We would love the ability to establish a master file library (or Libraries) in Autodesk Build that can be referenced from multiple projects without copying or replicating the files into each project (i.e. avoiding file duplication or sync). The master files would remain centrally managed as a single source of truth, while each project could add the shared folder to its Files structure and manage access permissions at the individual project level. Critically, project users should not require membership or access to the project or location where the master library is maintained. Their access to the referenced folder(s) would be granted through the consuming project. The intent is to support corporate standards, templates, procedures, forms, and other common resources that need to be available across many projects while: Maintaining one authoritative copy of each file. Eliminating duplicate files and version proliferation. Allowing the master library to be updated once, with changes immediately available to all projects referencing it. Allowing each project to control which project members can access the referenced folder(s). Avoiding the need to add users to the project containing the master library. Allowing the shared folder to appear naturally within the receiving project's Files structure. For files like company standard procedures, users would likely simply view the files.  For templates, users would make a copy from the library and save it in an active project folder (i.e. users on the consuming projects would have read only, or read / download type access, not likely edit) Ideally, this would function more like a referenced or mounted folder than a synchronization process. The consuming project would provide access to the centrally stored content rather than creating and maintaining another copy of it. Show More

On large projects, multiple departments may act as Submittal Managers (e.g., Civil, Architectural, MEP, QA/QC, Procurement). We request the ability to assign multiple Submittal Managers while restricting their visibility only to: Submittals they create Submittals assigned to their department or discipline Submittals explicitly shared with them Project Administrators should continue to have full visibility across all Submittals. This enhancement would improve information governance, reduce unnecessary access to unrelated documents, and better support large enterprise projects with multiple teams. Show More

Issue/Limitations When adding existing costs to a budget payment application, it can be hard to sort/filter view the actual costs to determine what items need to be detached, especially on large projects with many cost items. There are times we detach a cost from a pay app and would like to mark it as "non-billable" or make a note/comment on that item in case it needs to be pushed to the next pay app. Instead everything gets lumped together and we cannot filter it out. The window itself only lives in the "flyout" screen which is also hard to manage because it is so small.  Lastly, there is a limit of 1000 items max that can be aggregated into a pay app which may pose an issue for larger projects.  Ideally, you would be able to maximize this existing cost window into a fullscreen, have a filter/group option in the header, and be able to make comments/notes on specific items to ignore them if desired, with unlimited cost items that can be aggregated into a pay app. Show More

Customers have brought to our attention that the Forma Viewer does not correctly display 3D models from applications. For further details, see: Autodesk Support: Forma Viewer issues – Case No: 26239806.   Auswahl/Hervorhebung der Baugruppe Inventor: Auswahl von 2000040-2100-0:1 → die erwartete Geometrie wird korrekt hervorgehoben. Ja, korrekt Forma Viewer: Auswahl derselben Baugruppe 2000040-2100-0:1 → eine andere bzw. falsche Geometrie wird hervorgehoben. Ja, korrekt Modellhierarchie Inventor: 2000040-2100-0:1 vollständig aufklappen → die untergeordneten Komponenten werden angezeigt. Ja, korrekt Forma Viewer: Dieselbe Baugruppe vollständig aufklappen → werden dieselben untergeordneten Komponenten angezeigt oder fehlen tatsächlich bestimmte Komponenten? Es fehlen im Forma Viewer Komponenten die im Inventor Browserbaum angezeigt werden. Siehe rote Markierungen          =>           Show More

The review process in the document management area of Forma has serious limitations.   1. It is great that when creating a review, the initiator can set a timeframe for the duration of the review per reviewer. Apparently, the timeframe portion of the review only translates to adding the review to the late column in the Reviews report when manually generated. The Review process should automatically initiate an email notification on atleast a daily basis to the assigned reviewer as a follow-up reminder for them to take action. This review process isn't helpful if the initiator spends all of the time setting up the review template only to have to manually push reminders (via email, phone, text, pigeon, or otherwise) to responsible reviewers to take action because the assigned review timeline has not been met.   2. This review process would be even more impactful and effective if there was the addition of a digital signature option when creating the template for Reviews. If the digital signature is added to the review, the signature should be mandatory before the reviewer can finish their portion of the process. Show More

The Forma mobile app is in desperate need of a local file download feature. Currently, the app primarily functions as a viewer, without the ability to download original project files directly to a device for use outside the application. There are numerous use cases for local downloads, several of which are critical to our company's operations: Survey and layout equipment: Downloading CSV, TXT, and other point data files for transfer to data collectors, total stations, and GNSS equipment. PDF sharing: Opening, annotating, printing, and sharing PDFs through external applications, email, or messaging. Third-party applications: Importing project files into other mobile applications for processing, conversion, or analysis. Field-to-office workflows: Downloading files, modifying them in external applications, and uploading the results back to Autodesk. At a minimum, Forma should support a simple "Download to Device" option alongside native iOS/Android "Open In" and "Share" functionality. Our company uses Autodesk as its central project file repository, yet this limitation forces us to rely on alternative file-sharing solutions for basic field operations. If the concern is data security, I urge the team to add a permission to user accounts defaulting to "No Local Downloads", so that the feature may be enabled only for trusted users.  Years ago, I had the opportunity to speak with an Autodesk Development team member, and they agreed this functionality is important to include in future updates. With the major changes to the ACC Mobile app at the time, I am not surprised it got lost in the tide.  I strongly encourage Autodesk to prioritize this functionality. It would be a significant quality-of-life improvement for surveyors, engineers, construction professionals, and anyone relying on Forma in the field.     Show More

