I agree DL, that the traditional forms have an immense value to we modern framers. But I'd speculate that 90% of the frames that are cut today have remarkably little in common with the old forms. The companies that are cranking out frames, and represent the industry in North America (through the magazines and the TFBC), are certainly not present on this forum. And they're not Guild members (I'm referring to the minion workers). That's not to say that I dislike all modern frames--I'm a big fan of what may be termed Brungraberism at some point in the future.
For whatever reason, this forum is full of traditionalist framers. We all know what happens when someone puts up a picture of a frame without top plates. But Tim's right, the reaction is a little different on the Forestry Forum.
There's also the enormous issue of building codes. If you live in an area where there's an enforced code, you may have to compromise a bit on your strict historic interpretation. I don't think that's implying old frame forms are weak, so much as the safety factors in the wood strength values, the required loads, and that that modern models aren't modeling what's really going on (particularly at the joints). Tim, didn't Maine adopt a statewide code? Has it crept up to your neck of the woods?
To get back to the original point, I like queen post barns a lot. I've never understood why there's only a center post though--I think the double posts look better, and it's certainly stronger.
