The program is definitely screwed up (IMHO).
You asked if the right angled rectangle was a mirror of the left. The answer is no. They were both rectangles originally. I offset the 45deg corner angle across them and trimmed the rectangles.
 You might be on to something with the filleting of some of the corners. Maybe the ones that are not-so-sharp cause some sort of problem with the math behind lazycam when it comes to calculating a tool path. Some of those fillets are barely visible. In fact there is probably no need to fillets them at all because the cutter, being round is going to leave them round anyway - maybe even bigger radius than the fillets.
 I can't figure it out. It's going to take the programmer to figure it out. I just need a way to work around it so I can continue with the project. Unfortunately doing the G-code manually is beyond my current abilities.

I can't find the convert function you have in Sketch in my full version of AutoCad. I'm sure it's there but (if you know AutoCad) it's a bear to find things. I'll look deeper soon.


BTW. What disturbs me about this and every problem we here on this forum discover  (and others) is, what becomes of these reports. Are they all logged for investigation and hopefully correction or are we all wasting our time??? I presume the latter (unfortunately).


Thanks.

Sage

 Hi Sage,
   
 " - maybe even bigger radius than the fillets."

The cutter is .030"R and the fillets are .093"R so the angle of the arc shouldn't matter. (I'm guessing)

The HELP index is handy, but you probably already looked there.

Good luck Sage,
RC

As far as the logging, don't know. LC will hopefully be addressed after LT is stable and the TURN function is removed.
There seem to be reports of multitudes that use LC on a regular basis, some every day, that have no problems.
But these are apparently folks that know the ins and outs of CAD/CAM very well.
I do not fit into that category.
If I needed it to make my living, I would be better off with commercial software. Then use LC where it would fit.
Best of luck,
RC

I've been having very similar problems pocketing with LC (http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,9727.0.html).  There seems to be no rhyme or reason as what is occurring.  Sometimes it will will not pocket, make a minor change and it pockets OK, undo the change and it still works.  I've not been able to find a consistent pattern and have undertaken a search for replacement for LC.  It is a shame to have to purchase a much more expensive and powerful program when the capabilities of LC are all that I need but I need to have them work as advertised.  I've made a commitment to Mach3 and now I'm getting concerned that I will encountered similar glitches as I've experienced in LC and they will be addressed in the same manner as the LC problem.

Don't know if you've used Help in Autocad. Pretty old school. If you type a word you get about a hundred things on the list and yes the one you're looking for is probably there but I think the list has every occurrence of the word in the help file. It does not help to add more words to narrow the search.
 I'm a pretty basic user of AutoCad so maybe I'm missing something. I usually get frustrated and start looking for it myself rather than look through 100 unrelated items.
 I'm sure convert arc to ?? is there somewhere

(P.S.) what did you convet them to again?

Sage

Sage,
 Polylines OR Curves...either one seems to work when an Arc doesn't. I think the difference is, although both are many short lines, a Poly is seen as 1 entity by the CAD.

Sage,
This is from ACadLite98.      Then select the arc and enter Y for yes in the command line.
May be similar to yours....maybe not.

BTW...I dont search the help file...click the INDEX tab and all is in alphabetical order. Easy to find what you want that way.
RC

The program is definitely screwed up (IMHO).

That's the major issue I have and exactly why I'm done with LCam.

It's just way too flaky and doesn't repeat the same thing half the time.

I guess I'm impatient but I honestly don't want to be wasting time with something that's un-necessary if I can be busy being productive making chips, not headaches from frustration - 

Dave

I get your drift Dave.
I sometimes think LazyCam was named wrong.
Maybe something like: "More Labor Intensive and Time Consuming than Any Other SW on the Market" would be more appropriate. (for us hobby types who are not well versed in the trade anyway).
It's sort of like, If you wanted to go into the woods to cut some logs, would you use a $600 chain saw or a $5 hatchet....with a loose handle ?
There's bigger fish out there fryin', looks like LC is on the back burner for now.
RC

Well I won't be too hard on LCam becasue without it I wouldn't get anthing done. I'd rather be making chips too but I can't make the chips without the code.
If you going to rename LAZY Cam I can think of a better word that still begins with L and can still end with ZY. L##zy Cam.

Hi All,
 Will look at the dxf you posted RC. I never got into Lazycam Mill part of the program, so i am a big zero
on using it. I was stuck in the Lazycam Turn web.  I figured you guys would figure it out then enlighten me on using it
by writing the manual.  Let me take a look at the file and will let you know what i see on my end.
RICH