William

Add Disclaimer To Material List

Recommended Posts

Only briefly Lew as it is not in the current budget ($1000-1200) but looks interesting.

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to test X7 out on a job or two and see how the ML fairs and what can be done to improve it in the future.

All the best working Chief and remember we employ the softwafe and we want it to do the Job as productively as possible so we have less time to post and more time to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Have you ever seen an accident up ahead off the side of the road and you can tell that it is minor and they've got it under control?  Then you drive on by without so much as a sideways glance....... Now most people would rubberneck doing their best owl impression while driving by...

 

 I treat these ML posts as the former not later.......Unfortunately for me I did in fact glance over ever so briefly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you set the defaults for an 1885 house

then later need to remodel a 1955 house

 

how does that work ???

 

Doesn't matter what year the home was built. As long as anything EXTG is marked as such and given a layer for EXISTING and turned off, it doesn't get counted. My guess is many of the remodel guys are already using layers to separate EXTG from NEW, so just uncheck the "M" box for the those items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you model with the defaults set up like you want to build the structure

 

Joey:

 

you stated this in a earlier post

 

 

 

so then I posted yesterday:

 

if you set the defaults for an 1885 house

then later need to remodel a 1955 house

 

how does that work ???

 

each and every remodel job is "different"

 

I'm not saying it can't be done

I'm asking if it can be done

 

If yes, is it worth doing ???

 

 

 

I get about the layers showing or not showing in the ML

 

 

Lew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joey, it a lot more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I give up then.

No, please don't give up, can you do all that for me and send me the file, I don't have an extra 30 day to do it correctly. :D

JK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what year the home was built. As long as anything EXTG is marked as such and given a layer for EXISTING and turned off, it doesn't get counted. My guess is many of the remodel guys are already using layers to separate EXTG from NEW, so just uncheck the "M" box for the those items.

 

Well how about posting your Template then / assuming it isn't Proprietary or something , so the Rest of us can perhaps figure this out , as it appears you are the only one who has or at least the only one willing to post, if you are willing to do a Tutorial or video along with it even better.

 

thx,

 

Mick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My template is set up for the way I work and for the way I think. You may not work or think like me, so I'm not sure how much good that would do you. Having said that...that's kinda the point though. You have to put some time into your template to make Chief work the way you work. Sounds to me like many, certainly not all, think that the software should just automatically know what the user is thinking....doesn't work that way. For every minute you put into setting that template up, you will save 2 somewhere down the road.

 

As for the videos, I leave those up to Scott. Training sessions are available though.....https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/2967-chief-training/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it too much to ask CA to make our ML better than SPSL?

If I was a Builder I would prefer SL to ML from what I have seen so far but I am not so I prefer CA as a designer.

If I was estimating and taking off quantities again for home builders I would try SPSL for simple home styles.

I don't like Planswift, sorry Lew, I would rather draw framing plans from scratch in 3D CAD format that can be accurately taken off by the Native Program.

I think I am going to leave CA out of doing take offs for now as I like automation and I value my off time.

Sorry CA you lost me on ML, you need to put allot of work into this from now on to get the Builders more interested in CA and blow them away at a future Builders Show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some people use the ML, but most never touch it. My recommendation to CA is that this is one of many areas that Chief could be simplified by removing the ML and associated commands and then create a separate add-on module that could be better and more comprehensive and customization for any users preferences. There could be a strong link between the plan and ML add-on, but it aught to be developed separately rather than just a half -baked sales feature. Some have found how to make it work for 30+ simple homes a year, but for those of us who do 3 custom homes a year, which test the limits of Chief and require multiple work-arounds, the ML is rather amateurish in comparison to other useful features Chief is good at. CA, please focus on developing an app that helps us build an accurate model, clean and simple. Let someone else develop the ML for Chief. Don't try to be everything to all users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

I agree with you that the ML will never be perfect.  I also agree that it's often easier to use a workaround (psolid, etc) than to figure out a way to do the job with something that will be accurately reflected in the ML.

 

That's just the nature of BIM and it's not likely that it will get much better.  It may be a little easier for me to get a relatively accurate ML simply because I'm more reluctant to use PSolids or any of the other Solids that don't have building intelligence.  That means that I have more Library items available but it also means that when I don't have something appropriate that I will spend more time creating it.  The trade off is speed vs accuracy of the model.  I don't think there is anyone using Chief that can put together a set of Plans faster than you can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, yes, one thing I always do when adding a second floor over an existing is to overbuild the 2nd floor joists over the existing ceiling joists, so I have to include the f.j. and the (e) ceiling joists in one floor DBX, how could the ML possiable deal with this condition.

 

 

post-113-0-35786900-1425317087_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....I am coming in days after to throw in my two cents....Look at all the fun I miss when I am gone for about a week.

 

I see the material list as being accurate as what the model shows....to a point.  I was on the phone with TS and there is one issue that I found with the material lists that TS agreed shouldn't be that way.  I took a 10x10 structure.  Placed a window and door, so there are only two opening.  In both the door and window, turned off the header.  Yet when running the material list it still shows 2x6 header with a count of 7.  How did it get that?  Now granted, I was doing this only looking for headers and nothing else, so there may be other issues that I haven't seen.  My focus was just on lumber at that moment.

