way to how Grid Extents can already be switched between 2D and 3D. Why This Is Important Architectural documentation frequently relies on: Enlarged Plans Callout Views Dependent Views Detail Plans In these views, the Annotation Crop usually represents the desired drawing composition rather than the Model Crop. Currently, Grid and Level extents must be manually adjusted in nearly every enlarged view because Reset to Crop ignores the Annotation Crop. Providing this optional setting would: Reduce repetitive manual work Produce cleaner documentation Improve drawing presentation Speed up sheet preparation Improve BIM documentation workflows Most importantly, this enhancement would remain fully backward compatible, since the existing behavior could remain the default option. Testing Performed The current behavior has been verified in: Revit 2025 Revit 2026 Brand-new blank projects Floor Plans Callout Views 2D Grid Extents In every case, Reset to Crop always follows the Model Crop Region and never the Annotation Crop. Final Note This Idea is not requesting any change to the fundamental behavior of Datum Elements. It simply proposes an optional documentation feature that would allow users to decide whether Reset to Crop should reference the Model Crop or the Annotation Crop. This small enhancement would significantly improve documentation efficiency while preserving the existing Revit workflow for all current users. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Show More

I always forget what the current WorkPlane is and i model elements 3 stories up or 5 levels down from my current plan view. And of course i can't see them, since the the current Workplane is not my current plan view. It would be so helpful to read the name of the current WorkPlane on the Status Bar !!! And the WorkPlane's name should be green colored while the current Workplane matches the current plan view, yellow if is visible in the current view but id doesn't match the current plan view, and red colored if the WorkPlane is not visible in the current view. Show More

Change Detail Level by Filter.   When creating a filter, allow a different detail level to be applied based on filter. Show More

In detail views, I often find myself drafting zig-zaggy lines for unformed concrete edges or roughened surfaces. It feels like the kind of thing that could save time if it was built in. Maybe similar to the way revision clouds work? But I'd want to be able to still measure to it.  Show More

It would be nice to have corner grips on view controls to adjust two sides at once. Applicable to crop regions, section boxes, section and elevation extents, etc... Show More

Currently, the Break option in a Revit tag label only creates a new line when the parameter immediately following the break contains a value. When optional parameters are used, the line break may not work as intended. If the next parameter is empty, Revit skips it and continues to the next parameter containing a value. However, if that parameter does not have the Break option enabled, the content remains on the same line. The proposed enhancement is for the Break option to define the tag layout independently of whether the following parameter contains a value or not. When a break is enabled, the next parameter  should always start on a new line, even when one or more parameters between them are empty. This would make tag composition more predictable and allow tags containing optional parameters to maintain a consistent layout without requiring multiple tag families or complex workarounds. Show More

Raster printing is Not Great.  I think most of us want the following upgrades to raster printing:   1) Vector printing should handle more features.  Depth cueing and shadows are the two biggest pain points for most users.   2) When raster printing must be used, the embedded image should be higher quality.  Revit internal PDF export is the worst, creating fuzzy JPG embeds.  Printing to PDF through Bluebeam creates higher quality embedded images, but it's still a fuzzy mess.   3) Hybrid raster-vector printing.  Render as much as possible through vector graphics, then use a raster underlay for what cannot be done through vector.   4) Raster printing always prints WYSIWYG, but vector printing has quirky behavior occasionally.   Perhaps this will all be fixed (wiped away like a bad dream) when the new rendering engine is stable, mature, and ships to replace the current rendering engine.   ---   The below links are all threads about raster printing.  While these threads are not necessarily all about identical issues, and some threads contain nuances not captured in my summary above, these are all threads complaining about raster printing.  This thread exists to rally together all past votes and make the complaints easier to see.   https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/exporting-elevation-with-depth-cueing-enabled-as-vector-during/idi-p/14055525 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-printing-with-raster-underlay/idi-p/7565402 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-shadows-in-hidden-line-prints/idi-p/6330690 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/raster-printing-change-embedded-jpg-images-to-png-format/idi-p/11389094 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/add-to-raster-printing-message-information-on-the-use-of/idi-p/9207269 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/wysiwyg-amp-vector-printing/idi-p/7085229 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-option-for-export-to-pdf/idi-p/12764115 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/print-nwd-nwc-links-on-revit-sheets-as-vectors-pdf/idi-p/7908186 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/vector-atop-raster-when-printing-with-coordination-model/idi-p/12084197 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/enable-pdf-export-with-black-lines-and-color-patterns-and-raster/idi-p/11762199 Show More

Revit currently only allows copy and paste between projects open in the same session. This makes it difficult to transfer elements when working with multiple Revit windows or versions. Other design software supports clipboard operations across sessions, and adding this to Revit would: Improve productivity for users working on several projects at once Remove the need for time-consuming workarounds like exporting groups or linking files Make Revit more consistent with user expectations from other design tools Please consider enabling copy/paste between separate Revit sessions to streamline workflows. Show More

In workshared Revit models, certain settings that are effectively personal workspace preferences are shared between users through the project. As a result, engineers and designers frequently open a model only to find that aspects of their workspace have been changed by whoever worked in the model last. Examples include Project Browser expansion states, selected family types, and other session-specific workflow settings that do not affect the model, project standards, or deliverables. These settings provide little or no collaborative benefit when shared, yet they create daily workflow interruptions and force users to repeatedly restore their preferred working environment.   Autodesk should review which settings are currently shared through worksharing and move any non-project-critical, user-specific preferences to the local user profile. Settings that impact project standards, model content, or coordination should remain shared, while settings that only affect an individual's workflow should remain personal. This would reduce user frustration, improve productivity, and create a more consistent experience across multi-user projects. Show More