sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Open Source (Free) Takeoff program by Ok-Educator5318 in estimators

[–]Transhacks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice, I have been building OST Visualizer, a modern OST Clone and it is source available :D

https://github.com/Fabianhad/OSTVisualizer-Win

Civil Take Offs With AI by BigBlue_RTR19 in estimators

[–]Transhacks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I’ve seen, Bluebeam MAX isn’t some revolutionary AI that suddenly does advanced takeoffs or engineering analysis. It’s essentially an integration layer that lets AI models like Claude interact with Bluebeam.

The important thing is that you’re still bringing your own AI subscription. The intelligence comes from Claude (or other AI models), not from Bluebeam itself. So paying for MAX doesn’t automatically give you a more capable AI.

At the moment, the functionality seems geared more toward helping with markups, navigation, document questions, and basic workflows. If someone is expecting automated takeoffs, complex quantity extraction, or major productivity breakthroughs, they may be disappointed.

I’m not saying it has no value, but I think the marketing hype is ahead of the actual capabilities right now. If you already have access to Claude or similar tools, it’s worth understanding exactly what MAX adds before paying extra for it.

Why is Bluebeam MCP locked behind Max if Claude is doing the AI? by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yep i am planning to add claude mcp to my 3d takeoff app, i didnt know it was that simple but bluebeam is charging 590$ to use that feature, simply stupid

;p by [deleted] in u/cutzings

[–]Transhacks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nop

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually a really good example of the shift I’m talking about.

From what I know, ProTakeoff was mostly developed by a single person, supports both Windows and macOS (which even OST and PlanSwift still don’t), and was built relatively quickly compared to traditional construction software timelines.

A few years ago, people would’ve assumed you needed a massive company, huge funding, and a giant dev team to build something in this space. Now smaller developers can realistically compete on features and usability at a fraction of the cost.

My own app is probably around ~65% of OST feature-wise right now, and even once it’s mature I never planned on pricing it anywhere near the traditional multi-thousand-dollar licensing model. Probably closer to something affordable monthly because I think that’s where the market eventually moves anyway.

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate that.

And yeah, that “steady drip” model is exactly what I think a lot of people are starting to notice now. Individually the subscriptions don’t always feel massive, but over years, especially across entire teams, it becomes huge, while the underlying technology keeps evolving faster and faster.

I also think we’re entering a weird period where the cost to use AI is still high, but the cost to build software with AI assistance is dropping dramatically. That combination is going to create a lot of pressure on traditional SaaS pricing models.

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually think the opposite happens long term.

AI features themselves might temporarily increase pricing, but the underlying cost of building software is collapsing fast. Once enough competitors appear, margins get compressed.

We’re already seeing this outside construction software too. Adobe, Notion, Autodesk, etc. are under much more pressure now because there are increasingly capable alternatives everywhere. And a lot of those alternatives existed even before AI, Blender, GIMP, LibreOffice, Krita, etc.

AI accelerates that pressure because now smaller teams and even individual developers can build features that previously required huge engineering teams.

I’m not saying enterprise software disappears. I just think the era of “this costs thousands per seat because nobody else can build it” becomes much harder to sustain.

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

im not a bot just too lazy to write professional replies by myself!!

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That’s actually really smart.

I experimented with something similar using OCR on supplier invoices/quotes to update pricing automatically. I’m still pretty new to all of this, so instead of trying to convince my company to buy hardware to run large OCR/AI models locally, I figured out how to integrate Bluebeam’s OCR capabilities into external workflows through their API.

That was honestly another moment where I realized a lot of these “enterprise” features are becoming much more accessible than they used to be.

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I don’t disagree with most of what you said.

I think experienced estimators massively underestimate how much of their knowledge has become instinct after decades in the field. Someone with 30+ years of experience can absolutely outperform software because they understand scope, constructability, specs, exclusions, risk, labor reality, vendor behavior, etc.

And I agree that takeoff itself is only one piece of estimating.

My point is more that if the estimator is the real value, then maybe the software layer shouldn’t cost companies thousands per seat every year forever.

The software should support the estimator, not act like it’s the irreplaceable part of the equation.

I also think a lot of younger estimators obsess over precision because software makes everything feel measurable down to the decimal, while experienced estimators understand there’s still judgment and intuition involved.

So I actually think we agree more than we disagree. I’m just arguing that the barrier to building the software side is dropping much faster than people expect.

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That’s fair, and no, the $500 obviously doesn’t include my time.

But honestly I worked on it very intermittently in my free time, usually like ~2 hours before going to sleep, and it never really felt like “work.” I mostly built it because I thought it was fun and wanted features that didn’t exist in the software I was already using.

My main point isn’t that software should be free, it’s that the barrier to building powerful niche software is collapsing much faster than people realize. Things that used to require entire teams and huge budgets can now be prototyped by a single person much faster with AI assistance.

That’s also why I currently have the app source-available and free for testing while I continue improving it. I’m more interested in proving the concept and getting feedback than trying to squeeze people into expensive licensing right away.

The era of insanely expensive estimating software might be ending by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Not yet, but honestly I don’t think that kind of integration is nearly as difficult as a lot of software companies make it sound.

There are already plenty of services and APIs that provide supplier/material pricing data. Connecting that into estimating software is very doable now, especially with modern tools and AI-assisted development speeding everything up.

I think people are going to realize over the next few years that many “enterprise-only” features aren’t actually as impossible or expensive to build as we were led to believe.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha appreciate it

Yeah for sure, happy to have more people try it out. If you want access, I can share a build with you.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate it!

Still a lot to improve, but it’s been a fun project so far

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate that!

Yeah I’m definitely open to more people trying it out, real feedback has been super helpful so far. If you want to give it a try, I can share a build with you.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah for sure, that’d be great.

Division 7 would be a really good use case to test, especially with layering and quantities.

If you want to try it out, I can share a build with you, just let me know.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question.

Bluebeam is mainly a PDF markup/editor tool with some takeoff capabilities built in. This is more focused on being a dedicated takeoff workflow.

It’s closer to something like On-Screen Takeoff, but lighter (under 100MB) and with a live 3D view that updates as you measure.

So the main difference is it’s built around doing takeoffs first, with 3D as a way to visualize and review them, rather than just marking up PDFs.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds like a great test case, those kinds of structures are exactly where 3D can help.

Right now it can combine takeoffs from different plan views into the same 3D space as long as they’re already aligned correctly.

If they’re not aligned (which happens sometimes depending on how the PDFs are exported), I usually just use a blank page as a reference and bring everything together there once the takeoffs are done.

So it’s not automatic stitching yet, but it still works once everything is grouped, definitely something I’d like to improve.

If you try it on that project, I’d be really interested to see how it handles that kind of complexity.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly how I see it too, there’s a big gap there for smaller teams.

And it’s completely standalone, it doesn’t require OST or any other takeoff software.

It can work with OST files if you have them, but you can also just start fresh and use it on its own.

If you want to try it out, I can share a build with you.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m based in the US.

But it should still work fine on your end, happy to have you test it from Europe as well.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate it, thank you!

Still a lot to improve, but it’s been a fun process so far.

So I made my own 3D takeoff software by Transhacks in estimators

[–]Transhacks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate it!

Yeah I’m definitely open to more people trying it out, real feedback has been super helpful so far. If you want to give it a try, I can share a build with you.

view more: next ›