Some thoughts.

[dpasa]

After this, I will not post any new wish for a while. I'll wait to learn something more. By now, I can make all my drawings and a nice 3d model with Revit. I think Revit is great but it needs some more simple but important tools.

1. Better dimensions. I don't understand the lack of a free dimension, that has nothing to do with building elements. It will just show that from point1 to point 2 the distance is ...
Otherwise you almost disable the use of snaps.

2. Better library. Many of the software that deals with architecture has twice the blocks and symbols and half the price. Although family templates are great, users should find more from AutoDesk.

3. The messages sometimes should be more like hints than error descriptions.

4. It is very sad to see that Accurender is not in FULL version inside Revit. AutoDesk should decide what to do with it. If it stays it should be complete and updated to AR4 that will be released in the next 6 months. If it will be replaced, then GO ON!

5. Revit is -in my opinion- much better that ADT because it is simple. Also it is something new. I think though that AutoCAD has many nice options. For example printer dialog is much better in AutoCAD. We need a "print window" feature like the one in Acad.
Also better comunication with other programs (Word, Excel)
Generally I think that everyone should learn from the market leader of the last 15 years.

6. About GUI, I think that more drawing space is required. Maybe the design bar and the project browser should be automatically hidden like tool pallets and properties window in Acad . Also instanse and type properties when we edit an object should be reached in one common window and not two separate.

I guess there is something I might forhet but it 's not important...

Hope we see Revit 7 soon! Keep on working guys, you do great job!

[Ed. Moved here because it is not a single wish and general comments]

[trombe]

Hi dpasa,

I agree with your first few points about Dimensions, I still find the tool limitations quite frustrating - like when you have a wall face not parallel to a boundary but need a dimension /s at a specific point, and thus need to make a short drafting line as the reference point.
The other biggie is one many have noted - being able to manually edit the dimension text figure from e.g. 2531 mm to 2530mm.
Some will argue you should be able to construct to suit, but clearly there are far too many instances ( forgive the pun) where this is not desirable or practical.

I must concur with your point (5) regarding more interoperability with a range of widely used programs . However, Microsoft brass me off completely with their legacy policy and the constant updating of a newer version of Word / Excel relative to the stupid prices they want for Office Pro. Its just prohibitive or puts you right off them.
CAD interoperability is the biggest one though.
I do the odd contract for local Architect firms who mostly use Archicad or VectorWorks and then AutoCAD / LT. Doing DXFs has not proved reliable or particularly successful for me so far despite calls for help from my local vendor who has been of no help in this regard. Doing DWGs into Archicad has proved totally unsuccessful despite my efforts and those of several staff members at the other end.

This could easily compromise my opportunities to get work from these people in the future when I am quiet myself the odd time or two.
I am currently doing DXF trials with a peer who uses VectorWorks 10 about to upgrade to VectorWorks 11.
So far, his wireframe plan, elevations, can produce a clean wireframe Revit conversion including normal 3D full model in wireframe mode ( due to the method VW uses to create the model...basically, everything seems to be linework which you then render (not as Revit knows it) to produce even a shaded view.
It does mean that you end up with lines so still have to use this as the base for Revit work.

So trying to do a project with a VectorWorks user must be a bummer.

On your last point, I have to totally disagree about screen real estate and the project browser and options bar.
I think this is a fantastic, superb even, set up and would be gutted if it were much different. Its one of the things which helps to make Revit so easy to use. Besides, if you don't like them there, you can always turn them off and access them from the other menus at any time - like ACad , VectorWorks and Archicad do.
Really, this set up is simple, clean, strongly functional and flexible enough for users to customize a bit. Perhaps you should customize the browser interface to start with.

Even dragging it out of the way will yield an immediate increase in screen area to work with. Personally I do not find it a problem at any time, and really dread the prospect that Autodesk would make it like AutoCAD or VectorWorks - with a myriad of painful dialogue boxes having to be opened and closed all the time and all of the left hand side, top and sometimes the right hand side of the screen full of toolbar icons.
Its all far too messy. Revit is so much cleaner and that helps make my day and using the program much more enjoyable.

I do not mean to be negative or offensive, but if you really like the ACad / VW / Archicad style of interface, you could pay to have Revit customized that much or just buy another CAD package ? ? ?

cheers.
trombe