Chamfer on already existing chamfer

[AntonGrant]

Chamfer on already existing chamfer makes strange result. If I create on top and bottom faces of cube one chamfer, and on top of that chamfer feature I make another chamfer feature with exactly same distance, then new one makes result with more distance than needed.
Example, like I said cube with first chamfer 
Then creating second chamfer feature

Makes this


I can't understand why it's different from 0.1cm , when i specifically told make 0.1cm chamfer 

[TheCADWhisperer]

Can you File>Export your *.f3d file to your local drive and then Attach it here to a Reply?

[AntonGrant]

Here you go

[TheCADWhisperer]

I am having trouble visualizing what you are attempting to model.

Do you have a picture of something similar that already exists in the real world?

Tip: Rather than use Chamfer - sketch in the beginning/end points of where  you expect the geometry to cut.

[AntonGrant]

It's just a quick example with the cube. I just need chamfer like this one

I mean, this strange behavior in fusion happens everywhere in similar situations. Even with real world examples.

[TheCADWhisperer]

Uhmm, this distance is the hypotenuse

Perhaps if you Sweep with an equilateral triangle

or 

Pipe instead.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@AntonGrant wrote:

Even with real world examples.

---

Can you Attach image to real world example?

[AntonGrant]

Yeah, i know that. But don't you see difference between my last picture on original post and your sketch or even my example made in blender?

[AntonGrant]

Wait. This just overextend amount of work. Isn't Chamfer feature is actually what should work in this situation?

[AntonGrant]

---

@TheCADWhisperer wrote:

---

@AntonGrant wrote:

Even with real world examples.

---

Can you Attach image to real world example?

---

I don't have one

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@AntonGrant wrote:
I don't have one

---

That brings us back to the request to map points.

Create geometry and add beginning/end points to where you really want to cut.

Then we can figure out the most efficient technique.

If you have to use some other software (Blender?) than do that and Attach your geometry here.

[AntonGrant]

I still can't understand why fusion makes a chamfer different from the one I specified. Like makes 0.122cm chamfer, when I specified 0.1cm. Even when I choose only one edge. Where did this 0.1cm go?

[TheCADWhisperer]

The triangle you are measuring is not perpendicular to the edge that you selected.

I'll try one last time...

Q. Can you plot out the desired start/end points and Attach the file here?

[AntonGrant]

---

@TheCADWhisperer wrote:

The triangle you are measuring is not perpendicular to the edge that you selected.

I'll try one last time...

Q. Can you plot out the desired start/end points and Attach the file here?

---

I just don't quite understand what you want to me to do. Something like this?

[wmhazzard]

You are measuring from the wrong location. Measure from where the corner of the cube was, IE .25 inch. 

If you select all corners first, you have corner options in the chamfer dialog box. 

[AntonGrant]

---

@wmhazzard wrote:

You are measuring from the wrong location. Measure from where the corner of the cube was, IE .25 inch. 

If you select all corners first, you have corner options in the chamfer dialog box. 

---

But the thing is corner of this edge was where I actually measure. It's 2 different chamfer features. And if I use only one, I don't get desired result which i show you in my blender screen.

 

[laughingcreek]

let's back up and get a baseline of what should be happening with the chamfer and where we need to measure from. the equa distant chamfer measures back from the edge selected-

so when you put a chamfer on this edge-

it measures back from the EDGE-

you can see the chamfer is being applied correctly.

manipulating a mesh in blender works differently, because it operates on the vertices directly.  but the result aren't always what you might think.  I converted your mesh to a berep and took the same measurements as above and here are the results-

you can get closer to what you want by reversing the order that the chamfer is applied to the edges-

and if your trying to get that trapezoid face to be rectangular I suppose you could fudge it with the move face command to get it close, but that seems a bit janky to me-

[KristianLaholm · Accepted solution]

If the intent is to have the same chamfer on all edges and the "miter" to be rectangular face then:

• Chamfer 2 opposite faces (8 edges) with dimension = 0,1cm
• Chamfer 8 new edges created by previous chamfer with dimension = 0,1cm * sqrt(2) / sqrt(3)
• Chamfer reminding 4 edges with dimension = 0,1cm

(Used a user parameter in my file)

[wmhazzard]

Blender is not a CAD program, it makes nice pictures. You can make a corner like that if you construct an axis through the bottom two points and then a plane at angle along the axis, then split body with the plane. You will have to do math though to get the top and bottom edges equal length, it is around 36 degrees, not 45.