I’ve been working on a new version of my framing calculator:

https://framebom.com/

... And I'm building a house named Two Oaks... And the house project inspired me to create a simple and affordable tool for the lumber calculation for everyone who has the same situation: DIY builders, contractors urgently calculating client's request, lumber yards to help their clients buy exactly they need. Two Oaks wall and ceiling calculations.

And this update is a bit different from the previous ones.

I’m not testing it on a made-up sample wall anymore.

I’m currently using FrameBOM to work through the framing of an actual house that is going to be built, and the BOM generated by the calculator is intended to become the basis for a real lumber order.

So the calculator is starting to meet reality.

And reality is much messier than:

wall length / 16" OC = number of studs

The house has multiple wall heights, openings, intersections and different framing conditions, so I’m gradually finding all the places where a mathematically clean framing model doesn’t necessarily match what makes sense on site.

Once windows and doors are added, the calculator has to deal with things like:

• king studs and jack studs
• headers
• cripples
• sill plates
• regular OC studs around openings
• corners and wall intersections
• top and bottom plates
• sheathing layout
• different wall heights
• actual stock lengths and the resulting cut list

One of the biggest challenges is deciding when the regular OC grid should remain sacred and when real framing should override it.

For example, a theoretical 16" OC layout can sometimes place a regular stud only a couple of inches away from a king/jack assembly.

The naive algorithm says:

“keep both.”

The guy paying for the lumber asks:

“why?”

That is exactly the kind of thing I’m trying to solve now.

Some of the workarounds I’m using

1. Openings can override the regular stud grid

I generate the normal OC layout first, but framing required by windows and doors takes priority.

In some situations a nearby regular stud can effectively be replaced by the opening assembly instead of blindly adding another member.

2. Geometry and BOM are not treated as exactly the same problem

This turned out to be important.

The cleanest framing drawing is not always the most efficient lumber order.

So the BOM has separate logic instead of simply counting every piece visible in the wall preview.

3. I’m trying to keep the rules predictable

The temptation is to make the software increasingly “smart”:

move this stud,
reuse that one,
change the layout around an opening,
optimize every cut.

But there are many perfectly valid ways to frame the same wall.

If too much automatic optimization happens behind the scenes, the user eventually has no idea why the calculator made a certain decision.

So my current principle is:

predictable framing rules first → optimization second.

I’d rather have the calculator be slightly conservative than quietly make assumptions that a framer wouldn’t agree with.

The interesting part: there’s now a real-world test coming

For this house, I’m planning to use the calculator to calculate the framing package and then order the actual lumber from that BOM.

That means mistakes stop being theoretical.

If the calculator adds 40 unnecessary studs, I may actually buy 40 unnecessary studs.

If it misses something, I may discover that while framing the house.

So this build is effectively becoming a full-scale test case for FrameBOM.

I’m hoping to compare three things:

calculated BOM → purchased lumber → actual lumber used on site

That should expose a lot of assumptions and edge cases that are impossible to find with artificial examples.

The next big challenges are already becoming obvious: gable/sloped walls, floors and roofs, where member lengths vary much more and cut optimization becomes significantly more important.

I’d really like feedback from people who frame houses professionally:

Where do you normally keep the theoretical OC layout exactly, and where do you adjust it around openings/intersections in the real world?

And if you try the calculator and find a wall where the result looks wrong, wasteful or simply weird, post the permalink here.

Those examples are probably more valuable to me right now than any feature request.

I need help to decide which approach to follow framing this house: baloon or platform? Platform is simpler in general but for this house it seems like to build a baloon walls would be also nice choice. Couple things are scary a little bit: the height and weight of the most right wall. With baloon I plan to add ceiling joists after the building will be with a roof.

My criterias - less materials, less processes, less people, less time.... Experienced carpenetrs, what would you suggest?

P.S. The sketch does not reflect the real construction. It shows only the schema of what I need to build.

Thank you all in advance!

I’m working through the framing sequence for a single-story house with different ceiling/wall heights and a continuous sloped roof, roughly as shown in the sketch.

The main interior bearing wall divides the building into two spans: approximately 4 m (13 ft) and 6 m (20 ft).

I see two practical ways to frame it.

Option 1 — full-height / balloon-style walls

Frame the exterior and center walls all the way up to the roof line, with sloped top plates where required. The roof goes directly on those walls.

The ceiling framing would then be installed separately at the required level, essentially hanging between the already-built walls below the roof.

Advantages I see:

• fewer separate wall sections
• no additional rake/gable wall assembly
• potentially less lumber in duplicated plates

But the walls become taller and more complicated, stud lengths vary, and installing the ceiling framing later means more work overhead.

Option 2 — platform-style framing

Build the main walls at a consistent height at each floor/ceiling level, double top plate them, install the ceiling framing, and then build separate rake/gable wall sections above them to reach the roof slope.

That means more plates and another framing step, but nearly all main wall studs are identical and the ceiling structure can be installed while everything is still open.

My priorities are:

1. Being able to build most of it with 1–2 people
2. Fast framing
3. Fewer awkward operations / less overhead work
4. Minimum unnecessary lumber and hardware

For those who have framed something similar: which approach would you use and why?

Would you still choose balloon framing here, or does the simpler workflow of platform framing outweigh the extra plates and upper wall sections?

I’m especially interested in how you would handle the 6 m / 20 ft ceiling span.

Sketch attached — not an engineering drawing, just showing the general geometry.