Materials List Revisited

[Ed_Downunder]

Is it time to revisit the materials list?

The promo video promises much but fails to deliver. The second last video titled ‘Cost Estimating’ is a big feature if it delivered.

In my view it’s nearly there but needs a major rethink on how it calculates. For example under the Foundation heading the materials list reports concrete for the second floor. There are many examples of incongruous reporting. (My foundation is under the 1st floor. My first floor is a 100 mm concrete slab.)

To be workable it should report how we design and how we build. For an exercise build a small 2 story with double brick and cavity to see how it reports. It reports the inner wall as framing the outer wall as siding and the internal hard wall as wall board.

A more elegant solution would be a wall category. So in my view a materials list that reported the foundation, Floor, Wall, Ceiling, Roof as the structural elements and of course cabinet’s, electric, windows, doors etc.

Another incongruous observation is reporting the foundation. We pour the footing and then we pour the floor. The materials list reports the steel in the footing but not the concrete. It seems to add the footing to the slab. That is not a very good idea even if it was a single pour we need to know how much concrete and where it is going.

It’s true that the model has to be accurate if the right hinges are to be part of the cost estimating process. In our office before we get to accurate cost estimating we take our clients through the design process. This primarily is about the layout, home size roof design and other big ticket items. It’s this part of the promise I want to see working not struggling with a work around.

Like many we have abandoned this part of the program in search of an alternative. Our solution is to pay wages to staff doing this work. Post GFC we have to work smarter in our office to survive in a tough market. We need to turn our concepts into committed builds as quickly as possible; this is done with reasonably accurate estimating of the structural elements (walls, floor, roof etc.)Because this leads to a floor plan that fits the client’s budget.

The details: cabinets, tiling bathroom, kitchen and other elements are selected when we get past the concept stage and our client can exercise discretion over the quality of fittings.

[Curtis Johnson]

Ed:

Please "also" post the improvements you want to see in the Suggestion forum. Your ideas may have minimal impact for future program enhancements if posted on this forum.

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Curtis,
Thanks for the reply. I will post to the suggestion forum. With this post I guess I was trying to see if there is any interest in this subject. I have researched this site for comments on the materials list and from what I can find there is very little yet it seems to me to be such a valuable tool if it worked better. Does any one have anything to add. Who uses it and in particular is anyone pleased with the results. I made the claim that people have abandoned the materials list myself included. Am I right or have I got that wrong. Am I missing something the way I am working. I am really interested in having this conversation.

[keithhe]

Ed,

I agree. I have tried and for the most part abandoned the materials list because of all the odd results. Got to where I really didn't trust it. In addtion to what you suggest, having the ability to customize the list for units, for example. Instead of square feet/meters of a material, perhaps tell it to calculate sheets or squares. Yes, I know that I could do this in Excel, but would be nice to customize what and how it displays.

[lbuttery]

Ed:

there are some chiefers who use the material list
but they have to manual manipulation to achieve the desired results

many find this too tedious and prone to error (the trust factor)

even CA states that the material list is only as good as the model

each "workaround" has an impact on the usefulness of the material list

Lew

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Keithhe,

Thanks for the reply,

I have been working on a excel spreadsheet to manage the exported materials list and reassign the elements into a logical report . Its a spreadsheet we currently use. As I was developing and struggling with the VBA to make it work It occurred to me that I was trying to reinvent the wheel. It also occurred to me that If Chief sorted out this problem we would not export to excel until we were at a stage where our client had committed to the project. That is why I have started this conversation. How many people have abandoned the materials list and how many would like it to function correctly.

With your suggestion it is a natural result. Sheets are sizes not just area. As an example of abandonment I know there is reporting for wall-board but I could find no reason to look past the foundation. Until that works for me there is little value in working out all the idiosyncrasies of the materials list. Material can be defined as sheets but I have not checked how they report to the materials list. Hopefully more will respond to this conversation and we can all learn a little more.

[Ed_Downunder]

Lew,

Thank you for the reply. The promo video Chief uses to sell the product features and highlight the materials list. It's really worth having a look. When Chief say that the materials list is limited that is not good enough. The whole program is limited. That is it has limits, it also has function and usefulness. The limit that is implied by Chief renders the materials list as non-functional . So it gets abandoned and we search for a work around. This conversation is not intended to revisited the frustration but to gauge feeling.

All post are read and important issues feed into their database. this is an important issue for me. If this conversation is interesting to others and they report for example that they to have abandoned the materials list but would like to see it function correctly that is the value. If this conversation dies through lack of interest, well I guess that demonstrates the level of feeling.

[gteacher]

I expect that the reason you haven't gotten many comments is that the Material list is a "Sore Point" of frustration because of the lack of any needed improvements or progress. There have been many heated discussions here and a whole list of suggested improvements-- mostly in the Suggestions section. No real response from Chief over the past couple of years.

