Materials List Revisited

[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

[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.