Materials List Revisited

[Justice]

That's a decision they will have to make carefully.

I would like to see a Take Off system that uses a 3d model that can be explored and updated easily, without going back and forth between programs.

Lets face it the best option for all of us and for Chief is to develop the estimating & Take Off system for native use and also for 3d BIM export.

That way Chief gets bigger exposure to the Home Building Industry world wide, through our exporting our 3d BIM Chief model to them for take off. I hope the HBI take note of Chief's price and say, "yes lets get it for Estimating, Modelling, Plans and Rendering of our Homes so we don't have to go back and forth between programs."

ROI win win for all parties I would think.

So why not do Both and if we have to pay for a separate Premium Chief Estimating package, so be it.

I would think that many Home Builders will opt for Chief over other Home Design software just because of a Premium Estimating extra?

Most of the simpler 2d take off add ons are about $1000 or so and if we wanted a native Chief 3d Premium estimating package we could pay for it if we needed it and keep the price the same for those who do not need it?

Much better to have a native 3d Take Off System than only a 2d add on?

[lbuttery]

So why not do Both and if we have to pay for a separate Premium Chief Estimating package, so be it.


Justice:

I agree, I have suggested that Chief be sold in modules to keep the cost down

however, it is also a matter of resources

if CA doesn't hire more programmers then I would rather they concentrate on getting chief "better"
and just create a BIM capable export

the same applies to energy calcs and structural calcs and collision detection
etc etc etc

Chief can't have "everything" programmed into one package

but with BIM they can "talk" to software that can be dedicated to a task

Lew

[Ed_Downunder]

There is only one way forward and that is to implement a residential BIM strategy. 6d is a bridge too far but 5d is possible. Offering to pay more may or may not be a solution. But a product that can be networked across the office and across the road has got to be the goal. Apart from reporting correctly, a simple time schedule and estimating with supplier and contractor database Chief will place itself ahead of the pack. It already owns the advantage. Our building supervisor needs access the accounts people need access. The cloud is here and is part of our daily operations. The project plan should be available to add this type of information without Chief getting into Knot about security. In my view adding more bells and whistles is nice but a functioning BIM Residential is where the new sales are. The existing commercial orientated software solutions (you know who you are) have a focus on the big end of town and governments. Will they reach back to the residential designer - who knows but one thing for sure they have no interest in residential BIM at this time. BIM is the new technology solution. Cad has been left behind even though many are still using it. Windows 98 WOW it was cutting edge for a day now its not possible to survive or grow with that technology. Fax machine - still got one in the office. We only use it when asked. BIM is not the future BIM is now and Chief had better own some before some other players ( and they are there) get too far ahead. As a starting point fix the materials list. I have prepared a video demonstrating the issues I am having with it. Still working out how to make it available.

[lbuttery]

6d is a bridge too far but 5d is possible

Edward :

LOL

I agree 100%

but at this point based on CA's postings on this forum they just don't "get it"

the beauty of BIM escapes them

Lew

[Justice]

Right on Ed, I would like to see that video.

I do think Chief will improve the ML in X6 but how much I do not know?

ML full development is a no brainer IMO.

Ed, did you read this post "Material Take Offs, Builder's Show and other stuff" if not please do so?

Then you will see why I am not counting on much being done about ML right now?

Why should I waste my time building models in Chief if I needed to do a full BIM take off for accurate estimating of non standard houses?

I would advise you to at least look at other 3d BIM CAD programs that can easily be 3d exported into VICO or QTO by Autodesk if you need to do a full take off for the way we build here in Australia and many other parts of the world.

Chief is good for Queenslander style buildings when it comes to ML that are very close to US style houses.

Chief is getting better but we might have to wait till XX till we are satisfied with ML accuracy for us in Australia?

BTW I am very happy with Chief Architect when it comes to making accurate models of houses with floor slabs for Australian standard house styles, for my working drawings.

They have surprised me in X4 with the job they did on floor slabs with the splays showing up in cross section and in X5
with the work on ridge capping going well although not quite polished yet?

The models are just fine for us, we just need a bit more work on the ML, who knows they might surprise us again in the future I hope as early as X7?

[Ed_Downunder]

Thanks Justice,

That is very interesting. Thanks for the post reference. It's very long so I read the first 30 post's then went to the end. The conclusion was quite serious for Chief. There are two issues at play and one solution. The 1st claim is good stuff in good stuff out. Not entirely true. The philosophy is true the reality is not. The 2nd is how it reports. The logic of the reporting could be user friendly, it's not.

I started this thread looking at the logic of the reporting. I have discovered a major flaw in that journey. The only logical solution is Residential BIM. For those that have no use for it thats fine for those that want it, see it's value and want to grow their businesses. These are the voices that we need to hear from.

Discussing this issue might be like gnawing on a bone but in reality do google search on residential BIM will immediately tell you that if you do not get on for the ride you will miss the opportunity. In photography this is known as the golden hour. The golden hour is all about timing and being late is not an option.

I am nearly ready to post the video pointing out the problems as I see it. If I am wrong I will be more pleased than anyone.

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Justice,

The 100mm x 100mm is just wrong. The footing is 450 x 350. the slab is 100. The brick rebate is 172 the 72 mm is the remainder not a nominated size.

Thanks for viewing.

[Glenn Woodward]

Edward,

I am looking at your video now and you are making mistakes re the mono slab.
The slab sits directly on top of the footing so that from top of slab to bottom of footing is 550mm (100mm slab + 450mm footing).
You are assuming that the bottom of the brick ledge is the top of footing - it is not - top of footing is a bottom of slab.
So yes, if you want the top of footing to be bottom of brick ledge, you need to set it up that way by making your footing 522mm high.
This is not a workaround - this is how Chief works.
You also claim that the chamfer doesn't work - as far as I can tell, it works as designed, I think you are using it incorrectly - it is possible to use both chamfer hight and with correctly.
The Chamfer is not used to locate the footing or any other part of the mono slab, it is used as a triangular infill only.
This is not a workaround - this is how Chief works.