My "Gut" feeling is that Chief is aware of the general dissatisfaction but believes that it's user base isn't that interested in material control features. Therefore this has a low priority. However the suggested improvement list is, in fact,pretty long and I am aware of a number of people that have sent in extensive lists outside of this forum. Your list would certainly help the cause. This is really another issue of seldom usage because of the lack of useability and lack of features because of infrequent use. Few use it to any degree and most aren't that familiar with it.

I expect some major revisions here but only when Chief decides to revise this area which might be years (hope not but priorities are in other areas now). Perhaps we could step up the schedule with more user discussions but most are just frustrated now.

[Ed_Downunder]

This post is quite new so I expect that the replies will come in over the next few days. There is an invitation here for all who read these comments to reply if they use the materials list or have abandoned it. I'm sure the are some users that have no interest in a materials list.

Chief have a promo video that promotes the materials list. It is a stand-out feature. A real point of diffidence. It is also a reason to purchase the product. Chief is a mature product now and is very capable. It's time to have this conversation again.

[mkennedy]

kinda like the inventory management at home depot - if they run out of stuff they don't sell anymore, if it doesn't sell they don't reorder it, so they're always out of everything you want LOL

[Dan Park]

I think the single biggest area of confusion in the material list is trying to figure out what object caused the material to be reported.

The second biggest problem is not getting the materals correct in the component pieces.

To get the material list to work well requires a good knowledge of how to manipulate the program itself.

We have a large number of ideas and requests on file to enhance the material list. I think keeping the dialog going is a good idea, the material list has the potential of being a really great tool, if you can get through the complexity. We also need to decide what to work on for each release. Things that are popular and affect a lot of users will get done quicker than those that are used by only a few.

The good news is that we have more people working on making chief better than ever before. With luck over the next few years some of these areas that have been neglected will start showing significant improvement. However, if we don't see a dialog on a particular area it's likely not going to get done. So keep posting your comments. We may not always respond but there are many of us that regularly read your posts.

[gteacher]

To get the material list to work well requires a good knowledge of how to manipulate the program itself.
...... the material list has the potential of being a really great tool, if you can get through the complexity.

I was going to stay out of this thread and perhaps some would like me too, BUT, I couldn't disagree more.

Chief's material list is NOT complex, it has a lot of pieces parts but is easily understood. The primary problem is that it is illogical and misapplied in several areas. In other areas, it is so badly limited as to be unworkable. Other functions are spread among several different methods, each of which are limited in different ways, making none practical. Chief needs to abandon the Hodge Podge approach.

Comments, as I am aware, have been flowing into Chief since this feature was introduced with little or no feedback from Chief. With such minimal acceptance and use of a major design aid, Chief should ask itself if it just missed the boat.

I frankly don't believe that radical changes are needed, just some "common sense" reorganization and consolidation to make this workable. But without some guidance from Chief on where they want to go on this and how much effort, I think another thousand different suggested directions would be futile.

We are back to the chicken/egg stuff. I suggest a on line dialog on a new specification for a reorganized material list -- probably to be developed and programed over several years. Chief's competition can do it, so its just a matter of will. The first step needs to be taken by Chief. This is a major black eye for Chief. (IMHO)

[lbuttery]

Chief's material list is NOT complex,


Gerry:

you state this

but then you state this ???

it has a lot of pieces parts but is easily understood. The primary problem is that it is illogical and misapplied in several areas. In other areas, it is so badly limited as to be unworkable. Other functions are spread among several different methods, each of which are limited in different ways, making none practical. Chief needs to abandon the Hodge Podge approach.


sure sounds complex to me - based on your description ???


Lew

[Justice]

I was going to stay out of this thread and perhaps some would like me too, BUT, I couldn't disagree more.

Chief's material list is NOT complex, it has a lot of pieces parts but is easily understood. The primary problem is that it is illogical and misapplied in several areas. In other areas, it is so badly limited as to be unworkable. Other functions are spread among several different methods, each of which are limited in different ways, making none practical. Chief needs to abandon the Hodge Podge approach.

Comments, as I am aware, have been flowing into Chief since this feature was introduced with little or no feedback from Chief. With such minimal acceptance and use of a major design aid, Chief should ask itself if it just missed the boat.

I frankly don't believe that radical changes are needed, just some "common sense" reorganization and consolidation to make this workable. But without some guidance from Chief on where they want to go on this and how much effort, I think another thousand different suggested directions would be futile.

We are back to the chicken/egg stuff. I suggest a on line dialog on a new specification for a reorganized material list -- probably to be developed and programed over several years. Chief's competition can do it, so its just a matter of will. The first step needs to be taken by Chief. This is a major black eye for Chief. (IMHO)

Gerry well said.

You just need a few updates or the ability to control the take off formulas.

I have made many suggestions about a better take off and estimating system all to no avail.

If you want to show off the program at a builders show, accurate estimating is a must and a priority.

The best take off system I have seen is VICO so far, that works with ArchiCAD & Revit.

But since I am just doing working drawings now I don't have the need for it now.

[Ed_Downunder]

I think the single biggest area of confusion in the material list is trying to figure out what object caused the material to be reported.

The second biggest problem is not getting the materals correct in the component pieces.

To get the material list to work well requires a good knowledge of how to manipulate the program itself.

