Sign in to follow this  
DeveloSpec

Material LIst BUG?

Recommended Posts

I am trying to figure out this material list...

 

I am running test to see if it calculates correctly..and here is what I found.

 

 

On a 10x10 (exterior).. i am using CBS. (8' height, 12 course)

 

ON the material list it states that there is 343 sq ft of stucco...

 

However if individiually calculated manually. there is 4, 10" walls at 8' height..which should be = 320sq ft.

 

>> ALSO, it calculate the # of blocks wrong.. it says 332 blocks total.. when it should be 360.

If I just do straight CMU, with no stucco or facade..it calculate correctly at 360.(359)

 

What is going on here?

post-241-0-47513700-1395935299_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you send that example plan to the support team?

 

A simple case like this should be correct.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the "Online Support Center" link below. -- But your argument seems pretty weak since you did not post your plan here -- Most will assume you made a mistake in with the specs in your "groundface brown" wall.

 

If you want a meaningful response --- POST THE PLAN -- If that is your intent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a look at your plan and the stucco area cal appears to be correct, the block cal is obviously wrong. Both appear to use area cals, which for blocks is incorrect as whole courses must be used instead.

However, this points out why all other CAD programs allow the user to determine the formulas used for material cals. Specific cals are always open to debate and a matter of preference. In this case, the programmer just took the easy route. Not right but not wrong either.

The real problem has always been that Chief has refused to reveal what formulas it uses and will not allow user access to its internal data. So you can never be sure of the accuracy of its cals since you really don’t know what input is being used. 

I have suggested (many times) that Chief allow user access to data and allow an optional user macro to do material cals. This would allow each to know exactly how cals are made and to tailor them to their own preference.  – Not going to happen – so beware – makes all Chief cals suspect and really lowers the value of the program.
 

CMU #2.plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my take on the ML is that if you have to double check and triple check

and re-check then is it really worth using and relying on it ???

 

since ver 9.5 I have gotten a sense that without a LOT of manual fussing

that its just not useful

 

some users take the time and export to Excel and then apply "magic"

and can then get reliable results

 

I never had a client that was willing to pay for this effort

 

Lew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GerryT,

you are incorrect, I have the concrete blocks set to 'count', not by sq ft.  (that is just how it is set up as default anyways)

 

so a 10x10 structure at 12 course, (8 feet) would be 360 blocks.

 

you can check any block calculator and it will tell you that.   http://www.cemexusa.com/ProductsServices/BlockCalculator.aspx

 

And for the stucco, it is suppose to be 320 sq ft, not 343sq ft

 

--------

@lbuttery, you are right.. but I do not understand why after so many years CA can not get this correct.  This is one major aspect where they fall short and the competition will wipe them out.. because of this and how many other 'bugs' in the software. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one major aspect where they fall short

 

 

no, there are many others :(

 

great software that could be really really great

 

it does continue to get better with each release

 

could they get it all done at once ?  - probably not

 

so we continue to ask and ask and ask

 

and like Christmas we get some of our wish list...

 

Lew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are going to need more then 320 sq ft of stucco.

 

Look at the following picture.  Your walls are taller then 8' tall.  Chief drops them down to cover the platform underneath them.

 

 

 

post-844-0-87043000-1395964611_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are also not calculating the length of your walls correctly for calculating the number of blocks


 


Look at the following picture.  You don't have 40' of wall.  You only have 37' 4".


post-844-0-41200800-1395964947_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe that was pointed out in my post and in Chief's material list which uses 37+'. but that's still wrong in practice since whole courses must be calculated, not lengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kilgore. you are right sir.  I hope the contractors are as honest as you!!

So based off of that, the material list is correct.

 

HOWEVER.. take a look at this...when I do the same thing with only CMU.. (no CBS, no stucco..no nothing, just straight blocks).. it calculates it different at 359 blocks.. which would reflect 4, 10' walls at 12 course.

 

So the CBS walls calcualte right..but the CMU does not..

 

post-241-0-34955600-1396012662_thumb.jpg

post-241-0-20235600-1396012798_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another long post that wouldn't post cos it timed out...luckily I copied it so could do this again....

Unfortunately Dan you have far bigger problems with materials calculations than this small example ,it can't be relied on by any trade or Contractor for anything ,anywhere near what is needed in the real world, as a Contractor I had hoped to use this feature to make my bids faster and easier but it is a complete waste of time in most of cases, looks like it improved slightly in X6 ,according to the materials list calcuations for a 10x10 CMU house for me I have 38 lin.ft of wall ,but need 286 blocks , you would use 10' sheets of drywall vs 8' , never seen 3/4 Drywall which I assume is for the ceiling , not sure why it is called sheetrock and the walls Drywall or why it only allows for 1/4 of the walls to be painted? same as the CMU calc. I guess, but no allowance for 3 coats either if you were actually ordering materials... you can't base that room with 34 l.ft of base either, unless the was a 4'wide door in there somewhere? ie it is just better not to even look at the Materials list, you need a good Q.S. to to look at all those systems for sure...

post-315-0-19366700-1396036045_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the same small plan opened in X5 by a friend got this..... and its still not right....there isn't any framing for the floor-ceiling or the 2" wall studs.... but I gave up on the Materials list a few years ago so perhaps I'm doing something wrong now... M.

 

post-315-0-31219200-1396143220_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So the CBS walls calculate right..but the CMU does not."

 

I did not get the same results as you.  In fact, when I changed the walls to CMU in the plan you posted above, I got the same number of blocks as the CBS walls.  The only thing I can think of is to make sure that your wall dimensions are what they are supposed to be.  Depending on whether you changed the wall types (and your resize about setting) or  if you drew new walls, you may not be comparing apples to apples.

 

I don't use the material list very often but every time I have created a test plan and checked the numbers I could not find a case where they did not make sense.  They were not always what I wanted them to be but in all cases, the math looked like it was correct.  The example of the stucco area and number of blocks are a good example of what I have seen.  Because the program drops the stucco down over the platform, it calculates more stucco then you thought it should.  The program's math is correct, just not what you were expecting.  Same thing with the number of blocks.  It calculated the number of blocks based on the lineal length of wall and does not try to figure out the number of whole blocks you need based on cuts.  Again, the math is correct but maybe not the exact numbers you wanted.

 

Only you can decide if you trust the numbers enough to actually use them for estimating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thanks Kilgore. that makes sense.

 

@kbird, i see on your 1st list is says 323 blocks..and on the second list 289.  both with 10x10 CMU house.

 

Again, I guess I am expecting too much from a 2000$ program, for it to calculate the correct # of blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you send that example plan to the support team?

 

A simple case like this should be correct.

 

Thanks!

Hi Dan,

 

Would like to have seen your reply. The post have been mainly educated speculation. What we need is some feedback so we can make sense of this conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be wrong, but it looks like it calculates 2 different block... one is regular CMU block and the other one is being calculated as Rock Faced Block which is larger in size ( even tho the block dimension shows same for both). therefore it gives you less block, but in CA program they probably changed the size of that block to the correct size, but they never changed dimensions which are being displayed.

post-4069-0-07308900-1422193317_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two different 10x10 buildings , so two different materials on the list , how you a build Rock face 10x10 with 27 blocks less I am unsure as that is basically one layer on all four sides....  but it's all guess as CA does not document this stuff for the End User.

 

M.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Member Statistics

    27999
    Total Members
    6254
    Most Online
    KDsnyder
    Newest Member
    KDsnyder
    Joined