Allow users to delete individual versions from version history, or separate version history from file history so unwanted versions can be removed. This would help keep records clear, reduce confusion from duplicate or incorrect uploads, and improve overall document management. Show More

Request: Hub Admin should be able to lock Cost Management settings for all projects. Ideally, this would be a simple toggle for each individual setting to allow flexibility.   Reasons: Project Admin should not be able to modify (all or some) settings because this breaks the standardization, compliance, and general control of how company financials are entered, processed, and reported. Currently, much time is spent auditing projects to prevent and monitor this. Training can discourage this, however, that is not enough to prevent potentially costly (time and/or financial) issues without these setting being locked. Show More

When exporting Sheets to PDF from the Forma Build › Sheets module, there is currently no option to automatically generate PDF bookmarks (the navigation outline inside the PDF). For teams that distribute and review large sheet sets, the lack of bookmarks makes it slow and difficult to navigate directly to a specific discipline or sheet in the combined PDF. We would like Forma Build to add an export option that automatically creates a structured PDF bookmark hierarchy, so recipients can jump to any sheet without scrolling through the entire document. Show More

Improve the bridge function within projects so that files shared across multiple folders always display the latest version of the document. This is particularly important where folders have different permission settings, as users may only have access to specific locations. Ensuring bridged files remain automatically up to date would provide a single source of truth, reduce the risk of outdated information being used, and improve collaboration across project teams. Show More

After using Build’s “Meetings” tool not only within our company but also with subcontractors and clients, I’ve identified an opportunity for improvement. Currently, it is not possible to track the sending and receipt of meeting minutes. While it is true that you can share the minutes, there is no way to verify that they were sent, and in contractual situations, it is necessary to have a record of and confirmation for the sending of the minutes. I suggest including this feature in the tool. Show More

Would it be possible to introduce a system restriction to prevent users from removing a previous drawing revision once it has been submitted through a “Review Workflow Transmittal”, regardless of whether the transmittal has been approved?   Ideally, previously submitted revisions would remain available for reference, retrieval and comparison, even after newer revisions have been uploaded, thank you. Show More

users are given full visibility level to issues. next level up permission gives them the ability to also close the issues which is not desired. issued should be marked as completed by users and mark as closed by BIM coordinator after review. with full visibility permission level only assignee can mark issues as complete. no one else can including watchers of the issue. thsi is very limiting in case resources change or they are unavailable and it will create bottlenecks. would be good to allow anyone in watcher list to be able to do this as well. Show More

I would like to propose a new feature: while it is currently possible to archive a project once it is completed or finished, I have a need to temporarily suspend certain projects. It would be useful to have a "Suspend" function that allows a project to be set to inactive without having to archive it, and without losing visibility for the members, roles, or companies involved. Show More

The ability to copy and paste an email list when you want to share a report with several email addresses that are non-members and members. This would also be useful when using the correspondence module.  Show More

I am requesting the development of a new visibility level that would allow for the complete concealment of an entire project (or specific folders within it) from certain members, roles, or companies. Currently, the most restrictive visibility setting available is "view-only." The objective, however, is to make content invisible to specific users (or companies/roles) without removing them from the hub or the project; this would preserve the historical record of who has collaborated and what their associated permissions were. Revoking a user's license is not a viable option, as users may hold their own licenses or inherit them from other organizations. Furthermore, removing a user from a project is not an appropriate solution due to requirements regarding traceability. Show More

Currently in ACC, roles have to be added one by one wherever they are used: folder permissions, issue assignees, RFI reviewers, submittal workflows, review/approval steps, forms, transmittals, meeting attendees, notifications and so on. Example: our project has multiple consultant roles: Consultant – Arch, Consultant – C&S and Consultant – MEP, etc.. which can go up to 10 consultants. In some cases, we share some folders, assign an issue or set up a review step for all consultants, we add the roles separately. We repeat this across many folders, workflows and projects. Proposed feature: let project admins create a Role Group, for example I can have “Consultant” containing Consultant – Arch, Consultant – C&S and Consultant – MEP. The group can then be selected anywhere a role can be selected today, and applied once. Where Role Groups would be useful: Folder permissions in Docs Assignees for Issues, RFIs, Submittals and Forms Reviewers and approvers in review/approval workflows Transmittal and notification recipients Meeting attendees Benefits: One selection instead of several, saving time for admins and project teams Fewer mistakes, such as missing one role or giving roles different permission levels Consistent setup across modules Shorter, cleaner assignee and permission lists that are easier to audit When a new role is added to the group, it is automatically included everywhere the group is used Nice to have: Role Groups saved at account level so they can be reused across projects or included in project templates Ability to expand a group to see its member roles wherever it’s selected Show More

Make it possible to define in the forma template what emails are send by the system to the users. Enable the functionality to turn off the welcome email that is send when new members are added to a Forma project made from a certain template Show More

When creating a Transmittal in Autodesk Forma for Construction, recipients are currently managed through a single recipient selection area. In the Issues module, responsibilities are more clearly separated through distinct fields such as “Assigned To” and “Followers”. This makes it easier to distinguish between the person or group responsible for taking action and the users who only need to be informed or kept in the loop. We would like the Transmittal creation workflow to use a similar structure by separating recipients into two distinct fields: Assigned To: users or groups who are expected to take action or are primarily responsible for the transmittal. Followers: users or groups who should receive visibility or notifications but are not responsible for the action. This would make responsibilities clearer, reduce ambiguity in communication, and align the Transmittal workflow more closely with the behavior already available in Issues. Show More