Welcome to the Revit Ideas Board! Before posting, please read the helpful tips here. Thank you for your Ideas!
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

REVIT MASKING REGIONS: Not responding to subcategory visibility control

REVIT MASKING REGIONS: Not responding to subcategory visibility control

What happens currently?

  • A masking or filled region can be assigned to a subcategory, but this assignment is meaningless
    when the subcategory settings only control the visibility of the area outline line work and not the
    fill area itself.
  • Note: This functionality request (of fills responding to subcategory visibility settings in a view) needs to be applied to both filled regions and masking regions.

What the industry needs, instead: 

  • Filled and masking regions need to be able to be assigned to a subcategory (both the sketch line
    work and the region pattern area) and must also then respond (in its entirety) to any visibility
    changes that are made to their associated subcategory using the Object Style or Visibility Graphics menu.

Impact on Revit users

  • Masking regions cannot be used for floor or elevation representations on any element that may be required to be hidden at any point in a view that has a patterned floor or patterned wall. Thus, making masking regions as unusable/ useless in any company system that expects to be able to use subcategory visibility controls in their View Templates. 

Autodesk's response to date to this request

  • I have been told that this feature is "by design" however it should be clear from attached image examples that an alternate solution should be provided or that the development team re-think their stance on the matter.
  • If the development team remain adamant that "Masking regions should always be displayed" and therefore should have no ability to be hidden using it's assigned subcategory then I think the Autodesk Development team needs to come up with a viable and alternate solution:
  • E.g. Development team could enable Filled Regions to be added to all 3D family templates and allow us to have full visibility control and parametric pattern controls for the Filled regions in 3D families. (Separate Idea/request which I will be adding next) Please vote for that one too!




The bounding lines of a Masking Region can be assigned to a Sub Category but not the region itself. Therefore in a project view, we can use VG to show/ hide the bounding lines but not the mask itself.

Please allow Masking Regions to be assigned to a Sub Category.

The prime example of when this would be useful to me is when I use a Masking Region in a door panel object to mask the floor coverings underneath in a Floor Plan. Presently in a Ceiling Plan I can turn the linework off but cannot turn the Masking Region off.

Please see another of my related post, as promised requesting, for a key feature that would make a noticeable difference to most presentation teams, I'm sure. We need your vote please to get this across the line. Thanks!



At the very least, if all the lines within a masking region are turned off, then the fill should turn off as a result...

Absolutely Chris. What use is a white blob/ masking region with no outline on a plan? I  cannot understand why it has taken several attempts and more than 10 YEARS to get Autodesk to take this feedback on board.

We definitely need the options of Filled regions in 3d families templates, with parametric pattern changing functionality in projects, especially if Masking Regions are “deliberately designed to display permanently” in any parallel view. 

The current system strategy of having masking regions in 3D families as the only option to create simpler plan and elevation representation (when these masking region fills cannot be hidden in a nominated view) creates a deeply flawed strategy for documentation effectiveness and output flexibility.

If Autodesk insists that masking regions should always remain permanently visible then why not just add filled regions as an option as well. As long as they respond to parametric pattern and subcategory control and can be assigned to work planes? A bonus would be a visibility parameter control just for extra user choice. That way we can use solid white filled regions, if we prefer, as long as they can be assigned to be in front of element if we wish (same as masking regions). We will then be able to change fill patterns directly from projects and have flexibile visibility controls. That would be a win for everyone! 

Not applicable

Masking Regions can be given a visibilty parameter to hide them, although that doesn't give you per view control.

The method I use for by view control is to hide in one of the "Course, Medium, Fine" settings.


That said hard to fathom why lack of subcategory control for masking regions would be "by design". 



Hi Ant,

Thanks for your support and advice. I do know about the parameter and view control options for masking regions. I agree with you - it feels absurd (to me) to think that anyone would imagine that it's valid to develop the visibility functionality of View Templates and then think it's okay or even relevant to simply just ignore the visibility functionality of masking regions?

Forgive the general rant but I am just going to add this in on the off chance that the development team actually read these comments.



For the development team to argue that a masking region is intended to be permanently visible is ridiculous and a clear indication that the software developers have (1) never worked on Revit or (2) they are unwilling to take user feedback seriously. This request is a longstanding request of mine that I have submitted directly to Autodesk at least 4 times formally in the past 10 years. Every few years we get palmed off to a new rep that hears the requests all over again but nothing ever eventuates from any of our feedback.



It seems more surprising to me that Autodesk would not take the time to hear what I have asked for since Marina (my colleague) and  I have both been a Revit content creator and Revit implementation specialist for more than 14 years now and I have used Revit since 2003! There have also been very experienced and credible Revit leaders who have supported these ideas.



