We would like Autodesk Forma Data Management to recognize files as new versions of an existing document even when the Description portion of the filename changes, provided the remaining document-identifying attributes remain unchanged. This would allow users to maintain meaningful filenames in Desktop Connector without creating separate files or losing version continuity. The functionality should also support workflows where files are shared between projects through Bridge, reducing the need for manual filename updates across different hubs. Show More

There is a massive flaw to the Bridge system where international companies connect to different design teams around the world. When any other region server is used, it CANNOT be bridged with another different region, limiting this system completey. Multiple office companies cannot use different servers in different countries, meaning one office will need to connect to a server not local to there own country for the bridge system to work. This is a huge flaw in the system, and dont understand how it has been allowed to go under the radar? Show More

Currently, it is not possible to rename an incoming team in the receiving project. Duplicate team names receive a number appended to their names. When the duplicate in the receiving project is renamed/ removed, the user should be able to rename the team/ remove the number. Show More

Would like to allow users to reference or link Bridged RFIs directly on Sheets, similar to other document references. Show More

Currently, when files are bridged into a project using the Bridge tool, users only receive a notification that new bridged files are available. However, there is no approval process for the receiving project to accept or reject the incoming Bridge connection or bridged files. For example, a project member in Project A can bridge files from Project A to Project B, provided that the member has access to those files. The user does not necessarily need to be a Project Admin in Project A or Project B. This means that files may be shared into Project B without prior review or approval from the Project Admin of Project B.   Proposed Improvement: We would like to propose an approval workflow for incoming Bridge files. When a user from Project A attempts to bridge files into Project B: The Project Admin of Project B should receive an email notification. The Project Admin should also receive an approval request within Autodesk Forma. The Project Admin should be able to review the source project, selected files or folders, initiating user, and proposed Bridge settings. The Project Admin should be able to Accept or Reject the Bridge request. The files should only become available in Project B after the request has been accepted. Autodesk Forma could also provide an option at the project level to choose between: Automatically accepting incoming Bridge files; Requiring Project Admin approval; or Restricting incoming Bridge requests completely. Show More

Situation Within ACC, directories can be linked from one project to another using the Bridging function. The entire directory and its contained files are synchronized in real time.   Concept To avoid creating a separate “Bridging” folder for each individual file, it would be useful to enable linking not only at the directory level but also at the file level. This is particularly helpful for a coordination project that aggregates individual files (e.g., project schedules) from multiple projects into a central coordination folder. In addition to the file name, an attribute could indicate from which project the file is linked or transferred.   Benefits Only necessary files are synchronized; unnecessary transfers are avoided No extra effort once a file is linked via Bridging Efficient real-time synchronization of only the relevant files No additional folder for the bridging functionality to be established and maintained   Show More

Possibility to bridge issues between ACC projects. This would save time working in projects where you have multiple ACC hubs for the same project. For example client, designers, and main contractor each have their own hub. Show More

Hello,   My project deals with a lot automated bridges that occur. Often the other party complains to us saying that a bridge was sent and approved and we were never informed of such things. This issue is a very serious one since things are seemingly happening under our nose. I was wondering if it would be possible to add a feature that notifies relevant people about automated bridge.    Thank you, Jonathan Show More

When configuring a Bridge in Forma Build, the folder selection interface presents every folder in the project in a long scrolling list. It is difficult to see any structure or organization from the current list view. Users have no way to orient themselves within the project's actual folder structure without opening the Files module in a separate browser window as a reference. This adds friction to every Bridge setup and increases the risk of selecting the wrong folders, especially on complex projects with deep folder hierarchies and many similarly named directories. Having to cross-reference two browser windows during configuration is an avoidable workaround that slows down what should be a straightforward administrative task.   The folder picker should reflect the same tree structure that users already see in the Files module, with collapsible parent folders, indented subfolders, and checkboxes that automatically include all child folders when a parent is selected. This would bring the Bridge setup experience in line with how users already navigate and understand their project's file organization, eliminate the need for a separate reference window, and reduce the chance of misconfigured Bridges. Show More

