Revit's Text Editor Needs To Be At Least As Good As AutoCAD's

[scbunker]

I know that the text editor in Revit is the subject of much derision and update requests. And I know that it was improved a few years ago. But it's just not enough. So I have a different take on it - just make it at least as good as AutoCAD.

In AutoCAD, you can control paragraph spacing, have multi-level lists (outlines), tab stops (multiple tab stops and different kinds of tab stops), control indents, control columns, etc. etc. 

We need text editing features this robust within Revit.

I've heard it said before that Revit is a modeling software and not a text editing software, but I don't consider this argument to be valid. Modeling is useless unless we can adequately document it, and documentation includes detailed notes. That's like saying that AutoCAD is a drafting software and not a text editing software.

[cydufresne]

when you buy a brand-new car, I expect all the features from the old model to be better than it was before, and that's usually the case. When you sell your old house and buy a new bigger one, i expect to have all the features of the old house but better. When Autodesk consistently launches a new version every year, I expect at the minimum for the features that half work to be updated or upgraded. Before there was Revit, there was AutoCAD, my superiors (who generally don't like Revit all that much) don't care about all the smart things that Revit can do, they want lines on a paper, they don't want it to look any different than if was done on AutoCAD. I'm not here to start a fight but the idea that the community has been asking for this since day one and nothing has happened is slap in the face, especially when the price for this product keeps going up. 

[Ric_Weber]

@lee.imbimbo86EM4 I want to address your items one by one...

• I agree, it seems like they should be able to give us more basic functionality to the text tool and that is what this idea is about.  
• "Spreadsheet functionality" would really have more to do with schedules.  Now if you're referring to tables, like in Word, that is something that would be nice.  It would help me in code analysis documentation. I believe there is a separate idea out there for simple tables for text.  
• Being able to put a linked detail number in a schedule is something that we've also been asking for and there is an idea out there for that one.  That does not pertain to Text however. 
• Being able to put a linked detail number into text is a good thing. That however is not a simple thing.  I would include that this should be doable in a keynote schedule as well, but then that does not pertain to Text.  That's a separate idea.  
• Do I agree that some of the updates we have received from Autodesk are not all that important, absolutely.  Do I agree that I think the Autodesk engineers really need to address some of these ideas over their own ideas, absolutely.  Would I say that these text updates would be "highly usable", yes, but in the scheme of things, I wouldn't use them all that often.  I prefer to use text as little as possible.  There are definitely more important ideas out here.  

Since we got the upgraded text in 2016 (2017?), we have had few updates to the text I agree.  Given that they told us at the time that they needed to make this huge change in order to give us all the bells and whistles we were wanting down the road, I would have expected more bells and whistles by now, so that is why I vote for ideas like this.  

[Ric_Weber]

@cydufresne I want to address a couple of the items you said: 

• "Autodesk consistently launches a new version every year, I expect at the minimum for the features that half work to be updated or upgraded."...  I definitely agree that more time needs to be spent fixing bugs and upgrading those features that they have already given us to work better.  e.g. railings, toposolids, and yes, text.   
• I feel your pain in regards to superiors that don't like Revit (or worse yet, ACC).  I sympathize completely.  I feel like there needs to be a support group for BIM Managers who have to deal with old Architects and Engineers that just don't get it.  
• "don't care about all the smart things that Revit can do, they want lines on a paper, they don't want it to look any different than if was done on AutoCAD"...  why then are they using Revit at the firm?  If they want it to look like AutoCAD, I explain that it is a different program and won't look the same.  Does AutoCAD look the same as hand drafting?  That is the only and best analogy. 
• "the idea that the community has been asking for this since day one and nothing has happened" is not entirely true.  We got a major improvement in 2017, which caused all sorts of havoc, but was a good thing (after a year or so.)   I agree, that since then, we definitely should have more improvements though, so that's why we keep asking and voting.   

[cydufresne]

@Ric_Weber My office started using Revit because our clients were requesting it, and they finally listened. I didn't mean the looks like AutoCAD literally, it's like you said I'm dealing with old architects and engineers. When we started using Revit for CD's in our office one thing I had to explain to them was the limits of text editor, and they like me couldn't understand why it's so limited and why even spell check feels like it's still in beta testing. I've been holding my frustration back for years now hoping something will change but I see now that for something to change I have to be loud about it, and so I'm going to be. BTW 2017 was a long time ago, we have to put their feet to the fire. lastly, personally I don't want to go back to AutoCAD, I want to get better at Revit, but it's going to be hard for me to do that when my superior tells me don't use Revit for this or that project.

[lee.imbimbo86EM4]

@Ric_Weber to me it comes down to productivity.  Revit has it's benefits, don't get me wrong, but the truth is that it is commonly poorly implemented by firms (not Autodesk's fault, but they could help improve this), and most firms struggle to perform simple actions in the software.  To me given the constraints on the profession, particularly from a time and labor standpoint, the profession needs a software that is mostly focused on improved productivity.  For example, Dynamo may be nice and all that, but it is extremely complicated to learn, and not something that can be readily implemented amongst entry level candidates.

Text would help a lot, but frankly as both a user of AutoCAD (almost three decades of experience), and Revit (almost a decade and a half),  we still complete projects in AutoCAD in about half the time that it takes us to complete in Revit.  So the truth is that workflow is king here, and AutoDesk needs to be about providing design professionals the tools to close that gap.  This thread is about text admittedly, but it is a symptom of a larger issue.

The reason I said spreadsheets versus tables, is that tables are rather simplistic, and spreadsheets would give you a better ability to do some various things.  For example, the schedules on material quantities are fine and dandy, but you can't manipulate elements on a cell by cell basis, and when you get into very complicated Design/Build documentation (like my firm does) the ability to produce clean tables and material quantities is key.  I have found that I often just export the data and then clean it up in Excel because Revit would drive me mad otherwise.

the schedules I produce directly communicate what contractor's need to know to build my projects, everytime I've gone for the lower quality and more mundane schedules that Revit produces the subs complain that the quality is so much lower.

[ronen-bimservices]

Please can Autodesk focus on fixing issues with the software rather than trying to make it look different. The menus and icons in revit 2024 are a joke. Its shameful that a software company has no clue or direction in terms of development. I spend a fortune every year on a licence to get useless yearly updates.

How about you fix the text editor. How many years will this take to achieve the minimum level which is in AutoCAD.

[MichaelWolff]

<comment removed, because it had nothing to do with this 'idea' I found this in. It turns out, the idea was amalgemated in this one.>