The biggest issues is that Revit family creation specialists are few and so Autodesk simply ignores us. The problem with that approach however, is that all projects consist of 80% or more of loadable content so by ignoring the Family editor functionality Autodesk is severely restricting our efficiencies of all projects, for all companies who which to design the time effective Revit implementation solutions.


That would be a function that we would also like.👍

Dear Autodesk Dev team,

We have some high profile Revit experts agreeing that this is essential. Please see what can be done to assist us with this fundamental functionality. Please help us get this over the line.





I couldn't agree more @Anonymous and @cprice.

I am asking Harlan and the development team to reconsider prioritizing the Family Editor re-boot. A year has past and we still have so many limitations in the Family Editor.


Most of us (who have been using Revit since the early 2000) don't work on Revit families every day any more and I think that is also part of the issue. The rant of frustration around the Family Editor must be less obvious to Autodesk because when it comes to family creation it really is more of a specialist role in most firms and most content creators don't make the time to log issues on this forum. 


That being said - we all know how many hours are wasted because of limitations in the Family Editor. It's the one area of the Revit platform that has had almost no significant enhancements since 2005. 


I hope we can get Autodesk to put something in their roadmap for a solid review to help boost project production efficiencies. (What can I say - I feel hopeful today!) haha


Hopefully Harlan and the team will come back to us with an update on some of these request. (Fingers crossed!)


@michellevankolck4401 long time no speak.


My frustration is that I always build family 4 versions behind for maximum support, so even if something does get upgraded it will be 4 years before I actively build content using it...


Things I'd like:

  • Filtering on "Family Type" parameter drop down lists.  EG: Create Door Panel or Door Frame Type lists of the Door Category and not have the Panels showing up in the Frame list and vice versa.
  • Force instances of Shared Nested components of Doors/Windows to have the same Mark as their host and not have that be a "Warning".
  • Provide more powerful Geometry modelling capabilities in the standard Family Editor.  EG: Adding Fillets between any Solids (more like Inventor).  This might avoid the need to use Masking Regions in the first place.
  • Then have edges of curved surfaces display more reliably
  • Have the joining capability of line based families like Structural Framing has
  • Be able to have a Curve be able to translate between straight/curved.  EG: Set a radius of Infinity, maybe you just set it as 0 to make it infinity
  • Connect Omniclass to a parameter
  • Add Uniclass 2015 System
  • Connect Always Vertical to a parameter
  • Have Material Parameters allow you too choose a property of the Material parameter to show in schedules.  Avoid the need to use a separate parameter.
  • Add the ability to password protect/license a family from editing/exporting in parametric format
  • Add a user definable classification system parameter (create new parameters similar to Assembly Code) rather than having to repurpose
  • Allow parameter values to be reversible (negative values automatically flip the direction of an extrusion)
  • Make angle rotation constraints between 0-359° and elements hosted to them more robust.
  • Allow the use of "Family Type" parameter values definable in formulas.  Yes you can create a new parameter and link to whatever that's set to, but as you can't lock this down its not unbreakable.  EG: if(Frame Type = [X_Door-Frame-Metal : Standard],1,0)

Just quickly, off the top of my head.

@cprice , you are one of a kind! Thanks for the input!

So many good suggestions. Maybe this is why the Development team run away from us when there is potentially so many improvements to be made in the Family Editor! Haha

I would still argue for filled regions simply because many interior design teams want to assign fill patterns or colours in plan views, without impacting material of geometry form. 



I think this Idea is the same topic and can be merged:


@kimberly.fuhrman - Find a merge request in the reply above mine.  Thanks!


Can lines, filled regions, masking regions (and text?) be controlled with annotation/graphic subcategories? 

A consistent method to control their visibility at project level. 


This is fundamental to control the export to dwg (fill regions and text alike)!!! It's 2024 and still this basic functionality is missing!

So true. It's crazy that this issue has been sidestepped for more than a 17 YEARS!!! One could be excused for thinking that if this basic feature request has been dismissed for this long that it must obviously not be important or needed by a wide audience.

My response to that would be:
Tell me the Software design team have never tried to document a real project in the software that they fine tuning, without telling me "the Software design team have never tried to document a real project in the software that they fine tuning"


I just wish the Autodesk Software Developers would actually become interested in mastering some of the basic and essential functionality that teams need daily to deliver projects. I can see why s many clients feel jaded and discouraged by Autodesk's engagement and response to software enhancement requests.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

Autodesk Design & Make Report