Many companies use nested links, and when bridging projects the nested links in a main model do not resolve their pathing when received by an external company so they do not display.  Please allow nested link paths to be able to auto-resolve when using Bridge. Show More

If an equipment builder/Integrator us using an internal instance of ACC; but the Client(Site) uses another.  It would be very helpful if Open Punchlist Issues could be transferred to the Site Project for completion in the field.   Show More

As Forma supports multiple personas and workflows, assets should not be confined to a single hub. We’d like to see assets become shared, live entities across hubs, rather than individual objects that only update and live in one hub.   Owners, general contractors, specialty contractors and trades should be able to Bridge Assets across multiple Forma hubs, including all their fields, statuses, and hopefully references. Show More

It's been some time that Autodesk has introduced few new data regions. In the past, even with having only 2 data regions (US and EU) we had a lot of problem transferring data during a project if companies used different data regions. Now we have 8 different regions which can not be bridged together. I understand that some work has been done so the handover packages can be shared from one region to another but we would like to have the bridge function available for different regions during the project. Hope you can work on this long time limitation of ACC and release it soon, as I'm sure everyone will be happy. Show More

When RFIs are created in a project via Autodesk Construction Cloud Bridge (i.e., distributed from another project), they exist only as standalone RFIs in the receiving project. Unlike RFIs created natively, these RFIs cannot be referenced to other project data (cost items, issues, schedule activities, etc.) once they are in the new project.   This is not a data-loss issue during transfer; rather, the referencing functionality is simply unavailable for Bridge-created RFIs in the destination project.   Business Impact RFIs distributed via Bridge are functionally inferior to native RFIs Limits adoption of Bridge for program- or portfolio-level workflows Breaks downstream linking to cost, schedule, and issue management Forces teams to manually recreate RFIs to enable references Introduces inconsistency and avoidable administrative rework Requested Enhancement Enable RFIs created via Bridge to be referenceable within the receiving project, consistent with RFIs created directly in that project. Specifically: Allow Bridge-created RFIs to reference other ACC data objects Allow other ACC data objects to reference Bridge-created RFIs Ensure no functional distinction between native and Bridge-created RFIs once in the project Desired Outcome RFIs created via Bridge are fully integrated into the receiving project’s data model and can participate in standard referencing, reporting, and workflow automation without manual re-creation. Show More

Problem statement Today, ACC Bridge configuration is primarily a manual, UI-driven process. For enterprise programs managing many projects (and frequent new projects, folders, partner teams, and standard information flows), this creates operational overhead and inconsistency. Teams want to standardize and automate cross-project data sharing via Bridge, but there is no publicly documented Bridge API to create, update, or govern Bridges programmatically. Who is impacted Enterprise owners managing multiple projects/spaces and repeatable delivery workflows BIM/VDC, Document Control, and IT teams responsible for consistent CDE governance Partners/integrators building automation via iPaaS (Power Automate, Workato, etc.) Current pain points Manual setup doesn’t scale for large portfolios (hundreds of projects/folder routes). Inconsistent Bridge configuration across projects leads to missed/incorrect sharing. Governance and audit automation (reporting, policy enforcement) is limited without API access. Desired outcome Provide a supported ACC Bridge API (or add Bridge capabilities to existing ACC/Docs APIs) that enables: Create Bridge (source project/folder → target project/folder) Manage Bridge settings (auto-sync on/off, permissions/filters where applicable) Update Bridge scope (include new subfolders, change mappings, rename handling) Monitor Bridge status (sync state, last run, failures, error details) Audit/report endpoints (list all bridges, who created/modified, when) Events/webhooks for Bridge activity (created/updated/sync failed/sync completed) Example use cases Automatically create standard Bridges when a new project is provisioned. Auto-create Bridges for specific partner companies when they join a project. Central reporting of all Bridges for compliance and security review. Show More

