As you can see, the angle specified isn't what is actually produced. Maybe I'm not seeing something here but this is highly frustrating.

As you can see, the angle specified isn't what is actually produced. Maybe I'm not seeing something here but this is highly frustrating.

Hey thanks guys. I appreciate the time. I thought it might be that. I just can't see how to mathematically correlate the to differing planes (the line sketched and the angle produced). Better yet, why is this the wrong way to measure and how is the angle measured transformed into the thirty necessary with mathematical methodology?

Jeff Smith wrote:

Hey thanks guys. I appreciate the time. I thought it might be that. I just can't see how to mathematically correlate the to differing planes (the line sketched and the angle produced). Better yet, why is this the wrong way to measure and how is the angle measured transformed into the thirty necessary with mathematical methodology?

It's a compound angle:

The blue surface is normal to the chamfer edge so the rise and run match the chamfer inputs.

The end face is not normal to the chamfer so it has a longer run for the same amount of rise, therefore the resultant angle is different.

It's trig.

Cheers,

Kevin

Hello,

The angle shown isn't matching the chamfer angle because the selected faces aren't normal to the chamfer.

Cheers,

Kevin