As observed by multiple users, the current functionality of Autodesk Forma Data Management generates notification emails only for users directly involved in the review workflow. Currently, notifications are sent to the Initiator, Reviewers (Roles, Individual Users, and Companies), and Approvers (Roles, Individual Users, and Companies). While this functionality covers the primary participants in the review process, there is a gap in communication for users assigned to the Initiator Role. At present, only the individual who initiates the workflow receives notifications, whereas other users associated with the same Initiator Role remain unaware of important review activities, status changes, approvals, rejections, or pending actions. It would be highly beneficial to extend the notification mechanism to include all users mapped to the Initiator Role, similar to how notifications are already distributed to Reviewer and Approver Roles. This enhancement would improve visibility, collaboration, and continuity within project teams, particularly in scenarios where multiple team members share responsibility for initiating and tracking reviews. It would also help mitigate risks associated with user unavailability, ensure that critical workflow updates are not missed, and provide better transparency across the review lifecycle. Enabling notifications for all users assigned to Initiator Roles would create a more consistent and comprehensive communication framework, aligning the behavior of Initiator Roles with the existing notification model for Reviewer and Approver Roles. Show More

To have a way to link the hub parameters into assets custom field for easier creating of fields Show More

While exporting an Issue Report, we noticed that the Issues tool does not currently provide an option to filter issues based on the specific file they are pinned to. We understand that issues associated with a particular file can be viewed by opening the file directly. However, this process can be time-consuming, especially when reviewing multiple issues across different files. It would be helpful if a file-based filtering option could be added to the Issues tool, allowing users to easily filter and identify issues associated with a selected file without having to open each file individually. We believe this enhancement would improve efficiency when managing and reviewing issues. Show More

While configuring the new Forms Table feature within Forms Template Configuration, we noticed that the available calculation actions are currently limited to Add and Multiply. We would like to suggest expanding the available calculation options to include Subtraction and Division, as these operations are also frequently used in construction-related calculations. We believe adding these options would provide greater flexibility and make the Forms Table feature more practical for various project requirements.   Show More

In PlanGrid, with certain markup tools, one was able to lock if clicked or tapped twice, such as a highlighter, measuring tool, etc. This seems like a simple feature and was really helpful then. Please bring this back!  Show More

Problem: Company Setup is currently configured at the project level. While this provides flexibility, the addition of extra contact fields for roles such as Owner, Main Contractor, and Architect creates a risk that these required contact roles may not be added when a new project is created. If project admins are unaware that these additional contacts need to be in use, they may not be added, and thus no contact person assigned in the project. This can cause issues in downstream workflows, such as e-signature processes, where a specific role must be assigned for the e-sig workflow to function correctly.   Request: Allow administrators to define, at the Project Template level, which contact roles are required for projects created from that template. The actual contact information would still be entered at the project level; however, the template would determine which contact types are mandatory. This would ensure consistency across projects and help prevent workflow failures caused by missing role assignments.  Even if it is the same user who will be the General contact for the Owner, and also the Payment Application contact, if the documentation calls for the owner budget payment application contact role variable, if it is not in use, the e-signature workflow won't go to the right person, or it will need to be assigned as it is sent, which could lead to errors.  Show More

Please add the ability to sort and filter all of the columns in the Issue module.    Currently you cannot sort or filter by the "Placement" column.  For "Assigned to" you can filter but you cannot sort.    Every column should be able to do both functions to make processing data easier.  Show More

I receive daily automatic email notifications when I have overdue issues, or issues due in 7 days. I do not want that, and the team is asking me to stop the notifications, however I cannot change this in the settings. Please make this an option for the admins to change. Show More

I would like to see a column for the "Status" of my projects shown on my "Projects" page. Show More

Some projects have 10000+ assets, current approach for associating forms to assets are manual and is quite a laborious task. the implementationn of this option would save 2-3hrs for Package managers per week. Show More

We need the Model Compare tool to have the same dedicated workspace capabilities and persistence as Model Coordination (Clash Detection). Currently, comparing versions in ACC/Forma is primarily an ephemeral review tool. We need a persistent environment to track, document, and present design deltas (additions, deletions, and modifications). Key Capabilities Requested: Saved Comparison Views: Ability to create, name, and save filtered comparison views (similar to saved clash views/coordination views) to return to specific delta analyses across versions without re-configuring filters every time. Direct Issue Creation: Ability to pin an ACC Issue directly onto a changed, added, or removed element inside the comparison environment, automatically tagging the version delta metadata. 3D Markups: Support for persistent 3D callouts, measurements, and markups highlighting changes directly on the compared geometry. Presentation-Ready 3D Exports: Export high-resolution snapshots, 3D views, or formatted change reports (PDF/images) showing the color-coded deltas (Added, Removed, Modified) for stakeholder, client, and executive review meetings. Multi-Model / Cross-Trade Comparison: Ability to compare combined multidisciplinary models side-by-side or overlaid, just like running clash matrices in Model Coordination. Business Value & Use Case Managing design creep and scope changes is just as critical as managing spatial clashes. Today, documenting what changed between model iterations requires manual screenshots and external slide decks. Bringing the structured workflow of clash coordination (views, issues, tracking) into model comparison will dramatically accelerate design review meetings, scope change approvals, and client presentations. Show More

