Hello, A lot of customers use MS Teams (more and more) to manage some project. It will be great to better integrate ACC to MS Steams. For instance, instead of sending emails when something changes or issues arise, prefer sending messages via Microsoft Teams. The benefit is faster visibility, better collaboration, and reduced inbox clutter. Voila Olivier 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

We use a lot of Templates for Reviews, Forms etc, and have multiple admin users making changes to them. Can we please add a history section, similar to how we can see the history and edits of a file or an issue, to all templates so we can know who changed what within a template. This will add transparency, improve internal workflows and catch mistakes earlier. Show More

A client recently sent me a few screenshots that they wanted me to send out alongside a transmittal of a model. They did not want them uploaded to ACC or in a separate email, but to be copy/pasted into the message for the transmittal like you can in a standard email. This is currently not possible, and there aren't any text options available either, such as bullet points, making something bold, a different colour etc. We sometimes send out long messages with a transmittal and would want to see more text editing options to better communicate.   Show More

  Autodesk must fully integrate the latest Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) functionality into Autodesk Construction Cloud (ACC) to streamline collaboration and eliminate outdated workflows. Key Features Needed: Create New Office Files Directly in ACC Users should be able to create Word, Excel, or PowerPoint files natively within ACC — without needing to upload or copy files through Desktop Connector or other workarounds. Native Microsoft Integration with Open Options Just like in SharePoint, users should have the flexibility to: Open in Browser (Office Online) Open in Desktop App Open in Protected View (if needed) This would enable real-time editing, co-authoring, and seamless integration with Microsoft 365, massively boosting productivity and reducing file versioning issues. See picture attached. Show More

Problem: Labels and Text object are commonly used in Civil 3D to contain information. Users open DWG drawings to consult this information, sometimes from Civil 3d or sometimes from ACC. However, when opening DWG files in the ACC Viewer on a 3d view, the Labels and Text objects are not visible Desired outcome: EBA customer would like to make DWG Labels/Text objects from Civil 3D visible in the ACC Viewer in 3D view Current issue: Users cannot properly review DWG drawings in ACC since they cannot view the information contained in Labels and Text. Show More

3DConnexion - Spacemice are used in the industry by many colleagues. The support on Inventor, Fusion and Revit has been out for a long time. ACC (&Bim360) is missing this feature. It can be supported with web-based applications as other companies integrate this flawlessly. SDK's are publicly available to integrate this feature in ACC. https://3dconnexion.com/tw/service/ https://3dconnexion.com/us/software-developer-program/ Already mentioned in:  https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/bim-360-team-forum/3d-connexion-spacenavigator-vs-bim-360/td-p/7451334 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/bim-360-glue-forum/3dconnexion-space-mouse-compatibility/td-p/10186882 Show More

In BIM 360, 5 years ago, rooms were visible in 3D. After it was deactivated. (In power BI, with the SVF viewer, it's possible to see in 3D the rooms). Autodesk now has a stragegy for the data inside ACC. Rooms elements have a lot of useful data for client, designers, construction teams... (area, perimeter, finishes, department...), these data are useful to track the program, the finishes quantities... and to track the work progress on site. It would be great and really useful to have an option to enable the display of rooms in the viewer (3D & 2D). Show More

Often, RFIs and submittals follow the same exact workflows.  Currently, the RFI module is just to rigid.  We would like to add steps, assign a role or company as responsible reviewer, etc.  The current set-up just doesn't work. Have the submittal and RFI teams work together! Show More

It would be very handy to make an import to create new forms. We make hundreds of forms and all have to be made individualy. It would be great if the basics could be imported via an excel (Name, description, location). This would be like the import for issues, where you can import 500 at once. Show More

Introduce the ability for approvers to digitally sign PDF documents and drawings directly within the Docs review workflow. This feature would allow users to add an electronic signature to a file (similar to functionality in standard PDF readers) before approving it.    Proposed Functionality: During the review process, approvers can open the document and insert their digital signature directly on the PDF. Optional validation: prevent approval or progression to the next workflow step unless the approver’s signature has been added. Benefits: Increases accountability and traceability in the approval process. Reduces the need for external PDF editing tools. Ensures that only verified, signed documents move forward in the workflow. Streamlines document control and compliance processes. Show More

