BIM 360 DOCS - Share files outside of project

[Ezekiel12]

Hi,

lots of clients upgrade from BIM 360 TEAM to BIM 360 DOCS, which is far superior. But DOCs is missing some really basic functionalities, like - File sharing OUTSIDE of the project (like TEAM can).

See below image of DOCS sharing options and TEAM sharing options. Docs can share only with project members (which is totally useless 😞 because they already have access to it). 

At least add the option to share it by link to anyone. 

Additionaly, you can add:

- Log of all shared files

- Set expiration to shared files

- Maybe add this option only to users with edit/upload permissions.

Please Autodesk, this is "Must have". You don't develop the BIM 360 TEAM anymore, which is fine, but lot of users switch to DOCs and this basic thing is missing.

Thx,

Matt

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Are there any further updates on when this feature will become available?

Just started with BIM360 and found the exclusion of this feature quite frustrating as I am having to load models to other model sharing systems in addition to loading to DOCS. Might also pay to have a look at the augmented reality function for viewing these models like you can achieve in the Kubity app. Very useful for site reviewing of models

[Anonymous]

Agree, and this question was once answered with an 'in the roadmap'  but seems to have gone quiet. Can understand the need for a user to have an autodesk account (to control security) but share link viewing and download should not require a license

[Anonymous]

Thanks,

Surely it can't just be that they are worried about loosing out on revenue??

I wouldn't even care if I had to pay a fee on top ofmy account fee to let
me share publicly.

Maybe they could limit to individual files links only so to avoid complete
folder sharing.

Obviously collaborators need a licence to be engaged in the project but one
time file sharing is a must.

Everyone will be doing it anyway they just won't be using the 360Docs
platform. Dropbox, Google Drive, Modelo, Kubity etc etc. which seems crazy
given the whole point in docs is to share and collaborate?

I did read somewhere that they are actively working on it so fingers
crossed it comes through soon.

[Anonymous]

Hi

I was at the AUlondon last week and the guys from Autodesk mentioned this would happen immediately. Any specific date? My company would need this feature in order to use BIM 360 Docs.

Thanks

[jsanders]

My company can't wait when this will hapen. So far we have been blocked and working with frustration these last few months. Please AUTODESK ! 🙂 @joan_allen 

[Anonymous]

Any updates regarding the deployment date? That's a pity that the new generation platform lacks crucial feature which previous version (360 Team) had.

[jsanders]

@Anonymous no news so far. All the users like us continue to use BIM 360 Docs with lots of frustration. It really is truly annoying to not be able to send files to people who are not inside the project. Hopefully Autodesk will share good news soon. Meanwhile we just have to use other software/solutions...

[SGrisez]

The primary reasons I stopped using the Autodesk team sharing environment was because I could not publicly share with a 'user' without requiring the 'user'  to do 2 things:

1. 'sign in' to an account. (in convenient)

2. 'purchase' an account (absolutely unnecessary & burdensome to the other user)

I don't mind if I need to pay for an account but those I'm working with should not be required.

[SeanMTA]

#2 is incorrect. They do not need to buy Docs in order to be able to view or download a model or sheets. Be careful what your reseller is selling you on.

[Anonymous]

@SeanMTA As I understand it (unless something has changed) in order to be part of the docs share (unlike team) they need to be a member of the project. That consumes a license, either the hub owners or theirs if have design.

[SGrisez]

I understand, 'it has been accepted to allow public sharing' in April which would not consume a 2nd license for the receiver.

[SGrisez]

Yep. But this was 'accepted' in April but currently it is not possible, but 'at some point' it will be. So 'at the moment' the dealer is correct both the 'sharer' and 'consumer' both need licenses, until what has been 'accepted' is 'implemented'

[SeanMTA]

Does not. You add them to the project via their email, which much be associated to an Autodesk ID, which is free. Permission settings can be set up to allow them to upload/download/create folders/rename/share/etc. You can create Companies, and assign the users under this umbrella for fast permissions related to the company. Example, all Structural engineers (Design and non-Revit users) are associated under their company name, which is then given permissions to make a mess in their Structural folder within Doc Management.
The Docs license is consumed if acting as document controller, primary admin, or working with the behind the scenes setup.

[Anonymous]

Not for me, a share user has to be

1. In the hub admin member directory
2. Assigned to the project in the Project Member Directory (you can then pick them from the share dialog)
3. If set as "Active" in the Hub members they consume a license and can view
4. If set as "inactive" they do not consume a license on our hub but on attempt to view get prompted to start a trial (ie on the road to acquiring a license)

I'd love to be wrong, but don't see a no license public share on our hub 

[SeanMTA]

Ohhh nooooo....Now I am totally confused because this seemed to not be the case for a while. Have I been dealing with super users this whole time? Something is weird...Maybe users that have some previous affiliation to Autodesk via any random software license is at play here?
It's weird because I was even testing Docs with a dummy email of mine to see what end-users would see and I was able to muck about as a non-license holder with that login. View models, upload, download, etc.

[SGrisez]

It does not surprise me that ...it worked and then ...it did not work ... then ... it might work again soon based on a comment of 'acceptance' from an Autodesk Employee.
I used A360 Teams - and for a while it worked. Then it was removed, and I said good bye to the product. Now I'm interested again because of the acceptance.
Btw, be careful if you are using BIM360 on a trial license. I have found some functionality 'such as' adding 'apps' does not work.

[Anonymous]

@SeanMTA  If you go to Hub Admin and look at your dummy email, if shows active (and doesn't 'own' a BIM 360 Docs seat) it is consuming a license on your hub. If you make inactive you'll see the license count on your Doc Management account decrease by 1. 

Ideally public share would be read only, require an identity (Autodesk or corporate authenticated login) and not consume a license. I'm fine if activity comment, markup etc requires a login but to need just to view is daft.

[SeanMTA]

Something still not right here, because I just tried again with my dummy account. I can simply add it to a Project, which then allows me to activate the Document Management service for it. On the right side of the Project Admin > Members interface, under the SERVICE heading, I do see a INCREASE in the number, not a decrease by 1 as you suggest. The thing is...I did not think this represents a license. Licensing for software contracts is handle via the accounts.autodesk.com portal, isn't it?
I have been getting feedback lately from people I have been adding, in that they encounter some sort of trial/tour thing or something when trying to access the Project via the invite that is generated for them. Maybe my dummy was smarty and was created prior to the "make money" switch being turned back on at ADSK?

[SGrisez]

I don't think it has been 'implemented' yet only 'accepted'

[Anonymous]

@SeanMTA If you are using a service you are consuming a license somewhere. The Contract determines the number of licenses available, the Admin Hub who can be assigned to a service/project and shows how many of your contract number are used/available.

I believe the limit may be soft... ie you can exceed it... but have not been in that situation and wouldn't risk it.