Further because you are detailing a mono slab (all poured at once, but admittedly all lumped under 100mm slab), the cubic meters of concrete is reporting spot on for the slab + footing + chamfer - brick ledge:
slab = 2.5
+ footings = 2.9295
+ chamfer = .086
- brick ledge = .4681 (approx)
Total = 5.0474

Your ML is reporting 5.05 cu m
I would say that is close enough.

I agree that mesh needs to have the brick ledge deducted to be really accurate - but on a large project, the difference would be negligable.

This is just my first quick reaction while looking at your video - I am not trying to be negative as I think this is all good stuff.
I believe the ML needs work and you are doing a great job with your posts and video.
But if information is being posted, it needs to be correct.

I will have a closer look at your vid tomorrow.

PS. I don't think the wall insulation is coming from the Gap material.
I think it is coming from the internal brick skin (main layer) and Chief assumes that the main layer is a framed layer and therefore needs insulation.

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Glen,

Really appreciate you taking the trouble to look at this issue.

I have just looked at a recent plan back from the engineer. This plan has a 300mm x 350mm footing.

The brick ledge is 2 courses of standard brick. that is 172. We are using vericore 305 x 90 x 162.

It seems when the engineer wants 300mm footing he wants the thickened edge to sit on top of the footing.

I get that chief wants to have the slab sit on top of the footing but is it right?

[dshall]

I have commented on this before..... If CA defined a mono slab and footing being made up of three parts, this would solve my issues, Joe Carricks issues and Ed's issue. Those three parts are a concrete slab. (Usually 4" thick), sitting on a stem wall (6"-8" wide and approx. 14" tall) sitting on a footing (12"-15" wide and 6"-10" thick). Understand this is a mono pour. If the mono slab and footing were defined by these three components, it would enable us to build the footing using the minimum required sizes. I have a feeling I am singing into the wind.

[Glenn Woodward]

Hi Glen,

Really appreciate you taking the trouble to look at this issue.

I have just looked at a recent plan back from the engineer. This plan has a 300mm x 350mm footing.

The brick ledge is 2 courses of standard brick. that is 172. We are using vericore 305 x 90 x 162.

It seems when the engineer wants 300mm footing he wants the thickened edge to sit on top of the footing.

I get that chief wants to have the slab sit on top of the footing but is it right?

Ed,
What you indicate is not a momolithic slab.
A monolithic slab, by definition, is done in one pour.
That is why Chief reports only 1 quantity for a mono slab..

To get what you want (OK,OK - close to what you want), you need to use walls with footings.
This way, you can get your separate footing, stem wall and slab.
The 72mm high stem wall would be made up of a concrete inner skin and brick outer skin.
The brick skin for the wall above will only come down to the bottom of slab.

This is far from perfect and you can't get the chamfer.
This is an area of Chief that definitely needs some work.

[Ed_Downunder]

Ed,
What you indicate is not a monolithic slab.
A monolithic slab, by definition, is done in one pour.
That is why Chief reports only 1 quantity for a mono slab..

To get what you want (OK,OK - close to what you want), you need to use walls with footings.
This way, you can get your separate footing, stem wall and slab.
The 72mm high stem wall would be made up of a concrete inner skin and brick outer skin.
The brick skin for the wall above will only come down to the bottom of slab.

This is far from perfect and you can't get the chamfer.
This is an area of Chief that definitely needs some work.

It's a two headed beast. I would like the footing to draw correctly and I would like the materials list to report correctly.



I have managed to draw it correctly





The materials list is another thing!! The slab is reported as TRIM concrete cubic meters is OK. I have no Idea what 25mm solid concrete is. I looked for it. Must be something I added by mistake in elevation view so ignore that.

To put an edge beam on a single level house is easy with the make room polyline copy, concentric jump convert to slab. make hole in slab and set elevation at -200.

My current project has 3 levels slab on ground. That is a bit more complicated for this method

On a new plan I have a 5 x 5 slab and a 5 x 5 slab with footing. It's extraordinary! The slab tool reports as Exterior trim and the slab with footing tool report as foundation slab and foundation footing with separate calculations

The foundation slab reports 2.5 cubic meters and the footing 2.46 cubic meters.

[Justice]

Glenn, is a Chief Guru and has some time to put it through its paces and I agree with him about where the footing depth is measured from.

Also regarding the 40 x's the diameter, this is a standard method of measurement for quantity surveyors.

The scaffolding for CA ML take off is still there, they just need to finish it off to a more acceptable standard and will probably do it in time.

As you may know X6 has a primary focus on a Mac version for Chief, that I think will be very good for CA now and in the long run.

This is what I mean about QTO please see video link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad-mK9wuu7Y

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Glen,

Thanks for viewing the video. I am going to recheck AS 2870 and our engineer. I think your knowledge is a great asset to this conversation and I appreciate your comments about accurate statements. I hope I don't get marked down to much by others viewing the video because the real issue is the logic of the materials list.

My calculations for the slab are 2.2 m³ using your figures above = 4.7 m³ If somebody can do the calcs and demonstrate that Chief reported correctly I will be relieved and continue to bring my materials list to heel.

[Doug Park]

If you find any inaccuracy in material quantity calculations please report them to us with an example and what you expected. As glen has pointed out the volumes for concrete should be accurate. Concrete can be very tough to estimate accurately by hand. Our calculations don't include any overages that are typically necessary when pouring concrete.