We have a large number of ideas and requests on file to enhance the material list. I think keeping the dialog going is a good idea, the material list has the potential of being a really great tool, if you can get through the complexity. We also need to decide what to work on for each release. Things that are popular and affect a lot of users will get done quicker than those that are used by only a few.

The good news is that we have more people working on making chief better than ever before. With luck over the next few years some of these areas that have been neglected will start showing significant improvement. However, if we don't see a dialog on a particular area it's likely not going to get done. So keep posting your comments. We may not always respond but there are many of us that regularly read your posts.

Hi Dan,
Thank you for your contribution. I would like to invite you back into this conversation for a comment.

You and you colleagues have probably kept up with this conversation.

I take your first point as really significant. Why there is so much confusion and what is it that is confusing?

To say “trying to figure out what object caused the material to be reported” is a little oversimplification of the real problem. I agree that materials are the key but at this stage knowledge of materials does not provide a logical materials list.

I am just a user without in-depth knowledge of the peculiarities and nuance of the program. I should not be required to get that knowledge just to get a materials list that reflects my project.

Not sure what the second biggest problem means! Does it mean renaming framing to masonry and renaming siding to masonry will make the materials list a logical functioning feature?

Brick window sills can be correctly identified in the materials definition and will perform beautifully when rendered but how does it report to the materials list.

It should report a quantity of bricks exactly how it is defined in the materials definitions. Instead we are compelled to use Windows Specifications> Exterior Trim>library>plan material to select the material and even when it is set up to report bricks it will report length. It is totaly unrelated to bricks. A brick sill is part of the wall not part of a window.

I have focused my contribution to this subject at the foundations because this is where the start is.

What component pieces need to be understood to provide a materials list that will report footings and footing components? The foundation will report the footings and ground floor slab as one.

I have a current project that has a wine cellar and a 2nd floor I would like to report the footings for the wine cellar. You know how to build this on site. 1) Cellar footings. 2) Slab. 3) Cellar wall. 4) Ground floor footings. 5) Ground floor slab. 6) Walls 7) upper floor. All concrete items report to the foundation. OK the list references these on the correct floor. Where is the logic with the second floor being reported as foundation?

“To get the material list to work well requires a good knowledge of how to manipulate the program itself.” I am probably just going to restate my case to answer this. So I will move on.

A fundamental mistake that has been made with Chief and continues to be made is the promotion of a work around. That is the program can't do it so do it this way. This is the biggest failing. A review of posts will show the acceptance of solutions that may contribute to a nice ray-traced image but not contribute to the correct use of materials.

So I suggest a pause. A rethink and look for a new strategy.

Instead of a materials list being an add-on feature focus on it as the goto feature.

If materials definitions reflect my real world components and are manage at that level the benefit will be a properly constructed model with a logical materials list.

I would like to go to defaults> foundation and specify the components here have access to materials definitions and perhaps that definition have information relevant to a supplier or pricing etc. If it is brick we know it has to be setup here as a brick, materials definitions has some of the information needed for an accurate materials list. Is it a contractor that will supply and fix or fix only. The contractor needs to know what components go into the footings and slabs. This is not complicated it just needs to be a little flexible.

Accepting that the foundation here is really a perimeter footing or perimeter beam and load bearing walls also have a footing each footing having trench mesh or rebar, concrete is cubic meters. Also we have vertical footing. So not to labour the point footings need a rethink.

What happens next? We are forced to be logical because we now go to Floor definitions. When we build the next floor we go to 2nd Floor definitions again. This second floor might have a concrete beam if the engineer stipulates one. (My last project had a concrete beam in the garage)

As you can see with this approach the model is being built with real word components. The opportunity needs to be there for reinforcing but for those that have no need (Ray-tracers for example) ignoring this feature has no impact on the program.

The fact that the materials are not reporting accurately should be seen as an alarm bell. The purpose of this discussion is not to illustrate incorrect materials calculation (you will fix this now I’m sure) the purpose is for the materials list to report the components in a logical flexible way.

To continue this conversation I will turn my attention to the wall construction and the reporting of those components. This is an area that will benefit from some scrutiny.

Chief is fantastic and we love. Don’t confuse our love for support of bad behaviour.

If you are focussed on expanding your market a functioning reliable materials list is the way to go. I was seduced like many with auto roof, ray-trace, and auto build etc. What was a great sales line and part of that seduction was the promise of a materials list. It failed to deliver but we found many other compelling reasons to abandon AutoCAD and stay with Chief. Primarily it was your market focus. We are your perfect market demographic. We use the eye candy features ourselves. There is an industry now that uses these features but the primary reason for Chief Architect is construction drawings.

The conversation has now evolved into a discussion on Residential BIM. Chief is well on its way to achieve market status as Chief Architect BIM 5d.

I have included a link to a video that points out where I think Chief is not working a s expected.

Please be kind to me about the video. This is my first and maybe it's not quite up to a standard. The information is the intention not a hollywood production.

https://app.sugarsync.com/iris/wf/D9...752611_6624443