Materials List Revisited

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Michael:-

This is a good site explaining unit & assembley cost estimating.

http://www.wbdg.org/resources/estima...cost_effective

Would love Chief to do that!

[Justice]

Would we be willing to pay more for a Chief Architect Version that is specifically designed for material take off and estimating?

There would be an issue with those that would not use this feature and those that will?

So you would expect CA to keep its premium product as is or create premium plus estimating?

If they added $500 - $1000 more would you pay it?

I would if it meant I did not need an external add on?

Native program is they way to go of course.

Autodesk have Quantity Take off program that imports native 3d files from Revit & AutoCAD Architectural.

If CA don't BIM in 3d they could create a take off and estimating component for us.

[gteacher]

If they added $500 - $1000 more would you pay it?

NOPE --Few would --But there is some level of support for a premium program. Perhaps a few hundred more? -- if it surpassed the competition.

CadSoft has several levels of development and it seems to work OK. But their pricing band is much more narrow. SoftPlan tried selling SoftList as an option but that didn't work out and they gave up. Some degree of estimating is expected in a premium program, but what that is depends on the competition.

[Ed_Downunder]

Chief already has a materials list...... A full blown QT. That is a pay scale above Chief Architect. Jerry has some insight into the pros and cons of going this way or that. I'm just a user that wants my buttons to work. As a starting point to addressing this it should at least perform at a very basic level. It fails to do that. A materials list that incorporates every detail maybe a bridge to far (wiring, nails , silicon etc). But I can and does report a lot. The MT reports all electrical components, all fixtures and all fitting etc. Even a spare wheel for the car if we place one in the garage. Where it fails is at a very basic level. The logical reporting of the components that makeup the footings. The floor components. The wall components. The ceiling and roof. These are the very basic components that should be the core of the materials list. We should be able to build on these core elements.

[Ed_Downunder]

Just having a look at doors, Doors have frames. Wood or metal it should be included into the materials list. How would you include a door frame in the list? How would you include a door opening frame in the list? I can allow for a frame with a rough opening but you cant put a price on a rough opening - can you?

[lbuttery]

Bottom line

I should be able to model a standard house
create the ML and hand it to Home Depot
they should be able to place the order based on that ML

until that can happen OOB then the ML is sorta not worth the effort

Lew

[gteacher]

J .....but you cant put a price on a rough opening - can you?

Of course you can, and most good estimating programs do. It's just an assembly attached to the door. Different doors styles can have different assembles (and scaling factors). -- An assembly does not necessarily have to be just a listing of adjunct materials. There are a myriad of other approaches.

[Glenn Woodward]

Edward,

Both door frames and architraves are listed under Interior Trim.
The frame is Interior Jamb.
The architraves are Interior Casing.
Works for Doorways as well as doors.

I also don't have your problem of calculating the concrete slab - it seems to work OK for me.
I get quantities for reinforcement, termite flashing, foundation bolts, cubic meters of concrete, steel mesh.

Are you sure that you haven't got these items unchecked in the Materials column of the Layer Display Options dbx?

The more I read your posts, the more I think there is something wrong with what you are doing.

[Justice]

Glenn,

You seem to get the most out of Chief, albeit through correct use and work arounds?

We could ask you to make a DVD on correct modelling and settings for Material Take Off for Aussie users?

You could sell it to us and also advise CA how to improve the estimating functions?

BTW my 8 year old son caught an estuary cat fish 22 inches yesterday, did you get any Marlin last time?

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Glen,
Thanks for your comments. I will reply as soon as possible. It's Easter of course and I am preparing my reply with a plan and materials list as I have time. You are quite right of course that you can get some information. I am focusing on the limitations and logic of the reporting with the view that Chief is paying attention to everyone's comments. The focus is on the users that have abandoned the materials list. Thank you for your reply because this is the conversation we need to have for this conversation to be balanced, to stay active and stay productive. I am not pulling Chief apart out of frustration ( although I have had my share.....past that point now.... looking to make this feature a stand out feature not a work around feature). With some thought and input from from user with different needs Chief will in time have to be flexible enough to cater for those region nuances.

