Re-reactive comments. 
For the illustrated parts to be machined "As Drawn", they would definitely require a "Facing" operation which is not yet implemented.
However, they are intended to illustrate that when drawing a profile with the sole intention of turning the outside profile, you need to be aware that starting arcs need to terminate at the end of the part to get the results that you are expecting. NOT continue inward into the end of the part.
RC

RC,keep finding more of them, your doing great. 
RICH

I have been watching on the side lines trying to get this little pulley to work.  As the new revisions have come out, it has been getting closer and closer.  Now at least it will display the pulley.  When I try to generate a tool path, I don't get anything like I would expect.  See the screen shot.  Any suggestions?  Also, every time I close LazyTurn I get a memory lead error that says "Non free objects count: 1  Non free memory size: 263 bytes"

Vince

HI Vince, try these settings.
RC

AND:
You can change the values in the sliders to change the stock size and the extra at the face end.
The LEAK means nothing, don't let it worry you.

HI ART,
  Personally, I would not limit the cut direction of any given tool.....not yet anyway.
A left hand tool would cut this part OK cutting toward the chuck.

CHIP,
   Would you post the tool info you used in your last post ?
Thanks,
RC

Hi, Vince

The settings RC posted should work for you, Just checked your dxf and don't get the mem leak issue.

Check that you have the latest ver. of LazyTurn installed, Hears a pic of the page you can find it on.

Chip

Hi, Art, RC & All

Hear it is, It only shows up with larger stock clearance settings

What ever you think Art, Just point it out.

Chip

RC:

  Unfortunately, its become a design fork.. Take the problem the other day, where the tool doesnt keep on cutting inwards on the right angle, this is due to only sensing gouging on the profile,
not on the stock previously removed. I have tried to think up a finish algorithm, BUT, the math is impossible unless I know whats previously been cut. I cant just follow the profiel because some would
be impossible without sensing the impossible area's of the previous roughing stage.
  So it seems Im stuck with having to do a "material removed" algorithm instead at this point so I can sense when the tool colides with the stock itself on a non-cutting edge. Till now we've been assuming all tools can cut on both sides, a bad assumption to make.

  BUT, I want to keep it lazy as possible. Wether a tool can cut on both faces or not, and how much it can cut on the opposing face is something very few users woudl find easy to define. As it stands, the Left/Right/Center tool tip to holder relationship is not used in reality, it just allows a user to see the tool matching theirs easier. However, if I use that information to make the decision about what parts of the tooltip are a collisiion, and what parts are actually cutting , then perhaps I can more easily write a stock removal process, so as the cuts are performed we're left with a stock chopped down properly. This "left-over" stock profile is what can then be used to make a finish pass, and woudl also allow the proper angle to be done for the non-cutting side of a tool not to gouge. This is similar to the very misunderstood "BackAngle" setting in LazyCam and other programs. its actually a line drawn back from the tip to the non-cutting side to stp gouging of the holder or non-cutting side of a tool into which the profile will not be allowed to gouge. This woudl limit undercutting ( which is why many programs dont allow undercuts.).

  The decision thats made will set a not too easily changed direction in the code. So I have to make the right one. Looking at all the holders available, inserts available, not to mention home-ground tools that can be made, Im thinking this is a very critical decision in terms of the limitations each path will put on subsequent code and how it works. You can actually generate any tool shpe I think as left,right or center tools, so Im thinking the decision as to what direction to cut, as well as what side of a tool doesnt cut, may be easiest as a defined Left cuts Right, Right cuts left and center cuts either side type of rule setting. This means in essense that a Left cutting tool woudl not be allowed to gouge more than the tip radius on the right side of the tip 0 point, This woudl keep the angle proper in the example posted earlier this week. The assumption that a tool can cut on either side is likely to bite us hard in future, probably best to deal with it now.

 So think about it if you understand, ask me more if you dont so we can decide this as a fucntion of what needs to be done and how it will affect future code and limitations. I dotn think we want tool decriptions with pages of paramters little understood and often misused. ( LazyCam syndrome ). To me, by forcing direction and gouge detection style to left/right/center selection, it makes it more automatic and probably easier to make up a tool that although it doesnt really look like the tool actually used, it works as expected in terms of the end toolpath. This is a very hard one to explain fully, but its come to the point I realise I cannot do a finish profile, not even a simple one, till I have made code to simluate stock removal, and the cutting edges are now very important

  If anyone doesnt understand this question, I suggest they look carefully, and you all discuss it, if I make the wrong decision it could be a very lagged development as we go backwards to correct it.  We're at the stage things are loading pretty good, though Im sure I can tighted up a few things to make even that better over time, and to move forward further requires the stock removal process to be done. Then a proper finish path can be calculated. ( I think.. LOL ).

 Thx
Art


Art

HI Chip,
 That is the clearance at the shoulder of the stoch that you create when cutting th profile.
The black line represents the remaining stock and the tool will stay clear of it by what ever you set the clearance at.

RC

ART,
  Everything you said makes GOOD sense. By all means, do what is the best as far as you and your coding is concerned.. I can,t even IMAGINE the complexity involved.  I can adapt. Most parts will need multiple tools anyway.

I say, Take the fork YOU prefer. You are the author....make it as EASY on yourself as possible.

Thanks MUCH,
RC