Revit Fabrication 2026 Changes

[DotNet]

✅ Fixed an issue where disconnects were happening with Reload Configuration due to changing the insulation specification on a part.

✅ Improved the behavior of parts with custom lengths when reloading the MEP Fabrication configuration.

✅ Improved the performance of reload configuration for parts that require regeneration.

✅ Added a reviewable warning to notify customers when attempting to change a pinned element.

✅ Improved assemblies that consist of fabrication parts to now share the same assembly type when they match.

✅ Improved tooltips on parts in the additional parts user interface.

✅ Improved the reload configuration feature to detect changes to insulation so that supports can update accordingly.

✅ Fixed an issue so Brand (OEM), Range, and Product data managed in the MEP Content Editor updates in Revit, including when the data is deleted.

✅ Fixed an issue with jobs exported from Revit so all selected straights are included when selection excludes taps.

✅ Placing multiple reducers will no longer delete/disconnect other reducers.

✅ Fixed an issue where the Edit Part dialog was throwing Invalid Dimension error when selecting the same valid entry twice.

✅ Fixed an issue with CID 28 that couldn't be connected as a tap.

✅ Fixed an issue to improve the display after cancelling from the change service or change size features.

✅ Fixed an issue on directional sloped pipe (H&S) to allow the optimize length feature to succeed on pipe with reversed connectors.

✅ Fixed an issue where the user wasn't being notified of a disconnect after changing a part with the Type Selector.

✅ Fixed an issue so non product listed catalog parts use the default material.

✅ Fixed an issue where sloped pipes were changing elevation unnecessarily while using the move command.

✅ Fixed an issue to improve the alignment of sloped pipes in plan view when using 1/16" / 12" slopes.

✅ Fixed an issue where the Show Service button wasn't changing between Services and Parts tabs on the MEP Fabrication Parts browser.

✅ Fixed an issue when versioning straights which will now behave like other fabrication parts, maintaining connections unless making changes to connectivity data.

✅ Fixed an issue so the Fabrication Part Browser will now react to changes made to the current viewport.

View all Revit 2026 changes here:
https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2026/ENU/

[cadbyken]

Great, so I get to experience these in about 2 years...

[cadbob]

Agree Ken! OMG Installing 2026 Products now and Slooowwww Installing on Fast PC too, they have put more time and effort into the SSO Licensing than anything else.

Autodesk MEP 2026 sat in the 90% Range for ever before it finished!

[Dave M]

Great, so I get to experience these in about 2 years...

Getting my customers onto it in Aus ASAP .Too many fixes to no migrate.

Way too much 'tail wagging dogs' rather than 'dogs wagging tails' in our industry.
Time to fight the cause and educate the uneducated IMO!!!!!

[cnash]

No 2026 installers showing up for me on Autodesk's product pages.

Edit: If you go to the actual product pages you can download the installers, but they don't show up on my account's product page for some reason.

[cadbob]

What I have run into on installs thus far.

Autodesk MEP 2026 breaking Office 2024 on a PC, also during install with Outlook 2024 minimized Install of MEP Crashed
then wanted to keep re-booting on next attempts. Registry edited out Auto Update to resume the install which went slow but ok got late so no testing.

Navis 2026 would crash if started after install, no message to say re-boot which did fix the crash.

Importing Previous Setup with MEP 2026 is painfully slow and dont work well.

No issues with Revit 2026 install other than they released a Patch days later. Surprise!    (Revit 2026.0.1)

Spent weekend with this.

[DonWunder]

I'm running into a problem with the new feature in Revit 2026 that changes how assemblies work—specifically the update where assemblies consisting of fabrication parts now share the same assembly type when they match.

If I remember correctly, this is how Revit handled Fab parts back in the 2016–2017 versions. Many of us wanted Autodesk to move away from that behavior so assemblies with the "same parts" could have different names. That flexibility allowed us to differentiate between assemblies that use identical parts but are used in different contexts—like one on Level 1 and another on Level 50. This also affects the order of install if you use the assembly name to identify the next assembly attached.

We track those separately.

With this change in Revit 2026, is anyone else being impacted?

[Darren Young]

Don,

Isn't that how Refit does RFA Assemblies?  I recall talking w/Ralph (Victaulic) a few years back and he talked about how the Assemblies functioned differently between those that had RFA vs ITM vs Mixed.

Revit Assemblies are a mess anyway. Optimize Straights will blow there an assembly... but not a Group. Which is just the opposite of how I think of it. In my mind a Groups is a selection set where as an Assembly is an actual thing that shouldn't be changed without explicit intention.

I can see how someone from a manufacturing perspective may want to track assemblies by "qty" if they're identical. Just not how MEP has typically done it. At the very least, seems like it's something we should be able to control with a property at the assembly level. There's times I want to treat them as Unique" even when not and times I want them the same w/a quantity. Kind of like the "combine identical" option when creating MAJ's for CAM.

[DotNet]

I can see how someone from a manufacturing perspective may want to track assemblies by "qty" if they're identical.

Virtually all parties involved, from VDC to manufacturing, installation, information, and logistics, benefit greatly from typical "assemblies". This argument was over 225 years ago, when interchangeable parts revolutionized American industry.