Creation of a list of Assets and associated PDF Cx checklists in FORMS. We currently have an export of the Assets with associated FORMS in Hyperlinks to the system. For our handover procedures we need these forms to be associated in a PDF format for downloading  and submitting to our client as handover pack or O&M manuals. This is a much needed update and we would require the creation of third party apps to run this... not all clients are will to give us access to this third party app permissions so this will need to be something developed in the system. Show More

When placing a callout markup, the tool defaults to a single size.  Inevitably the callout is either too big or too small for the text and it has to be resized.  While resizing gives the user an opportunity to shift the callout to taller and narrower or wider and shorter on the sheet to fit available space, the current callout implementation requires the user to resize the border every single time.     The tool would save a lot of time for users going through large numbers or markups if it auto-sized the border to fit the text that was entered when the callout was created automatically.  The user can still adjust the aspect ratio of the callout if they want, but at least if they're just trying to get something on the page, they can plop the comment on and move on. Show More

Dear Autodesk Forma Customer Support,   I am currently working on an API integration that directly imports plans into Forma Sheets and configures their naming and labeling.   For this workflow to function efficiently, it is crucial that the "Collections" (e.g., "1_floor") are created automatically via the API so the plans can be injected directly through our custom UI. Currently, we can only create these Collections manually within the project, which disrupts the automation process.   This capability is highly important for our integration's success.   Thank you for your assistance.   Show More

When scrolling through pdf files in ACC, can there be a sorting function such as the thumbnail and bookmark function in bluebeam. So this is so 1. Bookmarks from uploaded pdf's can also utilized when using the mobile in ACC and 2. page numbers can easily be identified when scrolling through a pdf.    This overall intent of this is to allow much easier use of identifying pertinent information within a pdf in the field. Show More

Is it possible for ACC to have the option to Bridge RFI's and Submittals once they are in draft mode and to be updated automatically through the updated in the RFI/Submittal process? This is so someone looking in the bridged account can see the status on all items and not be limited to only closed RFI's and Submittals. Show More

I noticed when bridging from one ACC account to another, I am unable to bridge approved submittals. I can bridge RFI's, so not sure why I can't do the same for submittals. Show More

The Problem: When onboarding new contractors into our Common Data Environment (CDE), we frequently encounter a critical document control error: users instinctively click "Download Source File" instead of "Export". Because the source file excludes Autodesk Forma data, contractors end up working from documents missing crucial review stamps, markups, and approval statuses. This creates significant confusion and risks field execution based on unapproved data.   Within a standard ISO 19650 workflow, once files advance to the Shared or Published environments, there is rarely a legitimate reason for external contractors to access the raw source file rather than the stamped, exported version.   Proposed Solutions: Option 1: Folder/Role-Based Permission Toggles (Preferred) Introduce a specific permission setting allowing Project Admins to disable the "Download Source File" capability for specific folders (e.g., Shared and Published) or for specific user roles/companies. Users in these restricted folders would only see the option to "Export." Option 2: UI Consolidation & Warning Prompts If disabling the button is not feasible, the naming convention and UI layout must be clarified. Consolidate the actions into a single "Download" button that triggers a pop-up with two highly descriptive choices: Export File: (Recommended) Includes all Forma data, markups, and stamps. Download Source File: Accompanied by a mandatory warning prompt stating: "Warning: This will download the original file only. All markups, stamps, and system data will be excluded." Implementing this feature would drastically improve document governance, ensure contractors are building from the correct information, and reduce administrative overhead during platform onboarding. Show More

Description of the current issue: Currently, assigning a user the Manager role in RFI Permissions appears to grant them Manager-level permissions across all RFI types, regardless of their actual role defined in the workflow configuration for a particular RFI type. This creates a significant issue when working with multiple RFI types, where the same user may have different responsibilities depending on the type of RFI.   Example: Consider the following configuration: RFI Type A: User A is assigned the Manager role. RFI Type B: User A is assigned the Reviewer role. Although User A is only a Reviewer in the workflow for RFI Type B, granting them Manager permissions in RFI Permissions allows them to perform Manager-level actions, including closing RFIs of Type B. This effectively bypasses the workflow configuration and allows users to perform actions they should not be authorized to perform for a specific RFI type. Proposed improvement I would like to suggest changing the way RFI Permissions are managed: User permissions should be controlled at the individual RFI type level, based on the roles assigned in the workflow configuration for that specific RFI type. A user assigned as a Manager for one RFI type should only have Manager-level permissions for that type. They should not automatically gain the same permissions for other RFI types where they are assigned a different role, such as Reviewer or Approver. The Manager role in Permissions should not override or bypass the role assigned to a user within a specific RFI workflow. Show More