Why doesent Revit have a tool palette?

[npsconsultingllc]

This may seem like a stupid question and may not even make sense if you aren’t an AutoCAD user, but why doesent Revit have a tool palette? 

I know this may be a work flow preference but wouldn’t it make sense to have a floating palette with pre-defined system types, routing preferences, diameters, elevations so you could just click and draw, vs clicking “pipe” setting elevation, setting diameter, changing system type, changing pipe type - and then finally drawing? Only to repeat that all over again? 

Taking this a little further, it could be cloud based and use a pre-uploaded template file for its source data, and even include families / model groups so if you’re on a different computer or different version then all still works.

I know CTC hive has a decent plug-in but doesent have any of the functionality and mainly acts like a webpage that connects to Revit. 

I’ve looked into programming dynamo scripts connected to custom palette buttons but this looks extremely difficult and not practical if you’re using multiple computers with different versions. 

Would love to hear any feedback because the time I spend clicking and scrolling through drop downs is the main reason why I don’t use Revit for every project. 

thanks. 

[pkolarik]

---

@RobDraw wrote:

---

The answer truly is that AutoCAD cannot do a lot of what Revit can.

---

This is incredibly untrue. We work with a small/mid-sized firm from time to time that uses AutoCAD exactly like our architects use Revit. And they've been doing so for about 10-plus years. All it takes is doing the front-end setup, the same as it does with Revit.

Long before Revit was a "thing" here, we attempted to go that same route with AutoCAD, but our architects balked about having to "learn a new workflow" enough that it got only about 1/4 implemented.

[RobDraw]

If you think that what I said is untrue, you are woefully mistaken and need to do some fact checking about the capabilities of Revit.

[npsconsultingllc]

.

[npsconsultingllc]

I have a tremendous amount of model groups inside of my template so I can model as efficiently as possible. I use the MEPPP productivity pack which is 800MB in total. I deleted everything I could and then used their Dynamo script to trim it back  as much as possible, but 150MB is as low as I can get it to go unless I delete content I use frequently for most projects. Many of their families are nested families with a tremendous amount of hidden information.

This is sort of my point though. Using Revit right now means you need everything in the template for every job, vs. having an efficient way to pull in data. However, then you need multiple copies of that data for every version type you use (or) you need to upgrade it every  single time you pull it in. 

Theres lots of discussion about "Using Revit Correctly" on here. There is not a "Correct" way to use it. There are good practices and bad ones depending on what you're trying to accomplish but not a "Correct" way.  Ultimately though, the software isnt done being developed for basic tasks, and "Learning how to use revit" is basically code for "Finding a bunch of workarounds to do simple things". ..,

[RobDraw]

If your development of workflows is finding work arounds, you are doing it wrong and probably trying to force AutoCAD workflows into Revit. No, learning to use Revit doesn't include finding work arounds but it does include changing "the way we've always done it" which a lot of people find hard to accept. Most eventually come around when the realize the long term benefits. If you truly don't see it, maybe Revit isn't right for you.

[npsconsultingllc]

I dont ever have time to post to these forums and the one time I did, it was completely ruined by your input. 

Its extremely well documented that Revit is basically a program of workarounds. It doesent matter what the workflow is - You simply cannot create was is required on typical construction documents without using workarounds, playing games with parameters, using excel add-ins to make up for the shortcomings of the table capabilities, etc. So much of the industry standard information requires a 3rd party add-in, an app, etc.

To this day, the entire electrical system designed in Revit requires the use of 3rd party software that costs $1k / year per user. Its great at modeling a receptacle sitting on a wall but There isnt even a way to draw actual Riser diagrams for Electric that resemble anything close to whats actually needed. .

Any electrical calculations are either completely incorrect, or do not calculate correctly. All this is very well documented and known issues. If you're using Revit thinking its an engineering tool and relying on its marketed benefits as such, then you're doing it wrong, but you're filled with the false confidence that its correct - which is dangerous. 

[HVAC-Novice]

You lost me at "using AutoCAD the same way as Revit". If you are using both software the same way, at least one software isn't used to its full potential. Revit has nothing to do with AutoCAD. Autodesk purchased Revit at some point. Just because Honda sells cars and lawn mowers doesn't mean both should be used the same way.

Of course, there are different ways to use any software. And no one is forcing you to do what works for us. If your 150MB template, and scripts and productivity package is the way that works for you, go for it. 

[RobDraw]

---

@npsconsultingllc wrote:

I dont ever have time to post to these forums 

---

That explains a lot. You probably should find time. There's a lot to be learned here. Your "well documented" issues are due to misconceptions about how Revit works.

---

@npsconsultingllc wrote:

it was completely ruined by your input. 

