Content Catalog in ACC – Not Efficient for Revit Authors

[Artur_Szymanski]

The current Content Catalog in Autodesk Construction Cloud (ACC) is not efficient when used in combination with Revit. From the perspective of a Revit author, the workflow of browsing, filtering, and loading families into projects is slow and cumbersome compared to other available solutions.

There are multiple third-party browsers that allow much faster access, better filtering, drag-and-drop functionality, and the option to load only the required family types. These tools integrate more seamlessly into Revit and significantly improve productivity.

Of course, we clearly see the advantages of having a central storage location in ACC, combined with the viewer and additional metadata – that is very valuable. But without a stronger and more efficient connection to Revit itself, the Content Catalog remains more of a storage system than a daily working tool for authors.

The risk is that project teams then create a second, parallel storage location optimized for Revit browsing, which leads to redundant and duplicate data. To truly support Revit authors and leverage the strengths of ACC, the Content Catalog needs to become a faster, more integrated tool for daily authoring workflows.

[Ric_Weber]

I have removed my support for this idea because other than faster speeds, the rest of this seems to simply be a rant.  Faster speeds is always better, but I don't know if there is anything they can do about it and I personally do not think the insert time is slow.  If a speed increase could happen, great, but I'm not that worried about it.

As far as drag and drop, that is possible now.  Just open a project, find your item you want to insert and drag and drop it into the project. 

If your families have Type Catalogs, you can already insert only those types which you want into your project.  If your family does not have a Type Catalog, it will insert every type, that is true.  But if you have so many types in your family then perhaps it should have a Type Catalog?  That said, the ability to insert only one or two types into a project even if it doesn't have a type catalog is a good one and has been brought up before.  

The part that I'm wondering about in your statement of "the workflow of browsing, filtering, and loading families into projects is slow and cumbersome".  #1. Don't browse, Search!  Either by a one-off search or, even better, a saved search.  If you have lots of saved searches, those can be searched by the user as well.  #2. Be sure to create lots of Saved Searches.  Be sure to have your users suggest searches they are using routinely for creation into a Saved Search.  Add to your list of firm wide Saved Searches that way.  Being able to use Tags in the Saved Search would be an awesome idea though!

I agree, filtering could use some improvements, but you don't specify exactly what you're looking for.  There is an idea out there that filtering by Update Date would be good.  I agree with that.  There is an idea that the search tool should search the Notes field.  I agree with that.  What filtering capability or search capability would you like to see added or improved somehow? 

Your statement of risk of "...project teams <creating> a second, parallel storage location for Revit browsing..." is exactly the thing we are moving away from.  Should we have a secondary, parallel backup of our content in case of an internet outage?  Definitely!  When they correct and improve the download capabilities from CC (which they are aware of and working on), I will definitely be implementing that even more than I am currently.  But I believe, there is no way that someone can find something in a network folder location better or faster than they can using CC.  Therefore, it would only be there as a backup... not as the primary.  

"But without a stronger and more efficient connection to Revit itself, the Content Catalog remains more of a storage system than a daily working tool for authors."...  what specifically needs to be "stronger" and and what would you consider a "more efficient connection to Revit"? 

Are there better tools out there currently than CC?  In it's current state, probably.  Are we paying for them?  No.  If you are currently using one of those, congratulations.  Keep using it.  But if you are currently only using a network server folder structure, CC is a vast improvement... in my opinion.  

[Artur_Szymanski]

Hi Ric, thanks for the detailed response. Let me clarify and be more specific on a few points.

First, regarding speed. By “slow” I am not primarily referring to the raw insert time of a single family, but to the total time spent in daily use, searching, switching contexts, loading, and navigating back. Compared directly with native Revit browsers or established third party tools, this workflow is noticeably slower. This is an observation from day to day authoring, not a fundamental criticism.

Drag and drop does work, that is correct. The issue is not technical availability, but the path to get there. Compared to tools that live directly inside the Revit UI and avoid context switching, the workflow feels heavier for authors.

On type catalogs. Yes, with type catalogs selective loading is possible. In practice, however, there are many valid families without type catalogs where only one or two types are needed. At the moment, the Content Catalog does not provide fine grained control over type loading in those cases, which leads to unnecessary data being brought into the project.

Regarding browsing versus searching. Saved searches are useful, but they rely on very consistent structure, naming, metadata, and ongoing maintenance. That works well in theory, but not always in real project environments. Visual, hierarchical browsing is still a relevant working mode for many authors, especially in early project phases or when dealing with unfamiliar content. This is an area where the Content Catalog currently feels slow compared to dedicated Revit focused tools.

On filtering. What I am missing are combinable filters, for example category plus update date plus approval status, as well as a clearer separation between project specific and firm wide content. Deeper use of tags directly in the Revit context would also be key from my perspective.

On the topic of parallel storage. I am describing a risk I already see in real projects. When the Content Catalog is perceived as too slow or inflexible for daily authoring, teams will create alternative locations, regardless of whether that aligns with the intended strategy. That is exactly why I see a need for improvement here.

By “stronger connection to Revit” I mean a true, performant Revit add in focused on author workflows. Faster access without a web like UI, better preloading of metadata, selective type loading, and consistent performance that is less sensitive to internet latency. In short, a tool that feels like Revit to authors, not like a cloud browser attached to it.

I agree that compared to traditional network folder structures, the Content Catalog is a clear step forward. My point is not that CC is bad, but that it does not yet fully realize its potential for Revit authors.

---