Justice you have articulated the point very nicely and concisely. I am staying focused on the footings and foundation to discuss what Chief does well and where the logic gets lost.

[Glenn Woodward]

Edward,

I would be interested to know why you were reporting basic items that are missing from the ML, such as slabs, door frames etc.

I am not trying to be critical against you, but it is sometimes counterproductive when users criticise a feature in Chief without knowing that it could be something they are doing wrong.
I am not saying you are wrong in this case, just questioning why you are not getting these items in a ML when I know that Chief is quite capable of including them.

Justice,

I don't profess to be any sort of expert on the ML - I don't use it .
I don't think I am the one to do a video or try guide which direction it goes.
I just know that that some of the things that Edward is reporting don't make sense to me as I know that these items are easily included.

[Ed_Downunder]

Glen your comments are very welcome and I have accepted them in the spirit they are given. Your right of course and many may have formed that view. I need to turn that around. I haven't been playing devils advocate ( no suggestion from anyone that I am - just saying) I will respond with more accuracy over the next few days (Easter and family commitments permitting). Part of repeating myself was responding to different posts looking for other users viewpoint. I can get the reporting that you mention. It is not reporting properly. If you have a concrete floor for the ground floor and a concrete floor for 2nd floor it reports as foundation. OK you can get the numbers and they will be correct but it is still reporting the 2nd floor as foundation. In my view the foundation and footing are the same thing. Ground floor slab is the ground floor and not a foundation member. Chief calculates the footing and ground floor slab as foundation and combines those 2 items into one total for concrete. OK many may say - well that's how Chief does it. The purpose of this conversation is to illustrate to Chief if there are others like me who have abandoned the materials list and would like to rediscover it.There are many examples where Chief works well and where it does't. I am staying focused on the footing - foundation at the moment and will move on to why I think the doors, walls etc could do with some improvement in the reporting. My primary driver is to use the program as designed not cleverly find workaround solutions.

justice made the point "You seem to get the most out of Chief, albeit through correct use and work around?" If you presented a builder with the materials list with "correct use" the builder (locally any way cant speak for across the water) would calculate footing and slab as separate items.

Please stay interested and add your comments and thoughts.

[Glenn Woodward]

Edward,

OK, I see what you are saying.
The items are reported, but we need more control over how and where they are reported.
Although the level 1 slab and level 2 slabs are reported under Foundation, at least they are separate and you can identify each one by their Floor number.

And I totally agree that the ML needs some work.
From my limited usage it looks like it needs the abiliity to be more easily customised by the user so that we can tell it to put the second floor slab under Concrete, (for example) if we want.
We have the ability to edit items after the ML is generated (you can move the level 2 concrete to a Concrete Category if you want), but we really need to be able to tell Chief to put the level 2 concrete under Concrete and not Foundation BEFORE we generate the ML.

[Ed_Downunder]

Don't you hate it when spelling is auto corrected and somehow precisely becomes preciosity (sorry for the typo)

[Ed_Downunder]

That's it preciosity Glen.

Even in the local user group I here some say they have no use for the materials list. They hand the layout to the builder and that's it. Job is finished.

Is there a builder in the world that does not want to know the quantities. If Chief produced an easy accurate list of quantities. That would add value to a design service. Now export that in excel and you have a builder coming back for more.

In my case we build and we have an in house design service. So from concept tp completion we are very interested in a functioning Materials list because when the plan is finished and the build begins we can export to excel and match actual against estimate.

From Chief point of view 3d views ray-tracing and all the wow factor are important and we use those features to get our clients from concept to a committed build. So these features suite a specifics user profile. That's what got us interested in the first instance. Then of course we were seduced by all the auto features. Now we realise that we need to focus on the end game. Working drawings and reliable estimates.

Just to be picky and at this stage of no real consequence. Can you get footings to be pour 1. The ground floor slab to be pour 2. The 2nd floor to be pour 3?