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: 

View References in text

View References in text

It is quite common to have general notes or even a text object with a leader that says something like "FOR WIDGET TYPE A, SEE DTL 1, SHT A-101".  But to do this I currently have to either place my text and leave whitespace where I'll come back later and place a separate view reference OR type in the view reference by hand which will require that I manually update it if the view and/or change gets renumbered.


Please allow me to insert a view reference into my text objects.


I'm envisioning something similar to FIELDS in AutoCAD.




Thank you for your's good to know that these threads are being closely monitored by Autodesk staff.  However, and with all due respect, your [read: "Autodesk's"] inability to properly staff the software development team is simply not our problem and sounds like an excuse.  Further, for what your customers pay for the software and considering how big of a company Autodesk is, no problem should be too big to tackle. 


We really aren't interested in the reasons Autodesk can't do something...many of your customers are professional problem-solvers that wouldn't be in business if they told their customers they can't do something because of staffing or the size of the problem.


The fact is that this request has been "on your radar" for a long long long time and, given the regularity that people post comments on this should give you an idea of what your customer's priorities are.    We just want software that works the way we want to work and not software that dictates our workflow.  We pay Autodesk to figure out how to best achieve that and have patiently waited years for results.  


Forever waiting,



I second @SethOakely's comment!

Well said, Seth!

I appreciate the reply, @sasha.crotty, as well as the unexpected difficulties that can arise when getting into the nitty-gritty coding to solve a problem, but @SethOㅤ makes some VERY valid critiques that Autodesk would do well to heed. It is a bit surprising to hear that text editing required a lot of work when the level of text editing users had been begging for for as long as I've used Revit (since 2009 or 10) was simply the same as had been in AutoCAD since R14 if I remember correctly, the same basic functionality that is in any word processing software more advanced than Notepad, the same level of functionality in basic HTML, the same in some programming tutorials I went through back in the day.

But here's a suggestion: have some Autodesk staff involved in development actually go spend a day at different offices with those of us "in the trenches" dealing with the daily Revit headaches, and I just about guarantee development priorities would change. Autodesk has an open invite to come to my office, and I will put them to work actually using their own software to try to do things that it isn't set up to do but most engineering offices still have to do whether the software can or not. And when they they say Revit can't do that, or it's on their radar for implementation in 5 years, I'll say, "That's nice, but we're sending out stamped drawings for construction by 4pm, so make these drawing revisions happen with whatever workaround you have available right here, right now."

Not to be snarky, but if Autodesk wants to force users onto a subscription model where we pay for new versions every single year, even when they have no new features of use to our office, then Autodesk needs to start addressing some of these things that have been known issues for multiple years (8 or 10 years in some cases).


I hate to add more fire to the conversation, but this request is not an impossible task. There is an add-in that does what everyone is requesting, and I am sure Autodesk can reproduce it.


Look into the Auto link description.


I used the tool in my previous company, and it works as described in the idea request.

Community Manager

Thanks for your feedback and I totally get why this would be a valuable feature. So no excuses, just trying to be transparent about why some things make it onto the roadmap and others don't. Figured it was worth sharing because it's the truth and information helps us all make more informed decisions.


I agree that there is an analogy to AEC projects. Correct me if I'm wrong here, with AEC projects clients often don't get 100% of what they may have wanted at the start of a project. AEC professionals work closely with them to identify what is truly critical and what just doesn't fit in the budget. The thing that makes that relationship work is transparency and that's what I was trying to do here.


FWIW, you all do amazing things(!) and we want to make the best products we can for you. If you take two things away from my comments here, it's that this isn't always simple or straightforward, but we are here listening and learning.


This important feature is still not included with the release of revit 2024. It needs to be made a priority.




Sorry to reopen an old conversation, but with all due respect, the points you make in your last post are not valid.


I agree that there is an analogy to AEC projects. Correct me if I'm wrong here, with AEC projects clients often don't get 100% of what they may have wanted at the start of a project. AEC professionals work closely with them to identify what is truly critical and what just doesn't fit in the budget. The thing that makes that relationship work is transparency and that's what I was trying to do here.


The relationship from Autodesk to architects and engineers is not the same as the relationship from architects and engineers to our clients. Our clients come to us with a rough idea of a budget and what they want, and we help them refine it. What we are paid is also not necessarily directly proportional to our client's final product. Telling them they can't afford top of the line finishes doesn't necessarily mean we get paid less, so being honest with our clients is not detrimental to our bottom line. Most importantly, if our client is not happy with us, they can easily find another architect, or choose to not work with us on a future product. We are incentivized to do right by them.


