Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Come on. It's time to just let us make tables from scratch in Revit. No more crazy Excel workarounds and no more hijacking a category I'm not going to use and hacking its schedule. I just want to be able to make a simple table straight in Revit.
I do understand the potential "slope" of poorly modeled objects but if people are going to cheat, they are going to cheat, and I think there are enough legitimate times that someone has wanted just a simple table that I think there is still value in having it as a feature.
What you are saying about people "cheating" is exactly the same argument that was used when we asked for the ability to add text to dimension strings. I am included an image of what I need "tables" to address. This was done by using "lines and text". I have also used Excel export tools to do the same. A huge waste of time having to do these manually.
So much for attaching an image. My image was of a table of Concrete Property values and Reinforcement Cover. I'm sure you can do this with "shared parameters" - like beating an ant to death with baseball bat.
Why don't you just create a key schedule? Preferably using a category that doesn't require a key schedule for something else - choose a category that you never use.
Key schedules are not acceptable - I want several columns of information to read at one time - looking back and forth between different references is bound to lead to mistakes. The contractor has enough on his mind than rather to have to correlate information. At the end of the day we are only trying to construct a "building".
If we had the ability to snap to text (so that we could align it properly), creating tables with text & lines (like we did in AutoCAD) wouldn't be so bad (and would help to avoid some of the alignment issues in the top example). That said, it would be a lot easier if I could just add rows, adjust column widths, and merge cells, in a native table element the way you can in excel, but I don't see this happening anytime soon (after all, we still can't adjust row heights in addendum schedules).
Thanks for your submission and votes on this idea! We are evaluating where this request falls into our roadmap and will provide an update when we have made a decision.
I've been wanting this for some time now too. All I want is to be able to make a "Table" like in AuotCAD. I hate it how everything has to be linked through parameters in Revit. Give us a little freedom to create a blank schedule just like we can create a blank Table in ACAD.
Just as "lionel.kai" stated above, I like the idea of a blank schedule where we can adjust the rows, columns, merge cells, etc.
YES PLEASE. We need to be able to make our own schedules and pull values from other tables.
Also, can you please hire someone to just develop the formatting ability of schedules? It's abhorrent. Half of the reason everyone is desperate for PDF support is because we can't make a custom spreadsheet in Revit, nor can we easily format an automatic schedule.
We've completed our review of this idea. After investigating the effort required to implement this request, we unable to add it to our roadmap at this time due to other priorities. However, we think this is a great idea so we will reconsider it as we made adjustments to our roadmap in the future. Thanks for the submission and keep voting!
I'd prefer this as an extra option in the rich text editor, instead of having a different 'manual' schedule type. The main reason being: to get a better WYSIWYG experience.
That way, we could also include inline tables inside a spec text for example.
Yes Please!, add an INSERT TABLE option on the Annotation tab that I can use to create a table with the amount of rows and columns i need, with text fields in each cell. Use it in a Legend view or anywhere else!
422 votes and the effort required to program in a blank table implementation with no linked content whatsoever is too much to even put it on the road map???
But Autodesk is willing to spend hundreds of hours of R&D and programming on an Evacuation Simulator Revit tool? What a bunch of nonsense...
The more I peruse the Revit ideas forum, the more I realize it's just a placebo for customers. If the idea can't be shoe-horned in a week with one guy and a paperclip, then it's "Too much effort" and won't ever be realized and will be lost forever in Autodesk's "Future Consideration" abyss.
Couldn't agree more, @nickYM4B9. It's absurd. I had a number of ideas "gather support" when I posted them and then by the time a bunch of new ones come up, they're off the front and no one sees them, so no one upvotes them. Then Autodesk doesn't consider the idea because it didn't get enough support, blah blah blah.
The ultimate fallacy of this place is that Autodesk doesn't really seem to acknowledge that a very small subset of users (those keen enough to take time to make a post) of a very small subset of users (the ones that care enough to see if the product will improve) is all that inhabits this place. Most people want the same features (#$%^ing PDF insert!!!) but probably 95% of the user base... isn't here. And they probably don't even know that "here" exists.
On top of that, Autodesk has SO MUCH SOFTWARE, and the ultimate kick in the nuts is when a feature that is present in other software (like, say, Inserting a PDF into Autocad) is deemed for "future consideration" here because it's "too much work" to put into the product. Sorry, but if the implementation has been nailed elsewhere - I know it's not as easy as copy/paste the code but holy moly the proof of concept is there...
From everyone I know that works at autodesk, their common critique is that a lot of the software developers don't really use the software in a professional environment, and have the opinion that there's a "way" to do things. So some of them might say "you never want to import a PDF, you always want to make it an image first" or "Why develop the software to convert the pdf to an image on import, when people should just convert it first" and then dismiss the need, meanwhile thousands of users are pulling their hair out because the excel table they made (because revit won't let you make a simple table) has updated and now they need to print to a pdf, then convert the PDF to the image, and then browse revit's terrible image management interface to reload the image. Said table might be getting tweaked constantly, and keeping it updated is a **** nightmare. But again, Autodesk's answer behind the scenes is often "They shouldn't be doing it that way" or "That's not how you're supposed to do it".
Ultimately, what most companies have figured out is that software operates at its best when it's flexible and accomodating of users - the simple ability to import a PDF (as an image) would be a complete gamechanger for workflows and would eliminate the need to even have simple table creation in a lot of instances - personally i prefer the ease and adaptability of an excel table because i can format to exactly what I need, quickly and easily. But a simple table would also be a game changer, especially if you could pull from project stats (so that I could put my parking count, GFA, unit count, site area, and factors of those (like garbage bin count based on unit count) into one table. But maybe someone at autodesk thinks you should never mix the stats on one table, so we're stuck with only schedules that only have one type of thing being tabulated. Meanwhile, other software (hello ArchiCAD) does all of this stuff easily and happily and has done so for 10+ years. The worst thing for users (and the best thing for Autodesk shareholders) is that they have a complete monopoly and don't really need to worry about being competitive.
"After investigating the effort required to implement this request, we unable to add it to our roadmap at this time due to other priorities"
Only 3 out of the top 10 voted ideas have been accepted so far. 4 others have been in limbo for almost two years as "under review" and 3 have been rejected. That's a 30% success rate for the top 10 voted ideas from users. I'm wondering how much you're in synch with your user's priorities?