Just not how MEP has typically done it.

This is how any industry, including MEP, has always done it. From the items in your Amazon order, to Ikea furniture, tilt wall panels, coil/equipment connections, etc. We should be fighting for as many typical "assemblies" as we can on every single project. RFIs, shop drawings, equipment and ancillary approvals, coordination....

This is a very unsettling mindset that I see being repeated in our community. Unique "assemblies" and/or "packages" or virtually any other "identifier" are not mutually exclusive. It promotes bad habits, bad software, and bad design. It's all about context. Sometimes we're talking about some unique portion of some model, sometimes we're talking about some identical portions of some model. The building doesn't have to be "modular" for a significant portion of our contract to be.

[DonWunder]

I support adding new features for companies that want Revit assembly names to remain consistent when internal parts are identical across the model. However, for companies like ours that use assembly names to reflect different levels and installation sequences, this change creates problems. It forces us into a new naming convention that disrupts both our fabrication and installation workflows.

Also, keep in mind that Autodesk’s validation method for matching parts doesn't fully inspect the internal details of a fab part. For example, even if the item number is different, Revit still assigns the same assembly name. It will even treat it as the same assembly if a tap isn’t included in the Revit assembly but has dynamic holes placed in a different location.

[DotNet]

I support adding new features for companies that want Revit assembly names to remain consistent when internal parts are identical across the model. However, for companies like ours that use assembly names to reflect different levels and installation sequences, this change creates problems. It forces us into a new naming convention that disrupts both our fabrication and installation workflows.

Also, keep in mind that Autodesk’s validation method for matching parts doesn't fully inspect the internal details of a fab part. For example, even if the item number is different, Revit still assigns the same assembly name. It will even treat it as the same assembly if a tap isn’t included in the Revit assembly but has dynamic holes placed in a different location.

It doesn't change anything except for possibly our workflow, for the better. The features you're asking for already exist. Revit is just not holding our hand, neither did AutoCAD. We can create a project parameter (or even a custom schedule column) and name it whatever we want, "order", "package", "spool", "module", whatever. Contextual identifiers are not mutually exclusive. There are many ways to skin this cat. It could be as simple as the MAJ file name. Autodesk is just moving fabrication assemblies inline with virtually any other "assembly" in Revit, or on the planet.

This isn't even a "change", unless we (or our software solutions) were "doin' it wrong" to begin with. Item Number is meaningless, if were using it in a meaningless way. Use a different parameter if you want an "instance" identifier.

[DonWunder]

The change being discussed is exactly what we asked Autodesk not to implement back in 2017. We do not want Revit to force assemblies with the "same parts inside" to use the same name. Let the user/company determine how we track/name our assemblies. I support having both workflows available, but removing one in favor of the other is not acceptable.

DotNet, I get what you are saying and how you operate. We don't and we have our workflows based on separate names determined by the user. If I wanted my spool tool to keep the names for the same parts inside an assembly I would have built it.

If this change isn’t reversed, I’ll have to stop using Revit assemblies altogether.

[DotNet]

If this change isn’t reversed, I’ll have to stop using Revit assemblies altogether.

Exactly. Use a parameter for your use case. It's far better. Try it.

[Darren Young]

This is a very unsettling mindset that I see being repeated in our community. Unique "assemblies" and/or "packages" or virtually any other "identifier" are not mutually exclusive. It promotes bad habits, bad software, and bad design. It's all about context. Sometimes we're talking about some unique portion of some model, sometimes we're talking about some identical portions of some model. The building doesn't have to be "modular" for a significant portion of our contract to be.

Completely agree here. My background is MFG.... and this "everything is unique even if it's the same" took a long time to adjust to.

My issues is more how Autodesk just unthoughtfully changes things which forces someones to pivot and come up with more workarounds. Mainly, because this "common assembly" concept being addressed this way is the tail wagging the dog IMO. It's a much larger conversation and really should be looked at holistically... designing Revit to help facilitate this process across the entire process. And not completely ignoring years of history and layers upon layers of existing workflows, process, and 3rd party code that expect a certain behavior.

They're still treating Revit as a silo when that make changes like this they way they do. Not that the changes shouldn't happen.. but that it should be implemented more cautiously.  Expecting all 3rd party developers and companies to completely rework their entire process merely because of an Autodesk philosophy is fairly disrespectful not to mention wasteful.

Just another bandaid without thinking through to the root cause and how best to implement in a less disruptive way IMO.

The current functionality doesn't help facilitate anyhthing I'd really want to accomplish in a tool purpose built to help take a manufacturing based approach to construction.  Not to mention, it's completely disconnected from the rest of Autodesk's industrialized construction strategies.

[DotNet]

Revit Fabrication 2026.1 Changes!

✅ Fixed an issue when dragging a part whilst holding the shift key so the dragged part sizes and orientates itself to match the destination part.

✅ Fixed an issue to allow parts identity data changes (Brand, Range, Material & Finish) to maintain relationships in existing models when using cloud configurations.

✅ Fixed an issue to allow connector type changes to propagate into existing models.

✅ Fixed stability issues that occur when the model contains invalid connectors.

View all Revit 2026.1 changes here:
https://lnkd.in/gfrz95Rh