Grid Tool, Joist Tool, and Beam Tool

I know the glazing contractors could really use this for the elevation takeoffs on storefronts and curtain walls. Excited to see what input comes in!

I would love to see, vertical, horizontal, intersection grids and perimeter intersections results please and the ability to draw the first line of the grid at an angle. Would we have to pre-build assemblies or groups of conventional lumber( 8'10'12'etc..) and then use those assemblies to match the length of the segments created by the grid tool...? Stack did this nicely, but then they would have the unmatched items in the assembly show up in reports as ZERO's which I thought was sketchy. Plus in Stack you had to pre-enter the template into the takeoff prior to being able to select and then you had to match it up, which was clumsy and often times mass chaos, very hard to find and organize in your takeoffs. Could we go straight to the template library to match up the assembly then insert and match the grid segments to that assembly.

Also, the Area takeoff tool that has the grid option, can it be used for other items like sheathing, nails, hangers.....

Thank you!

Below is my input and what I think would benefit the wider community. By the way I can't wait to be able to import my PlanSwift Templates :)

1. Grid Tool – The Master Reference System

A strong, parametric Grid Tool should act as the central coordination layer for the entire project. Ideally, it would drive:

• Structural layout
• Joists and beams
• Slabs
• Piping and ductwork routing
• Electrical tray layouts
• Elevation control for glazing contractors

If grids are fully parametric, any change should automatically update all linked elements. This greatly reduces coordination errors and speeds up revisions.

2. Joist & Beam Tools – Fully Parametric Members

Key features that would make these tools extremely powerful:

• Auto-adjust lengths and elevations when grids or walls move
• Snap-to-grid and snap-to-reference capabilities
• Auto connection logic (bearing, cantilever, lapping rules, etc.)
• Span-based rules using code tables
• Support for timber, LVL, steel, and concrete members

This would make framing layouts fast, intelligent, and adaptable.

3. Built-In Span Tables & Design Logic

It would be game-changing if the tools included:

• Standard span tables
• Code-aware design limits (deflection, max spacing, depth rules)
• Editable/custom code rule sets

Letting users plug in their own span tables would address regional code differences and contractor-specific preferences.

4. Automatic Takeoffs & Schedules

These tools should generate:

• Framing plans
• Cut lists
• Member schedules
• Lengths, weights, and linear meters
• Trade-specific summaries (timber vs steel)

Automated takeoffs will save huge amounts of time and reduce human error.

5. Future-Proofing for More Tools

The framework behind these three tools can be reused for many other systems, such as:

• Piping: centerlines, slopes, hanger spacing
• Ductwork: transitions, offsets, pressure classes
• Electrical trays: supports, routing logic
• Glazing: elevation grids for storefronts and curtain walls
• Curtain wall mullions: spacing, counts, elevation-based takeoffs

This is why getting the core infrastructure right is so important, it accelerates development across all trades.

6. Additional Priorities

A few other features that would add major value:

• Modular architecture so future tools plug in cleanly
• Good performance for large multi-floor projects
• Support for user-custom profile libraries
• Both 2D plan views and full 3D coordination
• Export to IFC, DWG, and Excel

7. Collaboration & Change Tracking

A revision history system would be extremely useful, including:

• Who changed a grid
• When framing was updated
• Version comparisons for takeoffs

This helps maintain accountability and improves team workflows.

Final Thoughts

Overall, I’m very excited to see these tools in development. They’re not just standalone features; they are foundational systems that will unlock many other high-value tools in the future. The community will benefit massively from a strong, flexible, and parametric approach to grids, joists, and beams.

Happy to hear what others think as well!

Thanks for the input. For the joist tool (or also grid tool, etc.) regarding parametric vs using the "lego block" approach of combining area + linear takeoff objects, this is one of the things we've been discussing internally:

Whether to:

1. Lego Block Approach - have joist tool create an area with child linear objects. In this approach, user would enter parameters and then "Generate" and it would draw the joists given parameters for start point, spacing, direction, etc. but then the user could copy/paste & move specific joists just like any other linear object. The final result would would essentially use our existing area + linear takeoff tools and automate the initial positioning of the joists using a script.

2. Fully Parametric - joists are fully drawn and updated automatically using the given area and parameters such as spacing, direction, etc. (joists would not be built using our linear takeoff objects, but still drawn as lines within the area). In this approach, the positioning would be automatic based fully on parameters. As a result there would be no manual copy/paste of joists or ability to move/adjust except by specific parameters that we allow for spacing, etc. On the plus side, all adjustments to the area shape would auto regenerate using the parameters.

Any input welcome regarding which of these approaches makes most sense to you.