Materials List Revisited

[Justice]

Hi Ed,

Saw your video, now you know why I still do take off by hand.

We just don't have the time to figure out how CA calculates its materials.

Sure you can manipulate and work around to get the slab area, probably with changing the main layer.

Your slab splay is 100 x 100 or 100 x 72?

Yes you can tell Chief what to report and what not report thru defaults settings.

You would have to get some sort of template system working as to how you will take things off.

Keep in mind CA is designed mainly for timber framed homes as built in the US and that is why some are almost satisfied.

Well done with the video, this is what Chief Admin want so as to explain specific issues with the software.

[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 materials 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.

You need to do better.!! In a silly naive way I imagined that the time has come for the materials list to at least function. Not a word of interest only empty words "the material list has the potential of being a really great tool" if I can get through the complexity. That must be a little joke at my expense.

You need to provide some feedback that has some meaning because this is a conversation that is at least 12 years old.

**** " We have a large number of ideas and requests on file to enhance the material list "***** Looks like your list goes back to at least 2001. That has to be a good list.

[gteacher]

Lew:

Quantity does not make anything complex. It's more important as to how the components mesh to create the final solution. In fact, a break down of tasks is considered the best design approach. Chief just tries to over automate without paying much attention to how well the components function together . Kind of like trying to build a car with a thousand unreliable parts.

Nothing about Materials in Chief is that complicated but few components are designed to work seamlessly toward a end product. Because Chief's base approach is not that complex only means the needed changes (fixes) are not that complicated either. This is basically a classical database problem, of which, I know there are a number of people here who could resolve if Chief was really interested.

[lbuttery]

It's more important as to how the components mesh to create the final solution

Gerry:

it may just be semantics, but this is what makes the ML "complex"

the parts don't make the whole....

trying to understand the parts and their inter-connections (the trees)
make it impossible to see the forest

Lew

[lamackr]

I wish the material list was accurate and reliable. I bought the X3 and now have completed the design of my house but am disappointed that CA has limitations on the estimating sections. The programme is so good but if I had known that the estimating section was limited I would have look at other softwares. I believe this element is crucial for the overall delivery of a project.

Reuben Lamack
Owner Builder NSW

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Gerry I am very glad you contributed your comments, you are quite accurate in my view and doing an autopsy on your comments may inspire others to contribute - many thanks to you Lew.... A beginning approach would be to have user controlled categories. For exampled we all build from the foundation and have floors,walls, ceiling, roof etc. There are many other categories like electric, cabinets, plumbing. At the moment a complex wall reports to a Framing category. A Siding Category, A Wall-board category. A Insulation Category. The information comes from one place and is distributed. So we can see that is not complicated it is fragmented and confusing with no logical result. Changing a wall component say brick to masonry does nothing to help with the logic.

My starting point is a foundation. I would like my Foundation Category to report foundation footing as cubic meters with the associated rebar. Floor Category to report the 1st floor slab & mesh the second floor etc.. Wall as above, framing, sips, masonry, straw. Hard wall plaster, render, stucco, weather board....these are all wall components.. This would suit me and probably a percentage of users. If it were user definable it would suit 100% of users.

Chief uses promo videos and promotes the materials list as a feature? The materials list is stored in the Project Browser. The solution promoted is to export it to excel. That is not a solution, it may be an end result to take into final documentation or use for estimate vs actual but it is not a solution.

Schedule update in real time. is it possible that schedules are part of a solution. At present we select what information is available to the schedule. It would have to be a new schedule of course.

Just changing the logic will go a long way to making it usable. This should not be allowed 3 years of development to get it right. It needs an urgent fix right now and over time user will add some useful suggestions that will fine tune in the long run.

[gteacher]

ED:

I’m doubtful, But to comment on your thoughts since you were kind enough to review mine:

I agree that Chief’s categories are just a token effort with little relevance. Categories do need to be under user control. Chief should establish some basic groups as a starting point/example but the user should be able to add/modify the list. The next step is to permit the association of all objects within the user’s predetermined category(ies), either by default or assignment. Area and location classes would permit sub grouping of objects by user intent. Your list is great and logical but will not service everyone’s requirements.

To make a meaningful connection, I suggest that Chief adopt the concept of assembles which can be created and attached to any object or assembly of objects. And be reported similarly. Assemblies should be stored in the library for easy access and/or modification.

To make anything work, one needs to recognize that some degree of organization and search ability must be implemented. I strongly suggest that every object or piece of data or assembly be tagged with a descriptive tag. And as part of that tagging feature, define what that object is attached to or contained within. This is a standard estimating feature. This allows unlimited sorts and organization by the user. Functions such as Rescheck or anything else would be a “snap”. The definition of materials and their components definitely needs to be under user control. Chief’s terminology is overly broad at times and generally non-descriptive.

Quantity calculations must be by user defined formula, not Chief’s quick and dirty. Any such cals would need access to the object’s attributes such as location, attachment, and environment in addition to the object parameters.. The user should also have the ability to attach any attribute(s) to any object or object class. As an option, I have suggested that Ruby macros be used for this function. Probably wouldn’t be used by the novice but any competent estimator would be completely at home. Such macros could allow for quantity lots that most material is sold by. Few estimating programs allow for this.