A) Purpose The purpose of this feature request is to establish a review process that is lean, efficient, and user-friendly—both to understand and to submit. Furthermore, by consolidating all documents to be reviewed and approved into a single stack within one module, the process becomes more streamlined and transparent. The review and approval workflow forms a core element of document management within a CAPEX project. Without the optimization of this process capex will lose much efficiencies. B) Detailed description of the proposal In the context of the ACC platform construction and plant management, all documents must undergo both a collaboration phase (markup process) and a formal approval process. To support this, an efficient and transparent workflow is required. C) Today’s setup in ACC to get a document from review process to an approved document: Within the remark process everyone can adjust and manipulate everyone’s markups or issues. After review process is done all the markups will be incorporated in a new Version 2 document an updated in ACC on the same file stack as Version 1 .After the Upload of Version 2 is done all the markups and the issue are still visible. If you do not delete all markups and issues you need to publish the document to get an approved Version, otherwise you need to delete all the markup and close all issues on version 2. To publish a document, it must first be submitted for publishing. During this step, the document is “transferred” into the Build module and stored as a file. Current Challenges: The process is not lean: it requires multiple steps and involves manual cleanup. Markups and issues can be modified individually by each reviewer, which compromises consistency. There is no single source of truth, as files are dispersed within one stack. Traceability is limited, since all files are stored in a single location without clear version control D) Idea: Within the review process, all markups and issues should be editable only by the reviewer who created them. No other reviewer should be able to modify or delete markups made by others. Once the workflow has been finalized, all markups and issues must be locked to ensure that no further changes can be made, not even by the original author. After the review process is completed, all notations will be incorporated into a new Version 2, which will be uploaded to the same file stack as Version 1. The markups and issues from the previous version are not copied or inherited into Version 2. Instead, the approver can compare the two versions by using the change comparison functionality within the ACC tool. As the last uploaded Version shows the approved document there is not need of publishing or to delete, close  any remarks or issues. This idea of the new workflow setup should enable: Personal annotations that remain unalterable by third parties. Structured task management to ensure a clear, effective, and traceable review process. Single point of truth, One stop shop Easy executable , transparent workflow and file storage General Requirements After the review and approval workflow is completed, document attributes should be automatically set. In case of a rejection, these attributes must also be removable or modifiable as needed. The final version of the file must always be stored in the same folder and batch as the originally submitted document, ensuring consistency and traceability. In addition, it would be highly beneficial to automatically generate an approval cover sheet once the workflow is finalized. This cover sheet should document the entire approval process, including all approvers. The workflow should remain flexible by allowing reviews to begin with one or multiple reviewers and to apply to one or multiple documents in parallel. Furthermore, the option to add reviewers or approvers during the ongoing approval process would be highly recommended, as this would significantly increase the efficiency and practicality of handling workflows. The rough requirements for the single objects are described as below: A) Reviewer 1 Reviewer should edit only their own comments must 2 Reviewer should not allowed to change their comments After review Workflow is finalized must 3 Reviewer should be addable , deletable, modifiable must   ff     B) Attributes 1 Attributes should be set, change, deleted during the workflow steps , especially at the end must 2 Attributes should be customizable must   sub.     C) Documents 1 Markups should be not copied from old version to new version (should not be inherited) must 2 Documents need to be stored on the same stack as they original have been stored (Visibility only the newest is seen, but file historical can be visssible) must 3 Cover page, once document is successfully approved a coversheet should be as a “first or last” page added to the original document. The cover page shows  Workflow specific data and reviewer / approver data, Name and electronical signature must 4 Workflow comments, not on document (e.g. not markups) if rejected or general comments needed on workflow level must 5 Workflow comments on document level (e.g. not markups) if on a document level comments needed – one document is approved another rejected Optional 6 Documents to be stored in one place -  “Single Source of truth Must 7 Versioning  available must 8 “Stamps” , “signes “after approval to be on reviewed document after   sub.     General 1 Review should see there personal work task out of workflows Independent if a “Role” is linked to a workflow or  must 2 Delegation if someone is out of office Optional 3 Each Document need to be traceability. E.g. Who  was within the approver process , who signed when must 4 Overall WF list within a project with all the different information should be exportable for reporting and tracking purpose must 5 File report :  all Files & metadate& Folder & subfolder .  download in “Excel” must   sub.   TX to all who supported me getting this request together , Michael Show More

Even when on the go, it may be necessary to compare version differences between documents or plans, as the mobile app is used not only by assemblers but also by project managers on site.   It should be possible to decide which version of a document to open while on the go,   albeit perhaps in a slightly more “hidden” way, in order to avoid misunderstandings on the construction site. Show More

It would be useful to be able to export specifications, either all or selected via a check box, similar to drawings. Show More

Currently, managing folder permissions must be done individually for each folder, and creating a permissions overview requires external tools such as Power BI or Excel. It would be very useful to have a bidirectional permissions matrix within the platform, allowing permissions to be managed in a centralized way for multiple folders and users at once. This would save time and reduce errors. Show More

Currently, when filtering issues by role or company, only those issues directly assigned to that role or company are displayed, not those assigned to users belonging to that role or company. It would be very helpful, especially for analysis and reporting, if this could be changed so that all issues belonging to a role or company could be filtered, even if they are directly assigned to users within that role or company.   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

We have numerous meetings where we have the same items on each meeting in addition to the topics- can we get the ability to add items to meeting templates.  Show More

  Add a permission setting to restrict project admins so they can only add members that already exist in the account directory, managing all members from an account level   problem: compliance, security, cost control, data governance. impact: risk of unapproved users gaining access, audit issues, billing surprises.   Show More