smorris

I can see this doesn't apply to your needs, but may be of interest to someone. This will only do one wall, at a time, and will give you a cut list for that wall, but no joists, etc.. Select the framed wall, open it's Wall Detail and generate a Framing Schedule.

This may also be covered in the manual, but.......the Materials List will not deduct openings, from the moldings quantity, if they are auto generated through the Room Spec. dbx. I suppose they do this to take care of any extra molding, that may be needed. However, I prefer an exact count and to figure my own percentage of waste, etc.

Joe......Just letting you and others know, that the email address, support@chiefarchitect.com, is not a recommended way to report bugs. Will now leave the bug reporting to the professional bug finders.

Thanks Joe.

I don't see an email address, only phone numbers. Does anyone know the email address, where we can send plans with bugs?

I'll bet CA could program, to where you could select a polyline solid and have an option to "convert to symbol", in the same plan, with no trouble. The program should generate a special layer set, once the solid is selected, where all is invisible except for the solid. Then once the symbol was created, have an option to automatically replace the polyline solid and also, an option to add to the library..............It would also be good to allow symbols, to be generated in other units of measure, besides each (1). A polyline solid may need to be in sq. ft., cubic yds., etc..There's a way around that, but involves accessories.

You can turn the polyline solid into an architectural block, then block one more time. This will give you a Components dbx. Open the architectural block and select "Treat as one object". I suggest unchecking all the lines generated in the Components dbx and instead, add accessories. Give the description you want and same with the category...........If you should need to generate additional ML, then this will remain constant and no need to correct in the generated ML.

Good example. Shows the need for more than the allowed maximum of 10 wall layers........There is also a need for a true LFt material definition. You can calculate Lft of any type material, however it is dependent on the height of the wall. Change the wall height and you have the wrong Lft, which requires you to once again go to Unit Conversions. It's been a while since I've used the Material definitions, but I don't believe there is a type for Lft (linear, lineal, or running ft, whichever is the proper definition), to where it remains constant. As far as the brick is concerned, for example: If 1 yd. sand and 5-6 bags of 70# mortar, will lay 1,000 brick, then calculate how many sq. ft. the 1000 brick will lay. Calculate the brick using area, a sq. ft material type, then break down to 70# mortar bags, or whatever weight bags are used nowadays, using Unit Conversions......Good luck with your Materials List......needs much work.

Sorry.....wish there were more and have been asking for years now, but so far, no go.........10 is max.

You're welcome Mick. The bug fix was quick. Credit due to Joe and Chief's response. Shows we're dealing with a good company. I've been out of pocket and just saw the update today. It would be nice if they did a small update for X6. I do understand about not going back to previous versions and fixing most bugs, but this one kind of makes the X6 Material List inaccurate, if you plug in prices, even though not by much......We'll see. My SSA ran out back in Sept. and I'll renew before long. It hit me at the wrong time, but shouldn't be much longer.

Joe files the report Monday. Bug is fixed and updated by at least today (Friday), may have been sooner. Joe is the man with clout. Thank you very much Joe and my thanks to Chief Architect, for the quick response. I don't see an update for X6, but as Lew mentioned, it's doubtful. Hopefully this particular bug won't hurt users that try to sell their X6 version, if that information is known. Being I will eventually get X7, X6 is not a problem for me. Just happy to see it corrected, even though it probably would amount to very little........Thanks All!

Thanks again Mick. I'll give them a look. Lew, I have looked at Planswift and seems to be a good program. Thank you.

Thanks Mick. Yes, that is more what I would expect. A Supplier/Lumber Yard can actually read this list. I prefer using LF, instead of Ft, too, so you don't need to ask whether it's Bd Ft, Sq Ft, or LF. You would think Ft automatically means LF, but not always. Depends on the customer. My approach, for applying the correct pricing, is coming from the Suppliers end and not from the User's end. Most Users (?) get their Supplier to quote the job, from quantities listed. That's another reason why Users didn't discover the program was pricing wrong, or maybe they just didn't care. However, if the Supplier has this program, then he would, or had best have, the correct pricing. Odds of that happening is pretty slim, I suspect, but would surely rule them out as potential customers...........Thanks again for your reply, Mick.

Lew, This was reported each time there was an update to X6 and still hasn't been fixed in X7. I understand they can't keep applying "fixes", to earlier versions, but this is something that did work, at one time, is now broken and they've been sent ample reports. I would venture to say, if the program was giving wrong dimensions, it wouldn't be tolerated by the users. How important is correct pricing in a Materials List? Being as no one has complained in an entire version, it is not important at all. I gave my opinion earlier as to what I thought/think is the right thing to do. You disagree and I have no problem with that. We both gave our opinions and I suspect yours is more accurate, as to what will occur..........Joe is sending the report and my thanks to him.

At this point, I'm not concerned what is done about future improvements to the Materials List. I'm only wanting something fixed, that is not correct. However, I guess that could be said about any bug, but I would have thought pricing would be a major concern, but maybe not if you're only talking about a few cents. You make good points above.