dshall

What is so interesting about this is I would bet there are not too many framers that have had more experience than I, (or more experience than Perry and Joe to name a few), at reading framing plans, and I would bet that those two guys would agree with me, that a 3D representation of the framing is to some degree helpful in understanding the project construction. Anybody that tells me that too much information is bad, is probably someone that I could and would replace.

Perfect, you can save time and avoid giving him a 3D view of framing. Interesting that he can not glean any info from a 3D representation.... what does that tell you? I have dealt with a lot of experienced framers and I have not had one framer tell me that a pic of what he is building is not helpful, not a one.

Perfect, so the M.L. is irrelevant. This is really good news since I can't use the M.L. at this time.

Wow, just the opposite. I do not think framers count studs from this. But instead framers, plumbing contractors, HVAC guys look at these 3D framing views to VERY QUICKLY understand how the framing is done and where they will put in their soffits and then they quickly determine the project will not be as complicated as they may assume. I have received feedback from several contractors that when their subs can visually understand how the project goes together, the subcontractor's price go down.' Unbelievable, so you are telling me that you are giving the subs a 3d visual of the project and they think it is a gimic. I would look for new subs. Why don't you simply verbally explain the project to them, maybe they do not need a 3D or even a 2D representation of the project. Wave your hands around explaining the project and get an estimate of the costs. Plain stupid. I have been in this business for over 40 years, I can read a set of plans, but I will tell you, I have never been able to glean as much information from a project as I can now with a 3D model. If somebody tells me that a 3D representation of a project is a gimmick, I would look for different set of people to work with.

I do like what Greg did, more detail. I must admit I am very ignorant when it comes to using Sketchup. I suppose if it was my world and all you guys lived in it, I wish I could do in CA what Greg did in SU. Unfortunately it is not my world.... nor is it your world... but my wife's world and I have learned to live in it, and it ain't half bad.

Now here is the question, is the molding on the outside edge or inside edge. Without thinking I would put it on inside edge, but if you think about it, the outside edge makes more sense because then you should be able to GET THE RETURNS....... same thinking as if building a mantel with the returns to face of fireplace wall.

3d molding? errrr 2d molding... similar to a fascia board

Okay, I have finally figured out why I resist using this feature. I am sure it works great..... to a point...... but how much longer does it take to build the model to make it accurate? Does somebody want to pay me untold number of EXTRA, I SAID EXTRA HOURS to make the model spot on? Here is a very simple example. I have an interior 4'-0" door that needs a 3-1/2 x 28" deep psl to carry a huge point load. The program auto puts in a 4x6, based on experience I change it to a 4x12, the engineer engineers the plans and it needs to be a psl...... how am I able to quickly discern by referring to the plans if I changed the model to reflect the psl. We have auto labels for beams and posts, but we do not have the callout for headers. Am I suppose to go through and open each and every opening and double check whether I have put in the correct header size? I may of called it out correctly on the plan with a text block, but did I actually change the header size/type/classification etc. to reflect what is needed and that will be reflected in the M.L.? WE NEED AUTO CALLOUTS FOR EVERYTHING. Any kind of text should be a reflection of what is actually there for quick and easy cross checking purposes. I have spoken to some of you, and you do not even do your own structural plans. So I ask you, how can you plans be absolutely correct? I was doing plans back in Houston 30 years ago, believe me, the plans we drew back then are NOTHING compared to the plans we have to provide today in Calif. I do understand that Houston has become a bit more demanding in regards to their plan requirements, but I doubt those requirements come anywhere close to what we need to do in the Great State of the Fruits and Nuts. Another simple example. I have furred the ceiling down in the living room to accommodate some A/C ducting. How is that additional lumber accounted for? I do not mean to bash entirely on CA, I am sure SP's M.L. list has it's shortcomings. But for some of us, to provide M.L. list not only costs extra time and money, but based on the two very very simple examples that I just gave, it is fraught with potential pitfalls. BTW, I have had several big clients of mine request an M.L. list, I want to do it, but I just know there are some shortcomings. In my mind, the first thing that needs to be done to improve the accuracy of M.L. is to somehow account for soffit framing and to have the ability to have auto headers labels. Another weakness in the program is sill plates on top of cmu walls. Has anybody manually changed a cmu pony wall height in elevation? Have you noticed that you will lose the sill plate on the cmu wall? Is it not important to account for the PRESSURE TREATED PLATE? Some of you guys say the M.L. works great, well, I will challenge anybody to a test. Here is the test: I will challenge anybody to provide an accurate M.L. list for: • the plans that have soffit framing (never accounted for in the M.L.) • the plans have retaining walls/stepped footings that have had their height altered in elevation (lose sill plate if wall heights altered) • being able to easily discern between existing and new drywall in remodels • being able to easily discern between existing and new ceiling joists that need to be provided for a remodel • an accurate M.L. when workarounds are use for special situations, • and if I think a bit more, I cold probably come up with many more examples The M.L. is a great idea, it just bugs me when some of you guys say it is so easy if you input the correct data. I get it, garbage in garbage out, but how often is it that we can provide the perfect model WITHOUT ANY WORK AROUNDS IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME that will give us the perfect model to give us the perfect M.L.? Final comment: With the perfect job with enough extra work put into the project, we can get a reasonably accurate M.L. But we are not there yet. In my experience, every job has enough non standard items that a M.L. is not worth the extra effort yet.......... nobody has proved me wrong yet, I just hear a bunch of unsupported statements.