The component list need be completely reworked to allow for user attributes and sorts. User entered data should not be erased if dim changes are made. An advantage would be the ability to assign a default custom component list to a class of object(s). All objects must have an ID, a component list and optional assembly attachment(s). Standard stuff. Assemblies within assembles should be permitted.

Lastly all of the mat components need be reworked, from the structure reporting, components list, to mat description, to the mat list. Since lumber pricing is so volatile, external access and update should be permitted. The same concept applies with the other common materials and assemblies. Some sort of library storage or database would be ideal.

Custom schedules or spreadsheets are badly needed and also, the ability to assign any object(s)/class to any spreadsheet. I doubt if real time updates could be made without affecting performance. But a one click on demand would be just as effective.

Finally, the user should be permitted to insert custom lines in the mat list to allow for design, eng, permits, overhead, etc, etc. Additional custom columns should also be permitted to permit sub-classification, material scheduling dates and grouping, sub vendors, notes, etc.

Just a starting point for someone at Chief to file.

[Ed_Downunder]

Gerry that is a great summary of what is needed. I do hope that other users take the time to digest what you are saying here. The technical reasons for doing things this way or that way are a little over my head but there is no doubt that the engineers at Chief get it. With their collective brains trust this can't be difficult. One of the areas that could be picked up and sorted out is the foundation. For an exercise I built a 5m x 5m box with double brick and cavity. Built the foundation with the magic foundation button. Selected my foundation and opened the components. At this most basic level I was hoping to find concrete. There is no concrete in the components for the foundation. I would like to know how many cubic meters of concrete is in my footing!

[lbuttery]

To make a meaningful connection, I suggest that Chief adopt the concept of assembles which can be created and attached to any object or assembly of objects.


Gerry:

this is why I have been recommending Cad Estimator as a companion for Chief for years
when I started with Chief I started to partner with a Chiefer who used CADEST and was planning
to buy it and use it myself

however, most of the builders I was working with didn't need estimates or material lists
so I never went further with it

I understand that the author created an import connection with Chief
but I have no experience with it

the CADEST website has very good free videos demonstrating how to use it

I think CA should give consideration to buying or partnering with CADEST
to offer a whole new ML method

Planswift is another choice...

Lew

[gteacher]

Lew:

I'm somewhat familiar with CAD Estimator, a fine program, but somewhat overkill in Chief's case. It is a data input hog and requires a lot of effort to setup and maintain. I'm sure that some subset would work fine though. However, the only problem would be getting the data into CE. I'm afraid that effort would be beyond what most would likely do. Changes to Chief (GIGO) and any corresponding setup by the user would be substantial. I think the problem(s) is mostly on Chief's end due to lack of data organization.

But a good example to follow.

[Justice]

Can anyone here make a comparison with Softplans, softlist materials lists with Chief Architect?

From what I have read, it seems to be more flexible and more developed than our materials list?

I think we could at least ask the CA engineers to make sure Chief is ahead of Softplan in this area as well?

[Ed_Downunder]

I'm with you Justice. These external programs are being mentioned because Chief fails to deliver in this area. Materials list are stored in the project browser. Chiefs own promo videos promote the materials list. The very best solution is to keep it in the project browser and make it update on user demand. (check Jerry post # 17) Chief have said that they are paying attention to this conversation and will put resources into areas that get the most interest from users. Historically this issue was like beating a dead horse. Chief have also said that they have a long list if things in a data base about materials lists. When we stop talking about it - primarily because the subject has been ignored by Chief they may conclude we are not interested in it. Of course that is completely wrong. We stop talking about it because after we abandon the materials list we must find another solution. Here is a question for every one that has found an alternative solution. If the materials list worked would you:- A) continue to use you external solution or B) abandon the external solution and use the CA Materials List.

For me I would abandoned my external solution in a heart beat.

[gteacher]

Justice:

I have a copy of SoftPlan although I haven’t used it for years. I never used SoftList, although I am familiar with it. It has most of the features I mentioned in my previous post – more or less – mostly less.

I won’t get into a P-P; other previous threads have already done that. Softlist does get more play, but the major complaint there is the maintenance.
I believe, it would be a MAJOR mistake for Chief to try to be a Softplan “me too”. It would be a grand and perhaps a fatal effort for Chief to duplicate. Chief should leverage the features it does well, they have the tools and opportunity to leap frog both Softplan and CadSoft, in this area, but seem to be too timid to do so.

I think direct comparisons would be counterproductive. Chief does not have to resources to be another mediocre BIM company and I expect, they know that. To be effective, Chief needs to go the OOB route.

[MPDesign]

I wonder if we can do a macro that reads a line length and calculates the materials from it because of the formula in the macro?
I also have avoided the materials listing feature and been of the opinion that it does a good job on surface calcs if you material is defined/sized correctly.
I don't do estimating as a service. if i did would use the unit & assembley cost estimating approach.

[gteacher]

I wonder if we can do a macro that reads a line length and calculates the materials from it because of the formula in the macro?

Your post is too vague to answer directly --- But --- Macros are one of the OOB's that I also suggest. But to implement, the script engine needs access to ALL the data which its doesn't have now. For example, Softlist's tables accesses thousands of name/value pairs and is highly customizable, -- Chief a few hundred. (add em up!! - But Chief's generalized approach is a better concept -- OOB)

Chief adds a handful each rev which will never get the job done.

AGAIN: a good idea,but too limited now to be practical. One to put on the "wish" list if Chief is serious about tackling this?