In that situation you usually only have one view on the sheet correct? Otherwise it might be confusing to use the same name? Viewports have a setting called "When multiple viewports". Use that and no view title will show up when you put one view on the sheet... the sheet name takes over in a way without worry about what the view name is. If you add a second view to the sheet the viewport title appears and now their names matter. That help? Wrote about it here in the past.

Yes, I was aware of that functionality and that is a fairly good suggestion. However, our company standard is to have a sheet name and view title and I don't see that changing b/c of Revit Occasionally they are different, or you have multiple views on a sheet...but the majority of the time they are the same. It would be nice to have them be the same by default but able to be overridden manually.

That's probably the most oft repeated sentence in Revit implementation... "Yeah but our standard says otherwise..."

To add to what Steve so pithily said...

One of the most important things an office can do when starting the transition to Revit is to embrace two key ideas.
1: Revit works in a particular way, and that is not anything like AutoCAD or any other software you have ever used. and...
2: ALL standards are at their core a compromise between what communicates best and what is easiest to do. And ease or lack is fundamentally dependent on the tools in use. So a CAD Standard has no inherent meaning in a BIM world, certainly less applicability than a hand drafting standard did in a computer drafting world.

Functionally, what this means is that you proceed to evaluate your current standards and possible new standards based on those two criteria, communication and ease, relative to how Revit works. You don't cling to old standards, you cling to what you need to communicate, and find the most efficient way in Revit to do that. Revit very often gives you the opportunity to dramatically increase the level of communication in your deliverables, for a lot less work. The key is accepting that the new "standard" doesn't look like the old one, and evaluate it without prejudice. The classic example being shadows, that are a living nightmare in hand drafting and CAD so we spent decades working with a language of line weights to communicate depth, not because it was a better way to communicate depth (it isn't), but because it took 1/100th of the time so we accepted it. Revit makes those line weights a living nightmare, but shadows are drop dead easy to do instead. There are tons of other examples as well. Andy Milburn (Shades of Grey) has a pretty good example of documents you would never do in CAD, and you would be crazy not to want to do in Revit, here.


Gordon

Dunno how long your company has been around but if it's more then 20 years odds are your company standard once involved Rotring pens and chalk paper.
Basically you have two options:

1. Keep with your company standards and use valuable time doing this stuff manually.
2. Change the company standards

Second most used sentence is "we don't want to adjust our CS to a piece of software". If that's the case, here's how to deal with it:

Take one representative project, calculate your time lost doing it manually. Multiply by amount of people and projects on a yearly basis. Multiply by your hourly rate and tell the Powers that Be "this is what this particular company standard are costing us". Provide an example of how it should work using Revit's capabilities and ask them if it's worth the money. Let them at least sign off on it.

I can guarantee you this much:
First time, they'll laugh about it. Next item you encounter (Revit workflow not complying to CS), find the old email, add the new item and numbers. Resend.
They might still ignore it. When you reach something between 5-10 items on the list with a amount of lost money on it, it's going to raise questions. By the time the losses are becoming significantly large, you're getting a free pass to change the GC to work with Revit properly.

As you all correctly guessed we are a mostly CAD firm moving toward Revit for more and more projects...mostly b/c industry is making it more and more the norm. Thanks for the words of wisdom...I will use some of your suggestions with another 'go around' with the powers that be.

We are an MEP firm working mostly with architects. To side with my superiors for a moment I do understand the hesitation to model and provide BIM information for entire MEP systems when they are largely representational. We have been using Revit for nearly 5 years now for design purposes and smaller projects. This is our first large scale project using all Revit. However, if the industry is moving in that direction I don't see the wisdom in being slow to adapt.

Working in the CAD dept. I know the importance of CS...but, when CS interrupts productivity then I certainly agree some things need to change. Revit and AutoCAD are different with different end goals. That is the current battle in explaining the two pieces of software. The perception is that since Revit is newer, smarter, etc., then it is just a new and improved AutoCAD and that workflow shouldn't change.

Thanks again for the feedback...

Man so much empty talk here, they wrote essays and no solution?! I have similar problem now, have you find solution nmulder, I want view name on sheet one view per sheet end of story, don't want to waste my time changing every sheet manually

Well, since 2012, Dynamo has come along and I am sure you should be able to pull out the view name and copy/paste it into the sheet name parameter.

If the above in Dynamo doesn't work, then that's when it's time to hire someone to do the type of work that you don't want to do

It's summer. Time to snag an unpaid intern