Materials List Revisited

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[gteacher]

Glen: my numbers for cals:

Slab = 5 x 5 x .1 = 2.5 m
Footer = 18.6 x .45 x .35 = 2.9295
Chamfer = 18.4 x (.1 x .1)/2 = .092
Ledge = 19.44 x .172 x .14 = .468
Total = 5.053 exact

I believe the wall insulation is coming from the gap material, noted as insulation gap. If you change this material wall insulation changes accordingly.

However, attached is a similar plan using slab walls which is definitely wrong. Also, can’t figure out why chief added wall, ceiling and floor insulation on a all concrete structure and where its coming from?

[Mark]

I have found the best way to calc wall and ceiling insulation is to to completely hide chiefs numbers and make a new material for wall insulation and put it on zero thickness layer in wall layers and the same for ceilings put into ceiling structure layer again zero thickness this gives you full control over batt sizes and can be changed on a room or wall type basis

I must say all this talk about material list changes has me hoping for changes in x6 it filling me with false hope already I am disappointed

[Glenn Woodward]

I believe the wall insulation is coming from the gap material, noted as insulation gap. If you change this material wall insulation changes accordingly.

Gerry,

Thanks for the confirmation on the slab quantity.

I still maintain that the insulation is coming from the walls main layer.
I can draw the cavity brick wall with a water material for the cavity and the ML gives me bricks for both wall skins, the water in the cavity AND the wall insulation.
Even your attached plan is giving wall insulation because there is only 1 wall layer, which is the main layer and hence automatically generating the insulation.
Can you post a plan that doesn't show any insulation for the wall?

[gteacher]

Gerry,

Can you post a plan that doesn't show any insulation for the wall?

Nope -- I was kind of hoping you could show how? Can't get rid of it or ceiling ins.

Curious thing. If I change the gap to Insulating Foam Block, then I get a double count of both wall batts and blocks. Doesn't seem right?
If the gap is just wall insulation, then I only get one count.

[Mark]

Nope -- I was kind of hoping you could show how? Can't get rid of it or ceiling ins.

Curious thing. If I change the gap to Insulating Foam Block, then I get a double count of both wall batts and blocks. Doesn't seem right?
If the gap is just wall insulation, then I only get one count.

You can go to your material list preferences and turn of insulation

[Glenn Woodward]

Gerry,
Try this.
Draw a room with single layer walls.
Make 2 walls 1 1/2" thick.
Make the other 2 walls 6" thick.
Generate a ML.

You should get 2 different entries for wall insulation.
1 for the thin wall (about 4" thick which is too thick for the 1 1/2" wall anyway) and one for the thicker wall (6" thick).

This is part of what makes me believe that the wall insulation is coming from the walls main layer and not the a cavity (if there is one - because a s you can see, you get wall insulation with a single layer wall).

Either way, doesn't really matter, it needs to be fixed.