I think this could potentially be really fantastic, BUT a lot of the success is going to come down to the details of how its implemented or controlled. Because there are a lot of worrying aspects, too.
1. Revit Version/Dynamo Version/Package Version- When we say its “running on ACC/ACS” i assume that means its running in a Revit instance thats in the cloud, similar to how Publishing works. But that brings up:
1a. How do we know what point release of Revit (or whatever) that machine is running? Things change in Revit (and in Dynamo) point release to point release. And then:
1b. Package Authors sometimes have to pivot to accomodate the situation from 1a, so how does all of this get transparent (or manageable) enough? Not all project teams always move to the latest point release of Revit or Dynamo, so thats a real issue.
2. Would this only be for certain types of Graphs? In your flowchart example, you are making a one way export routine, for both graphs. But we have a ton of routines we may want to automate that DO write data to elements IN the actual model. How would that work, element borrowing wise?
We have a few workflows that write data to EVERY element in the Model, and i would LOVE to be able to have them run daily or nightly. Im just curious what that looks like. Or is it one way only, like batch PDF writing, where it opens a copy of the model DFC and runs a routine, and then the model is discarded?
Also, what is the process for reviewing changes and approving them, or is it going to do a "brute force run and then SWC and ‘you get what you get and you dont throw a fit,’ because if a graph goes sideways and deletes a ton of elements (happens alllllllll the time), and then it auto-syncs, thats bad news bears.
3. Very curious how permissions and control would work, obviously. Who can run a graph on a certain model, and how do users know which graphs are running on their models transparently?