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.

Currently I am using zzTakeoff to do some Acoustical Ceilings, the grid system would definitely be crucial for something of this nature, also a variable that automatically detects the longest distance of the room as main tees in a grid system should span the longest distance of the room to get a more accurate take off.

Further to Nicholas's point for the ACT ceilings/grid ceiling if we could retrieve the linear footage of the perimeter for wall molding that would be beneficial

There are also some programs that allow you to single click to fill in an area which would be extremely helpful for ACT Takeoffs with the grid tool.

Any updates on where this tool is in development and an estimated release window?

Hi, we do not have a release window for this feature. There are some dependent features that are necessary to prepare for this new tools to work smoothly going forward. Rest assured we are working on it!

We don't have the area label & legend showing yet, but on the right you can see the joists grouped by length. In this example, there are 2 area objects each with joists. Would you expect it to group the joists in 2 groups on the right separate for each area object, or totalled like it shows currently.

Hi Heber,

It would be best if both options were available.

Keep beams/joists grouped by each area object for clear takeoff review and verification but also allow a totalled view for overall quantities and procurement.

A simple toggle between:

• grouped by area object
• totalled summary

I think would give the most flexibility, so you can check accuracy first and then switch to totals for pricing and ordering.

@Heber, Great Visual

I'm thinking about this a little differently from a process piping standpoint. Imagine the parent being a linear and you want each section of pipe for spool length. If its the same parent, I'd want it NOT broken out by each separate takeoff.

Even in the above example if you needed to break it out separately, well measure it separately. I like how you show it above where it combines....but I'm just a GC, so ask the joist folks :)

@Kyle Sounds good. We will also have a "Grid" tool (which will be more generic and have more options) that could be set up with a template to do what you're after 👍🏻

When displaying "plies" for beams on the plans, which format do you like best. Not super critical since you will be able to customize it, but we want a good default out of the box.

The top one looks cleaner as default.

As usual I agree with @Shawn M

Top one

As usual?? does this happen often @Tod? 🤣

I think the middle option looks the cleanest and most professional for day-to-day plan reading:

• (2) 8

Why:

• Fastest to read at a glance
• Compact and uncluttered
• Keeps the important information on one line
• Looks more like standard drafting notation
• Takes up less space on crowded drawings

The top one:

• (2-Ply) 8
• Very clear for beginners, but visually heavier and a bit bulky

The bottom one:

• Split over two lines
• Harder to scan quickly
• Takes too much vertical space on beam layouts

So my recommendation would be:

1. Best default: (2) 8
2. Best for maximum clarity/new users: (2-Ply) 8
3. Least preferred: stacked version

If ZZTakeoff allows custom display later, the compact version is the better default “out of the box” look.

Regarding the joist tool:

For the auto generated items on the right, you can see we have the total rounded length of all joists on the Segment Takeoff, and an Item breakdown for all the lengths.

Obviously, you can't order 2' length joists and you would cut those out of bigger joists. Do you expect that the joist tool would handle this (and show 2' visually and also an indicator that it's being cut from a larger length item), or you figure it out on your end how you will cut it up from larger lengths?

This is what the properties popup currently looks like:

I think it would be best if the tool handled that automatically. Ideally there would be a setting where you can define the shortest orderable stock length, for example no lumber under 8'. Then if the takeoff includes multiple short joists, like several 3' pieces, the software could optimize the cuts and calculate how many 8' boards are actually needed while still visually showing the individual 3' joists in the layout. That would be a huge help.

Any thoughts on how this could apply to Process Piping? Spool Length is painful and I know is critical for some of your clients!

@Kyle Absolutely 🙂 Much of the code here would be reusable for piping, ductwork, etc. and could easily be adapted with a few tweaks. When we release our scripting engine, this will come alive. "Claude, build me zzTakeoff a tool that __________". You will have control to customize not only the UI, but custom tools and how they draw and calculate.

Heber,

Since our company is so up-tight with AI shenanigans, how can we get copilot inbeded in our browser is my question. I can't embed Claude in my browser since our company locks us down. Let me hit up or director of AI.

Err Heber you made me go on a 43min adventure using Claude in zzTakeoff.... It works, Claudes first steps! Posted on LinkedIn below with the video:

LINK

@Kyle That's cool! Lots of great things ahead. We'll be embedding lots more AI as we move forward.

More updates on joist tool (and beam tool works similarly):

These are just test areas drawn on the plan. It auto calculated the 14' joists and 6' joists. Then I selected the 6' joists and told it to cut those from 12' material. You can see the {12} next to the 6' indicating that it is cut from 12' (we're experimenting with this concept). You can see the items on the right reflect the material that will be ordered, but the page displays how it will be installed. We've been collecting feedback from various users on this, and they seem to like where it's going.

We have a rounding situation though. The 210' is the total of all beams. If we round up the 12' item Qty from 3.5 to 4 then there is a conflict whether the 210' shows total beam length measured on the plan, or total purchased material length of the child items after the Qty is rounded up. Also, if we round up the 3.5 to 4, then the total of the individual breakdown for the objects/sections wont match. Each of these seven 6' beams uses 0.5 of a 12' beam, and equates to 3.5 total, not 4. Just some rounding stuff to iron out. We're getting close, though.

Any ETA on this? Love to try it. Our process piping people are excited about this. We need to round to the nearest spool, call it 3" and want like items to be grouped like you have this picture below, this is going to work!

@Kyle We're very close. We hope to have this deployed to the Test Server either over the weekend or possibly Monday if all goes according to plan. 🙂

If the beam tool or joist tool don't do what you need, now that the infrastructure is in place, we can easily build additional tools or tool extensions.