---

How can I ruin a thread that doesn't belong here? You won't find me over in the IDEAS forum.

---

@npsconsultingllc wrote:

You simply cannot create was(?) is required on typical construction documents without using workarounds, playing games with parameters, using excel add-ins to make up for the shortcomings of the table capabilities, etc.

---

You're only reinforcing one of my points here. Maybe what is required isn't really what you think or have been taught is required.

When you've been using Revit long enough, you will/should have an "ah ha" moment when all of a sudden, in a flash, everything makes sense and you realize how short sighted you've been. There will be more of them but that first one is special. I'm still learning mostly because my output "requires" more. Documentation has gotten a lot less important for the field that I work in. Yes, drawings are required but they are no longer the last word. Our models are. And they get out to the field.

Revit is fully capable of producing quality construction documents. If it's that big of a deal that it cannot meet your requirements, then maybe Revit isn't for you/ Either that or your requirements need to change.

---

@npsconsultingllc wrote:

If you're using Revit thinking its an engineering tool and relying on its marketed benefits as such, then you're doing it wrong, but you're filled with the false confidence that its correct - which is dangerous. 

---

If you heard that Revit is an engineering tool, you were mislead. At least you realized that. I wasn't mislead. So don't put words in my mouth in order to elevate yourself. That's really bad form there kiddo.

[iainsavage]

---

@npsconsultingllc  schrieb:

150MB is as low as I can get it to go unless I delete content I use frequently for most projects. 

Using Revit right now means you need everything in the template for every job

However, then you need multiple copies of that data for every version type you use (or) you need to upgrade it every  single time you pull it in. 

---

150MB isn't particularly large for a Revit file which contains 3D elements, intelligent systems and lots of data (the "I" for information in BIM) for each element and system etc.

You don't need everything in your template to cover every job, just the items which you use most frequently on most jobs. Then if you organise your content folders intuitively you can quickly pull in any additional content that you require for specific jobs.

You can also have more than one template and use copy/paste or transfer project standards to pull in content as needed, for example I had only the most frequently used pipe types in my main template then a separate "pipe types" template with far more types which were only used infrequently.

Most manufacturers and other content creators only provide one version of familes in an older version and when loaded into a project they upgrade in a couple of seconds so I've never seen that as an issue.

The properties pallete does a lot of what you mentioned early on in your post and can be docked or floating.

You can also undock individual sections of the ribbon if you want them to float and you can create custom panels with the tools organised the way that you want.

[npsconsultingllc]

Thanks so much for your thoughts @iainsavage. 

Yes - I actually didnt think 150MB wasnt overly large either but seems as though most other models I receive for design from an Architect are around 30-ish MB. 

I thought about having multiple templates but the main reason I dont is because im still refining my template. I own a smaller Engineering firm and its difficult to manage 1 template let alone 2 or 3 while maintaining consistency. Hive CMS by CTC software declutters my template quite a bit, but its not real smooth, probably because they rely on Revit's internal engine for performance. Theres also limitations to what you can do with it as its not really a drawing tool, its more like a content manager.

I think people that have been around long enough to have used autocad on a regular basis understand what im asking for but those that use Revit as their first software probably dont understand. A revitized verison of a tool palette serving as one small central place to store content, custom buttons, that works to pull it in externally is basically what im after. Scrolling through the massive project browser or clicking in the properties isnt a great workflow, and the QuickAcess toolbar is very, very limited and not easy to see in many cases. 

[iainsavage]

---

@npsconsultingllc  schrieb:

Most other models I receive for design from an Architect are around 30-ish MB. 

I think people that have been around long enough to have used autocad on a regular basis understand what im asking for

---

I've had architectural models of 1 gigabyte or more. 30mb is fairly lightweight.

The default Autodesk templates vary from 3 or 4 mb for "architectural" ones to maybe 16 or 17 mb for MEP ones but bear in mind that they are very bare-bones and don't contain many families.

My own general template was about 77 mb and my "pipe types" template was over 200 mb.

Once your project has progressed a bit its worth using the Purge Unused tool to clean it up and you can also do a "save as" and select the Compact File option.

Re Autocad, I used it for twenty five years before moving over to Revit.

[pkolarik]

---

@RobDraw wrote:

If you think that what I said is untrue, you are woefully mistaken and need to do some fact checking about the capabilities of Revit.

---

lol.. typical Rob. It sounds like you're the one who is woefully mistaken and needs to do some fact checking about the capabilities of AutoCAD.

Good luck with that.

[RobDraw]

Oh, I know the differences, and they have been documented by others. You obviously haven't read about them. I'm not the one having issues here. 

[pkolarik]

We use the MEPPP here, as well as HIVE. We have one common starter template file that we carve each of the disciplines out of (we have a multi-discipline firm).