I would like the ability to select and share individual files through Bridge with automated syncing. The receiving project should also be able to choose a different destination folder for each file when accepting the Bridge. Currently, Bridge only allows an entire folder to be shared when automated syncing is enabled. This creates a problem when I need to share only one or a few files without exposing the rest of the folder. It also limits how the receiving project can organize the shared files. The current workaround is to share and update files manually, move them into separate folders, or reorganize them after they are received. This is inefficient and increases the risk of duplicate, misplaced, or outdated files. What will not work ❌ Sharing an entire folder when only one or two files need to be shared. ❌ Moving selected files into a separate folder just to make them eligible for automated sharing. ❌ Creating duplicate files or folders to control what recipients can access. ❌ Manually sharing individual files every time a new version is uploaded. ❌ Requiring every shared file to be accepted into the same destination folder. ❌ Manually moving files after accepting the Bridge, especially if this interferes with future automated updates. What will work (practical options) ✅ Allow users to select individual files when creating a Bridge automation. ✅ Automatically sync new versions of the selected files while leaving them in their existing source folders. ✅ Allow files to be added to or removed from the automated share without sharing their entire parent folder. ✅ Clearly identify which individual files are included in each Bridge automation. ✅ When accepting the Bridge, allow the receiving project to select a separate destination folder for each individual file. ✅ Maintain the connection to each source file after it is placed in the selected destination folder so future versions continue syncing automatically. Recommended setup When creating or editing a Bridge automation, provide two selection options: Share folders Share individual files If individual files are selected, Bridge should monitor those files and automatically sync new versions to the receiving project. When the receiving project accepts the Bridge, each file should appear in a list with its own destination-folder selector. This would allow one file to be placed in a Plans folder, another in a Models folder, and another in a Project Documents folder. The selected destination should remain assigned to that file for all future automated updates. Users should also be able to change a file’s destination later without breaking the Bridge automation. Bottom line Bridge automations should allow individual files to be selected, automatically synced, and placed into different destination folders when the receiving project accepts the Bridge. This would provide more precise access control, preserve the source project’s existing folder structure, let receiving projects organize files according to their own needs, reduce manual work, and ensure recipients always have the latest versions of the intended files. Show More

The Problem: On multi-consultant projects, every project hub has to independently set up a bridge to every other hub. On a 10-consultant project, that can mean up to 90 individual bridge configurations across all parties (or 45 depending on how you count it). This is a lot of unnecessary admin, and can be simplified.   The Proposed Feature: When setting up a bridge to another project, it would be great if users could optionally view that project's existing bridge connections (with that bridged project's permission) and send bridge requests to those parties in bulk, rather than having to set-up and configure each one separately.   Key design principle: I understand privacy might be a concern for some firms, so this should be opt-in. A project hub should be able to control whether its bridge connections are visible to others. I don't expect this to be an issue for most firms but I know the privacy aspect of it can be quite a big deal-breaker for some who don't want other firms automatically seeing their bridged connections.   The benefit: Less repetitive admin at project start-up, lower risk of consultants being missed, and a setup process that better reflects how real project networks work. Show More

As a general contractor, we often Bridge projects with the design team and their models are typically published with links. When they are bridged over to our project, they essentially become useless because they can't be linked through the Desktop Connector because of the "zip file" issue. If there was a way to modify the "schedule publish" feature in Design Collaboration to publish without links, that would resolve this issue.   Thanks! Show More

Revision Attribute – Enhancement Request In Forma, the Revision attribute has been changed to a free-text field. This update removes the ability to auto increment the value making the process entirely manual. As a result, users are now required to manage revision values themselves, introducing unnecessary administrative complexity. To improve usability and maintain consistency, I propose reinstating the dropdown (pull-down) list functionality for the Revision attribute. This would enable automated, sequential revision control as part of the Forma review workflow.   Proposed behaviour: The Revision field is controlled via a dropdown list. During each completed Forma review, the revision automatically increments in sequence. Example progression: 1 → 2 → 3 → 4, etc. This change would: Reduce manual input errors Streamline the review process Ensure consistent and auditable revision management Show More