 

I believe it is accurate up to the point of lumber takeoffs.

 

I am definitely interested if there is a material list workshop.  I want to use the material lists, just don't understand them 100% yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some people use the ML, but most never touch it. My recommendation to CA is that this is one of many areas that Chief could be simplified by removing the ML and associated commands and then create a separate add-on module that could be better and more comprehensive and customization for any users preferences. There could be a strong link between the plan and ML add-on, but it aught to be developed separately rather than just a half -baked sales feature. Some have found how to make it work for 30+ simple homes a year, but for those of us who do 3 custom homes a year, which test the limits of Chief and require multiple work-arounds, the ML is rather amateurish in comparison to other useful features Chief is good at. CA, please focus on developing an app that helps us build an accurate model, clean and simple. Let someone else develop the ML for Chief. Don't try to be everything to all users.

 

Amen +1    though my guess would be Chief X? with the ML Module would cost $3500 instead.  At a minimum a highly competent Quantity Surveyor needs to sit with a CA Programmer for a while and make things work like they do in the real world of estimating ie a 10' wall is auto assigned 10' drywall etc and it's 3 coats of paint without having to assign (3)  0" thickness layers to ALL wall definitions to get it to show in the ML, the model shouldn't need to be THAT accurate for the ML to automatically "know" that, same thing for ceilings. 

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jared,

 

My guess is that the ML is correct.

Although you have deleted the Headers over the door and window, Chief still builds a flat "header" plate that is needed for the top of the opening when the headers on edge are deleted. Chief still calls these Headers - which they are - it's just that they are on flat.

 

The count is in ft - meaning lineal feet, not number.

So, 7' for a window and door is about correct.

 

If you leave the headers as default, that is 4 headers.

Chief reports 13 lineal feet which is correct.

 

Have a look in a 3D framing overview and see what happens with headers on and headers off.

 

I suggest that you ring TS back and explain to them that Chiefs ML is smarter than what they think!!!

 

If you want Chief to count number and not lineal ft, you need to use the Buy List.

 

I think this post exemplifies the (mostly) unjustified criticism of the ML. 

With a bit of digging, the ML is usually correct.

 

And in this case it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this particular issue Glen is a terminology issue , A header on the Flat (and only a single piece) is not a Header at least not to me, we would call it the Door Trimmer , though I think in the US the Trimmer is next to the KingStud in the opening, those we call Jack Studs or Door Jack . it's a similar issue  calling the Subfascia a Rafter in the ML.

 

I looked at the 3D framing out of curiosity and am wondering who frames headers that way? is that US specific ,Idaho specific or a new technique this "old dog" isnt aware of?

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mick,

 

I think the real issue is that Chiefs ML really does quite a good job.

Wether you call it a header or something else, Chief is intelligent enough to know that if you delete the on edge headers, you will still need a piece of framing there AND it is all accounted for accurately in the ML.

 

Jared was questioning the accuracy of the lumber take offs and my main point is that the ML is accurate in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't arguing about that particular "header"  takeoff being accurate or not , the point is when you check the ML you have generated you can't find things you think should be there or still find things that you thought you had deleted because in the ML they are named incorrectly , eg the subfascias , I'd look down the list not see it and then add that to my list , in this case double ordering it, assuming it had been missed by the ML  This is another situation where it would be nice to be able to change formulae and change names of objects etc so that the Program can be "localised" with terms and common naming nomenclature, and methods of working.

 

 

I had an email from a CA team member today who has admitted that the ML "isn't all that"  and they hope to make some improvements for X8 and for several versions to follow to get the ML working as it should, though they didn't elaborate on what they are doing. (which is understandable)

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair the ML work is going on and you can see this with the ammount of Schedules that are available now and the labeling of more model components. All this will come in handy if the ML gets the attention it deserves to complete it in the native environment. I just hope they can give us access to formulas and the ability to set our own take off methods with the ability to add and edit the current list format table.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more Schedule I'd like to see is a plan note Schedule. Place a number and add a note, it will clean up the plan a little. I now use the plant schedule converted to a plan note schedule using an invisible plant to get the labels I need. Thanks to Joe for that.

 

 

post-113-0-23510300-1425396980_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea Perry , you might need to C&P your post to the Suggestion Forum though.

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some people use the ML, but most never touch it. My recommendation to CA is that this is one of many areas that Chief could be simplified by removing the ML and associated commands and then create a separate add-on module that could be better and more comprehensive and customization for any users preferences. There could be a strong link between the plan and ML add-on, but it aught to be developed separately rather than just a half -baked sales feature. Some have found how to make it work for 30+ simple homes a year, but for those of us who do 3 custom homes a year, which test the limits of Chief and require multiple work-arounds, the ML is rather amateurish in comparison to other useful features Chief is good at. CA, please focus on developing an app that helps us build an accurate model, clean and simple. Let someone else develop the ML for Chief. Don't try to be everything to all users.

 

I disagree with this. Although I think there may be areas in Chief that could be more effectively developed by a third party, the material list is in my mind not it. Who else would be in a better positions to create usable material lists than the company developing the actual building model? I would rather see a material list survey and work together with Chief to solve the problems, and a big part seems to be education.

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

    27996
    Total Members
    6254
    Most Online
    MAP6933
    Newest Member
    MAP6933
    Joined