I suppose that was my point.

14 posts and no answer.

I'm with you Perry, tough to put together a good M.L. for a remodel.

Sorry, that ain't happening...... those 40 hours can be used to improve my putting.... I swear..... 3 weeks ago I was a great putter and a great chipper..... the last 3 weeks I have a heck of a time hitting the 3 foot putts and the chipping is awful . It's not the yips.... I can't figure it out.... my drives are getting awesome, on the 18th yesterday I had a 260 yard drive, outdrove the other guys by 20 yards, and they shoot in the low '80's. My irons, dead on. I have gained an extra 10-15 yards per iron in the last 2 weeks. Anyway, I will go out again this afternoon to see what happens...... golf, a miserable game for miserable people.......

If it is any consolation to you, that stuff is becoming more and more outdated every year, so you probably are not missing too much...... except for maybe the 3,567 videos I have done over the past 9 years........

First we need a guru who will volunteer to teach it. Anybody available? If no one is available, I will try to figure it out in the next couple of weeks and put it together. I am having more clients ask for this. The real reason that I have been so hesitant to learn it is I do mostly remodels. It seems like it would be twice the work since somehow I need to be able to distiguish between new rafters and existing rafters, or new concrete footings and existing. A lot more work with setting up the model.

Still live, just much more convenient to move around and resize etc.

Maybe, but put in a cad detail and you will find it is much more flexible

Yes, put schedules in CAD details.

M.L. might be a good topic for a workshop.

Joe probably has an AGS first edition, printed sometime in the thirteenth century. Love you Joe, see you on St. mark's GC next Thursday. I just may beat him next time.

Hey, the Curmudgeon beat me to the answer...,. I agree with Richard.

There are always ifs ands or buts. But...... To answer your question..... I would upgrade to X7 and with x7 you can include that 1/2" plywood in your MAIN LAYER...... And blah blah blah....... Now you have to decide whether you want to dimension to your stud or to the plywood. This is a perfect example as to why these kinds of questions are so hard to answer without very specific guidelines. There are a bunch of ifs ands or buts Involved.

What is interesting if you know the program is you do not need to adjust wall heights, it is automatic. Believe me you are green, stick with it and you will catch on soon.

Did you want to post plan or should we all guess what the issue is?

Do you have a budget to hire a tutor?

ain't that the dumbest thing.... why do we have to hit an extra button?