Approximate file sizes once we've created each discipline's project file are:

Electrical = 100mb

Plumbing = 80mb

HVAC = 80mb

W-WW = 70mb

Electrical is only that large because they've insisted on stuffing more stuff into the MEPPP starter file than we'd intended. All other content is stored in the HIVE library (each version has its own folder structure). Although I will admit I don't actually use the HIVE interface as I find it too clunky. (about half our disciplines in the office use it, half don't... choosing to just utilize the folder structure without the interface)

[npsconsultingllc]

That seems about right. We arent using Electrical in Revit yet so I purged all of the Electrical out. I also got rid of quite a few model groups because I usually end up needing to modify them so much. Also, I keep the model groups in Hive anyway which helped a lot to get down to 120MB (ish). I've found that trying to use pre-set model groups for every scenario starts to get a little counter productive because I spend time searching the model groups instead of just copying a smaller one and meashing together. 

[fabiosato]

Hello,

Regarding the models, you can save them as external RVT files, and when needed, use load as a group function.

Comparing the number of click in AutoCAD against Revit is not fair, because you may be comparing only the plan view. But in Revit you will be able to create more views from the components way faster than in AutoCAD, specially if you use 3D views. I believe AutoCAD MEP may have better tools, I don´t know it, and be really more efficient.

[Trev_Smith]

Hi npsconsultingllc,
Whilst this thread is a little old, I have a good idea of what you were looking for.
Basically a dockable pane, much like the appearance of what MEP Fabrication Parts does.

Much like yourself I have an ACAD background (decades for me), so when I also started working in Revit last year I too have been looking for ways to eliminate the tedious nature of some things.
By comparison to ACAD's Tool Palette Revit really lacks in that department by having everything in the Project Browser and endless scrolling.
Revit 25 has at least addressed that issue now by finally adding some tabs to filter things down (after around 10yrs of users suggesting it 🙄).
However I think it can still be much better than that.

So I've just been looking to see if I can do something similar to the tool palette to make it more user friendly to insert regular items of choice without bloating the model with preloading everything into a template and relying on the Project Browser scrolling.

What I found today (including this thread) is some youtube videos that runs through a how to create dockable panes, family loader panes.

Create Dockable Pane  > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf9702Bx09s

FamilyLoader > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUdASd9CmjE
FamilyLoader Images > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC4ztMkTcpY

The channels got a few video's on the topic so worth a look if that's something that's doable for you.
Its a fair bit of coding though, which I'm very limited within Revit so a bit of learning curve to get it to do what I want rather than the otherway around 👍

[CivicDesignDevelopment]

There is a knee-jerk reaction that as soon as anyone says Revit should do something the way that AutoCAD does, all brain cells shut down and the response is stonewalling and predictable: "Stop using Revit the way you used AutoCAD!!!" As if you're suggesting explode Revit into 2d linework and revert back to AutoCAD 2000 era workflows. 

Next time, ask why Revit doesn't have a decent Asset Manager and the righteous Revit elites will maybe have intelligent responses instead of religious dogma.

Revit could absolutely benefit from customizable tool palettes. Having to preload entire family libraries into a template is a ridiculous workaround. Not to mention how every single component goes into a massive god list with every type parameter in this wall of families and types. But it's better than having to rummage through file structures to get to a specific family, routine, or whatnot. All that should be consolidated into something like tabbed tool palettes in Revit.

AutoCAD's tool palettes are extremely powerful in the right hands, and all the things that make them powerful could apply to Revit, AND STILL BE THE REVIT WAY. Having a tidy place to keep something like "Commercial Storefront Families" in it's own tab in a tool panel would speed up workflows. It takes me maybe three seconds to import an asset into AutoCAD. It takes me a good 30 seconds to a minute to import a family. And in AutoCAD you can run scripts from a tool palette. Not to mention, if the asset gets an update, it's a quick 2 clicks to propagate that change into the project from the tool palette. Revit requires you go get the family and reload it into the project. Very cumbersome.

Maybe if Revit users weren't so defensive of Revit, AutoDesk would be under more fire to fix all the features that are seriously lacking.

[RobRocks]

The problem is that people think they have a solution but hit the wall of functionality and feel Revit should be able to do something it can't. 

Instead of "Why not?".The smart question is "How?"

[fabiosato]

Hello,

I believe Revit UI is entirely different from AutoCAD because two other companies conceived of it.

I am not aware of programming details, but from my experience using both, their usage is completely different. For example, shortcuts in AutoCAD require ENTER, while in Revit, as soon as it detects a shortcut match, the command is activated.

Which is better? In my opinion is just necessary to get used to it.