Autodesk essentially determines our budget and what we get for that budget. We don't get to tell you to stop spending so much money on new cloud features or generative design while there are some incredibly basic functions that NEED to be developed or refined (well, we can, but you wouldn't listen). If we just straight up ignored our clients requests, we'd be off the job, or at minimum wouldn't be asked to work with them again, which isn't an option for us and our relationship with you.


This is the crux of the problem. Autodesk has the best BIM software around. And Autodesk KNOWS they have the best BIM product, and currently, its not really close. You know any responsible architect or engineer would not move away from Revit when there is no viable option to replace it. You have us stuck. So Autodesk drops little breadcrumbs here and there to keep SOME progress. Sometimes they even drop big ones like toposolids.


But Autodesk can absolutely do more. Notice I'm not saying your developers can do more. I'm sure they are worked hard like pretty much anyone else in the tech industry. Autodesk can do more. They can do more by spending some of those hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in profits they are making every year on getting MORE developers. This is why so many of us users find it so challenging to respond to posts like yours with nothing but positivity. Yes, I appreciate the insight. Yes, I understand the challenges of limited resources. But the limits placed on Revit's development are artificial. They aren't hard limits. They are limits put in place to maximize profits while adding just enough improvements to keep the gap between Revit and its very few competitors wide enough so we know we can't move away.


I don't expect Revit to be perfect. Heck, sometimes I enjoy figuring out its quirks and working around its limitations. But that enjoyment is limited, especially when I know those quirks could be fixed if it weren't for the greed of yet another corporation. They could be fixed with more than enough money left for the big wigs that don't actually provide anything to us.


@mhiserZFHXS well said!


@mhiserZFHXS I second @SethOㅤ 


I had a much bigger response about converting to Intergraph Smart3d, but had second thoughts about posting due to Client non-disclosure agreements.


needless to say, it's possible, we are doing it for a portion of our business. 15 years of revit experience may amount to naught. Onwards and upwards.


Hopefully Hexagon is more responsive than Autodesk.





@mhiserZFHXS  - I share your frustration, most of what has been included in updates to AutoCAD and Revit  (the two products I use the most) for the last decade have been disappointing. 
But with regard to your comments, I think that it is sometimes useful to consider who Autodesk's "clients" are.  It's not just the people who buy the software, it's also the people who buy shares in the company.  Like most, maybe all publicly traded companies, they have to satisfy their shareholders.  Clearly that means making enough improvements to the software that we keep renewing our subscriptions, and adding seats as our companies grow.  But, they have to do that at a minimum cost/maximum profit. 
You argue that they should spend some of their profits to satisfy the needs of their customers.   When they do that, they are going against the needs of their other customers - they have to balance that.  I'm not saying they are getting that balance right - I really wish there was more of a focus on making better products, but you need to keep those OTHER customers in mind when trying to understand why they do what they do.



First, shareholders are not customers. I understand the point you're making, but don't equate us to them.


Second, I understand how public companies work. Autodesk is certainly not the only publicly traded company that has these practices. You could apply my frustrations to pretty much any publicly traded company out there. That doesn't mean my complaints aren't valid. The entire system is flawed and needs to be fixed. The proliferation of subscription based software makes that even more clear. We SHOULD expect drastic and regular improvements in our software since we now have to pay thousands of dollars a year for it, rather than only when there have been enough updates to justify an upgrade.


This is ultimately going to require government regulation, probably from the EU or United States, to fix. There needs to be a threshold for when a product is allowed to be subscription based vs a one time purchase. We could debate that threshold for days, but it needs to happen. Autodesk has even less incentive now to provide significant updates to their product despite making even more money. The same applies to Adobe and countless other tech companies. We'll see if that ever happens though, considering most of America's politicians are geriatrics that don't understand technology or its implications.


This is definitely important feature that Revit is missing. Hopefully we can have it in near future. 



This would be a really nice feature in Revit. It's something I do a lot in AutoCAD with sheet set fields and not having similar functionality in Revit is disappointing.


Currently, if I want to add a note on my drawing with a view reference in the note, I have to use 2 separate objects (text and view reference). Now, if the note moves, the view reference does not, and has to be moved manually. It would be nice if there was some way to embed a view reference into text so that it's 1 object.




Tags (3)

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

Submit Idea  

Forma Design Contest

Technology Administrators