What are the benefits of the new "empty field" feature? It results in more scrolling and obstructs other fields, as illustrated below: It's not possible to select a person, which is quite frustrating!   Show More

I would love to have a template subcategory. I could edit the main template, and the changes would apply to the sub templates if they were affected. I have multiple scopes on a project, and I would like to be able to select the sub scope template to add in their Elements (Mechanical, Electrical, Low Voltage Systems) Currently we have one template, so changes are made to all new projects but if a job only has the Electrical Scope it doesn't need to include the Mechanical and Systems Forms, Issues or Asset Categories.  If I had a parent template with child templates and could make changes to only the parent and it would affect the child that would be great! Show More

The status fields have a "Not Approved" status but should in turn have an "Approved" status.  There is currently no ability to add a custom field to statuses in ACC Issues.   I would like Approved to be added or the ability to add it myself.   Show More

We need a simple way to include photos with individual descriptions directly in a Field Report export. Right now: Photo attachments in a Field Report cannot have descriptions tied to each image. The new Table feature does not support attachment columns. Adding Issues to a Field Report only shows the Issue ID in the export — not the photo or description. Request (either solution works): When adding Issues to a Field Report, include their photo + description in the exported PDF, OR Allow attachment columns in the new Table field, so we can build a simple “Photo + Description” row. This would let teams produce a single daily report with all observations and photos together, instead of exporting two separate reports. Show More

Need a method to bulk update permissions across existing projects.  As an organization, we have many open projects, and are relatively new to ACC Build (in our first year of adoption).  We are routinely finding cases where we need to grant additional permissions.  We can change the template to do this for future projects, but having to update permissions project by project, and separately for the files, issues, etc. is tedious, and very difficult to administer effectively.    An example is that we want to give our Operations group access to issues.  This was not originally set up in the template, and now we would need to change 100+ open projects one at a time.  There should be a way for the site administrator to change permissions across multiple open projects at once.   Show More

To efficiently work our RFIs and Issues, we need to quickly run a reports to determine the OPEN items that are overdue. This allows us to view only what needs to be addressed during an event. Create a report for each in the template section.    Show More

There needs the ability to prevent certain forms from being closed when they contain open issues. For high-risk or quality-critical Scopes of Work, allowing forms to close while issues remain open creates risk and reduces accountability. Adding an option that requires all issues to be resolved before a form can be closed would ensure higher-quality inspections, better compliance, and more accurate workflow control.  Show More

Email notifications generated by the "Issues" tool direct users to the "Docs" module instead of the "Build" module. This creates confusion for members, because the Docs view hides familiar Build tools in the left sidebar. The requested change is for email links to open directly in "Build" so users land in the correct module.  Show More

ACCの指摘事項を作成する際に、3Dビュー同様に2Dビューでも「指摘事項のサムネイル」が生成されるようにしてほしいです。 近い範囲の複数において同じ指摘をしたいときや移動方向等「指摘事項のサムネイル」でマークアップによる書き込みができると便利です。   Show More

I've said it before on this forum, and I'll say it again. The premise of using Revit Published Views in Model Coordination is flawed.   In this instance, the flaw is when creating and reviewing Issues. Because Model Coordination treats Revit Published Views as unique 'Models' (that's ACC terminology, not mine), elements that are found across multiple Revit Published Views from the same Revit model are also considered as unique. e.g. A Revit model may contain three Published Views: 'All Levels', 'Level 1', and 'Level 2'. Levels 1 and 2 may have some deliberate view sectioning overlap between the views, and so an element may exist in both level views, and also in the all levels view.   The issue creator may be working with discipline model/views for an individual level. e.g. arch level 1, mech level 1, etc. When they raise an issue, they are placing it on elements found within level 1 published views.   The issue reviewer may be working with discipline model/views for all levels. When they review the issues list, they won't see the issues because they are technically viewing different models that has different unique elements.   In both of the above use cases, from a Revit perspective the element exists in both published view as a single unique instance. But ACC Model Coordination treats them as multiple unique instances. This disparity introduces a reasonable amount of design process risk into Model Coordination, whereby there is a reasonably chance that issues could be missed by the reviewer.   For this to function correctly, issues must be pinned to the originating Revit model element, not the published view element. This would ensure that issues are always visible regardless of which published view was used. Show More

Other Translation Issue When using the browser in French, the data fields “Cause” / “Root Causes” for issues are not translated—the default values remain in English. (See screenshot for an example with root causes related to design and safety). Show More

If we want to make multiple selections, we currently have to select the issues one by one. It would be great to have the ability to use Shift + click to select two issues and automatically include all issues between them. (This functionality already works with assets and sheets.) Show More

For a lot of forms, we are creating issues inside the forms. When exporting forms in pdf, we have a table with the issues but not the detail of the issues (metadata, photos...) It's not enough, for example, we are doing safety walkthrough with a form containing issues, we need to quickly generate a report containing all the informations for each visit. To have a report with the details of the issues, we need to use the issues interface, but we can't filter the issues depending of the field "reference" (to filter with the form xxx for example) so we have to know and to tick manually  each issue we have to export. Show More

Descargar Oleada TV   Oleada TV APK transforma tu Android en un centro de entretenimiento completo: cientos de canales de TV en vivo, películas y series organizadas por género, listas de favoritos, compatibilidad con móviles, tablets y TV Box, grabación opcional y calidad estable, todo en una sola app rápida e intuitiva para disfrutar contenido en cualquier momento, lugar y dispositivo sin complicaciones. Show More

We want to be able to use Issues for tracking Risks across the scheme and print out drawings of where they are physically located using the Issue Pin locations, however this is not possible as the Pins do not contain the Issue Reference Number making it impossible to tie them back to the right issues from the register. It would be great to have this as an option within the settings. Some issue types I want to identify through their Number, some through name. Some through different colours etc. Issues and Issue pins are very powerful and useful tools when communicating risks across a project and we desperately need more features to fully utilise them. I would also like to be able to filter them. For example, I want to create a CDM risk drawing and only show Issue Pins related to CDM risks, not every project-wide issue. This would eliminate duplicate work as we currently need to run a parallel drawing set replicating where the Issue pins are just for this reason so we can filter and tag by number. Show More

Being able to display a user name other than fixed in on SSO name.  Show More

It would be amazing to have a workflow for Issues. Similar to RFI, Submittals, or Reviews. Right now, limiting it to managers only being able to close issues is good, but an automated multi-step review process would be great. We use issues in our prerelease internal review work. This is before our final review for releasing a doc, for which we use the reviews function. It would be fantastic if we had the option to assign the issue to a different person depending on the status or allow people to "submit" a issue and move it to a different step in the workflow so we can better track who is doing what to address the issues. Show More

The new Issue feature of empty fields bundling together at the end has a bug - it currently does not detect the data in 'Watchers', mistakenly bundling it into the 'Empty Fields' area at the bottom (see screenshot attached). This is causing confusion. Can this bug please be addressed and secondly can admins be given the choice to disable this feature, it may not be wanted on every project. This could be a toggle in Settings.  Show More

We need a permission setting for Owner's reps that allows them full visibility of Issues (ideally by Issue type, but even just by Issues as a whole would help/work) regardless of who created them or who they are assigned to, but without the ability to add comments. Right now, Full Visibility and Watcher settings do all of this except they also allow comments by the user, which we need to have eliminated for some users. Show More