BrownTiger

Material List not working or wrong

Recommended Posts

I'm sure one of the super-user guru's will chime-in, as I don't use the materials functionality of Chief, but quite sure this has to do with Chief's number rounding 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I figured it out... Just because walls are rounded to 5 does not mean it is 5 sheets. The software considers them 4.75s

Thus the answer. I think CA needs to re-look at that. You could be really short on materials....

 

Lies.thumb.PNG.5241f800e6af42f03858974a73e744d7.PNG

 

Lies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it allow for extra studs to screw all those little drywall strips to ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Chopsaw said:

Does it allow for extra studs to screw all those little drywall strips to ?

LOL...  no no... those go horizontally...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this has been bought up before, old threads may still be around? but AFAIK Chief allows for full Sheets on each Wall ie it takes the full sq.ft of the wall and divides by 32, for 4x8 sheets, (default)  and then rounds up for the Sheet count, chief does not automatically place 10' or 12' long sheets where needed , you'd need to do that manually wall by wall. May be better to use square feet as the count as many Drywallers at least locally will rough Bid with that figure and then adjust once they measure the actual job.

 

PS. Your Walls are not 20' long per your own Calculation  as you have not subtracted the 2 wall thickness from your own calc. The room on the Interior is more like 19'x19'

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my $.02. 

 

The issue is not with the wallboard. Chief provides 4x12 and even 4.5x12, see below.

 

I doubt any designer is using material list. It is not working correctly. So should you get a model 100% correct if you can not get totals anyway? 

 

1) ChiefArchitect added Ruby macros ... very nice. I do not have a clue what get's passed to Ruby

 

2) I created a simple Ruby macro "return1"

that returns 1. Got an error,

 

3) Jenna Video of 2 years old is wrong

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/2438/using-formulas-in-materials-lists.html

 

She adds extra 110% - that will cause total to be: count + extra = 210%. No one appears to complained.

 

4) If CA wants to compute drywall as 4.75 per wall - fine show me that. 

DO not show 5+5+5+5 = 19

 

Even better let me round: count.ceil.

 

 

 

 

Wallboard.PNG.069c764a48311eec12a20b46eb10f1ce.PNG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can do what you want in the material list.

I did this very quickly to see if it could be done, but it may help.

I have not done this before, so it's all on the fly.

Instead of calculating the wallboard as # of sheets, calculate it as area.

Generate a material list - you will get a square area for the wallboard.

In the Comment column, use a formula like "=count/your sheet area" - in this case I used 32 sq ft.

This will give you a result of the number of sheets.

You can also set the number formatting as required (units, decimal places, etc).

 

It is still pretty restricted as you can only use  sheet size per wall - which is really no different than the normal way of doing things.

 

 

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 10.26.18 am.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BrownTiger said:

The issue is not with the wallboard. Chief provides 4x12 and even 4.5x12, see below.

 

Yes it has always provided them in the Library for Use , but you would need to add them to the Wall Definition, for Chief to use them,

as by default Chief's standard Drywall material is a 4'x8' sheet.

 

* in the Video at 3:30, She Multiplies X 1.10 ( or 10%) She doesn't add 110%

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can easily adjust the formatting after you generate the material list...

ML.thumb.png.9fc21e9127f6452119556a44585a7ed3.png

...or you can do one better and adjust it at the source...

 

1931075108_ML2.thumb.png.a25d46b8417f01de9bb80fdcf1578ddc.png

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BrownTiger said:

1) ChiefArchitect added Ruby macros ... very nice. I do not have a clue what get's passed to Ruby

For all intents and purposes, most people will be working with nothing more than the macros that get displayed when you click on the Insert Macro tool.  The list of available macros will vary depending on whether you have it set to Apply Formula To Line Item or Apply Formula To Source Object.

 

16 hours ago, BrownTiger said:

2) I created a simple Ruby macro "return1"

that returns 1. Got an error,

You're probably entering it incorrectly.  If you use the Insert Macro tool, you'll see that any macros inserted into a Material List or into the Components area need to be inserted like this...

=macros.return1

 

16 hours ago, BrownTiger said:

3) ...Video of 2 years old is wrong....No one appears to complained.

You are free to do so.  Send it in to tech support.  That's the only way these things get addressed.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alaskan_Son said:
18 hours ago, BrownTiger said:

3) ...Video of 2 years old is wrong....No one appears to complained.

 

You are free to do so.  Send it in to tech support.  That's the only way these things get addressed.

 

there is nothing wrong with it.....BT just read it wrong...

 

* in the Video at 3:30, She Multiplies X 1.10 ( or 10%) She doesn't add 110%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

 

there is nothing wrong with it.....BT just read it wrong...

 

* in the Video at 3:30, She Multiplies X 1.10 ( or 10%) She doesn't add 110%

 

I watched the snipet in the video and tend to agree that it probably wasn’t correct.  She essentially put 110% in the Extra Column.  Using the Default Formula in the Total Cost column ((count+extra)*price if I remember correctly), the price would be grossly inflated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

I watched the snipet in the video and tend to agree that it probably wasn’t correct.  She essentially put 110% in the Extra Column.  Using the Default Formula in the Total Cost column ((count+extra)*price if I remember correctly), the price would be grossly inflated.  

 

I see what you mean now .....it should of been Count/100*1.10 to get 10%                     Her Total is correct but that is WITH the Extra added, not the actual "Extra" only.

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

 

I see what you mean now .....it should of been Count/100*1.10 to get 10%                     Her Total is correct but that is WITH the Extra added, not the actual "Extra" only.

 

M.


I think it should have been =count*0.1, but it barely even matters in my opinion.   Whether you feel there was an error in the video or not, the video still served its purpose.  She showed the basics of how to use formulas.  Whether she entered the correct values is debatably irrelevant because she showed how to use the tools.  A person could for example relabel the Extra column “Including Waste” and simply use =extra*price in the Total Price column and the formula she used would be entirely appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:


I think it should have been =count*0.1, but it barely even matters in my opinion.   Whether you feel there was an error in the video or not, the video still served its purpose.  She showed the basics of how to use formulas.  Whether she entered the correct values is debatably irrelevant because she showed how to use the tools.  A person could for example relabel the Extra column “Including Waste” and simply use =extra*price in the Total Price column and the formula she used would be entirely appropriate.

 

All true and I agree ... I wasn't arguing about that at all.

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2020 at 9:40 AM, BrownTiger said:

Ok, I figured it out... Just because walls are rounded to 5 does not mean it is 5 sheets. The software considers them 4.75s

Thus the answer. I think CA needs to re-look at that. You could be really short on materials....

 

Lies.thumb.PNG.5241f800e6af42f03858974a73e744d7.PNG

 

Lies

It rounds for each entry. Calculate the interior of your room...19*8*4 = 608/32 = 19.

But for each wall...19*8 = 152 / 32 = 4.75. And of course, we all know this would indeed take 20 sheets.

This is really only a problem with such even numbers on a simple example. It will work out correctly for a whole house almost all the time. And keep in mind that a waste factor should be added for pretty much every material column. In the example above, if the sub-categories of wallboard are not shown, and a waste factor of 5% is calculated, with the result set to round, the order amount will be 20 sheets. And indeed, 5% will be thrown in the garbage.

 

Any idiot ordering exact amounts of material off of these materials lists deserves to learn their lessons in construction management the hard way! Take concrete footings as an example: Chief does not nor can it allow for:

  • priming a pump
  • spillage
  • volume vs weight irregularities from the supplier
  • uneven excavation
  • etc.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    28446
    Total Members
    9156
    Most Online
    ShayKD
    Newest Member
    ShayKD
    Joined