La sugerencia automática le ayuda a obtener, de forma rápida, resultados precisos de su búsqueda al sugerirle posibles coincidencias mientras escribe.
Mostrando los resultados de
Mostrar solo
|
Buscar en lugar de
Quiere decir:
Esta página se tradujo para tu conveniencia mediante un servicio de traducción automática. No es una traducción oficial, y puede contener errores o traducciones imprecisas. Autodesk no garantiza, ni expresa ni implícitamente, la precisión, la confiabilidad ni la exhaustividad de la información traducida por el servicio de traducción automática y no será responsable por los daños o las pérdidas que se produzcan como consecuencia de la confianza depositada en dicho servicio.Traducir
Apparently they also use other factors, such as how easy it would be to implement, and probably just the personal opinion of whoever's looking at them (unfortunately, that's almost guaranteed to not be someone with recent real-world experience using the software in production). I once had an idea accepted almost immediately with only a few votes, but other ones I think would be really valuable (and even relatively easy to implement) get archived and stagnate even after re-posting (such as Beam System: "Minimize Number" Layout Rule). It's also not always about popularity, since a lot of that will depend on how well you "market" your idea, and the people on this forum aren't necessarily representative of the industry as a whole. Something like access Line Weights (settings) from Dynamo and/or Revit API (which would benefit a lot of people through add-ins that would help maintain/enforce standards easily) also gets no votes from non-programmers. Something about the system needs to change. I like how AUGI has a 2nd round of "ranking" ideas (though their process needs some moderation - they had a lot of duplicates and old/implemented in 2011 ideas this year), but we need more than just that.
It's all definitely very frustrating. I also try to spend some time with the beta, since once the feature gets released, if it's poorly implemented it's nearly impossible to get it fixed (we have to go through the whole process again). But it's impossible to check everything, and stuff slips through (like the Line Pattern pull-down) that would have been easy to fix while it was being messed with, but I'd consider it to be a very low priority now.
As Lionel mentions, there are a lot of factors that go into accepting an idea. Our ability to implement an idea depends on team availability, priority of other projects, size, value to the Revit Idea community, value based on customer discussions or feedback. One example is the buy a feature excercise at BILT where, unlike Revit Ideas,the amount you can spend is constrained to $50. The feedback clearly shows that not all top-ranked ideas are created equal).I'll add that because there are numerous inputs into the decisions, I wouldn't worry too much about how many relative votes an API ideas have. We review API requests with a very different lens.
In the case of this idea, have you considered that this idea may require the skills from different teams?
Regarding the line pattern pull down, I sent this on to the team. I agree with you that this would be nice to resolve. However, we specifically created the beta to catch these kinds of issues, so it's unfortunate that no one caught it in time (although it is also entirely possible that there is a technical limitation here that isn't easy/possible to overcome). I encourage everyone to test Revit before release so that we have an opportunity to fix issues early. The more people testing, the more likely we are to find problems.
@sasha.crotty Thanks for the response, but that Line Pattern pull-down issue is probably one of those ideas that (if were on your BILT board) I wouldn't even spend the $5 on. If I had seen it listed as a feature in the beta, I would have commented on it, but I suspect that it was just a drive-by improvement that happened under the radar. I've been wondering a lot about how you handle "smaller" ideas (that shouldn't require a whole "team" to accomplish)? Does every change really need 5+ programmers working on it for a week?
I like that budget idea, btw. It's something that's been asked for in one of the "improve Revit Ideas" threads - let us know how much effort each idea will take (because it doesn't always line up with our estimate) and then let us "spend" a budget. It works great on a fixed subset of ideas (as at BILT), but not sure how it could be implemented on the (huge) live list.
Similar to the frustration with not being able to Schedule and/or Tag all built-in parameters, it's very frustrating not having API access to all settings (at least read-only). One of the first things I wanted to do with Revit was automate the maintenance and enforcement of standards (like I did with LISP in AutoCAD), but not being able to do a simple thing like get a list of all the V/G or Object Styles (or line weights, as previously mentioned) causes my add-in to die before it even gets out the gate...
We are pleased to announce that with the 2019 release of Revit, we have added the ability to display levels in 3d views! We also enabled scope boxes in 3d and added functionality so that the levels match the scope box when a view is set to it. We are marking this idea as implemented. If you have other requests for levels in 3d views and additional functionality, please feel free to vote on ideas for those or submit new ones. We want to hear from you.
@harlan_brumm **** job. Initially, this "idea" was about the 3D axis, we all voted just for it. Then you renamed to "3D levels" and "successfully implemented". If your work is anti-advertising of the Autodesk, then you are doing great.
On a related note, please also vote for my AU 2018 class proposal: “Ridiculous Revit Workarounds - things you SHOULDN'T need to know, but DO!” (search for "ridic").