Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Marc; Here is the screen capture that I get: http://www.parentreprise.com/images/LibreOffice/990C-Graphics2012-03-19.odg.png Your captured image is (obviously) not even close to what it is supposed to look like. The 990c text appears to be a completely different font in your screen capture. HOWEVER: I just loaded the file directly from the bug report page into Draw 3.5.2.2 again. The file was in read-only mode, so I Saved it to my hard drive and reopened it to be able to see what the actual fonts are. Observations: 1. The 990c text looked OK. When I highlight the 990c text, the font is identified by Draw as Square 721 with the Bold attribute turned on. This is an OpenType font, and the Bold attribute should not be on. When I turn the Bold attribute off, the font changes completely, looking much less square, much more rounded, similar to the font in your screen capture. It looks like a slightly bolder version of the font that is used for the text under the 990c text, specifically the U.S. PATENT #4,287,479 text (the 9 is the best clue). That text is the Formata font. There is a bold version of Formata, and the 990c text from your image is bolder than the regular Formata, but not as bold as the actual Bold version. But almost identical in form. I wonder if some metrics were mixed up. 2. The font name Square 721 that is displayed when I highlight the existing 990c text isn't the full name of the font. If I add new text, the font list has Square 721 Condensed as the name of the font, and the Bold attribute is NOT turned on. It does not need to be turned on. In fact, turning the Bold attribute ON has no effect on the appearance of the font in this case. If I add new text using Square 721 Condensed, then go back to that text later to verify, it is still described as Square 721 Condensed. I don't know if the shorter name of the font in the example drawing matters. It may just be a shorthand way for Draw to identify the font by name. Or it may be an indication of other issues with the handling of fonts. Some of the small type appears to be a different font than it should be, particularly the word OUT (Output). It is supposed to be much narrower in appearance, using the Humanist 521 condensed font. Same effect with the -V and +V text (the +V text is partially covered by the mangled 990c text in your image. I've done some quick experiments with a simple new drawing created in Draw 3.5.2.2. I'm not sure, but things seem to be handled OK when Exported as an EPS file. On the other hand, GIMP printed a blank page. So, I will look into it more tomorrow. Lots of variables. There is also the fact that you are using a slightly later version of Draw (3.5.3.2), so it is hard to tell where the errors are being introduced. Thanks you very much for your help. More information later. John -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Tom; Re-creating a fresh new image using the newer branch was brilliant. Sometimes older documents that have been around the block a few times get a lot of inexplicable weirdnesses. I have only made a few drawings, and fairly simple ones at that. So starting over is not hard. However, it was a jolt to receive a batch of printed potting shells with the image scaled incorrectly. Fortunately, not enough to be unusable. I hope there aren't other users out there that have many drawings that will need to be done over. OpenOffice had a problem (bug #114901) a couple of years ago where it started mishandling Adobe Type 1 fonts. The simpler solution was to convert them to TrueType fonts. I can't even find that bug now. And so it goes. Even though Draw is a fairly simple program, it has the ability to expand or condense the spacing between characters, and pair kerning. I condensed the spacing with the 990 part of the drawing for a tighter look. DesignCAD 3D Max V21 cannot do that. I will verify future drawings before submitting them for production. John -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Marc; Is it just me or does your C overlap your 0 on your attachment .odg file on the bug list? You may need to upload the file again. I just uploaded my file directly from the bug page into LibreOffice Draw 3.5.2.2. It appears correctly on my computer. There is white space between the c and the 0. There is greater space between the digits of 990. When the file is Exported using the EPS file-type, the resulting image shows an overlap between the c and the 0, and everything is bigger. What version of LibreOffice are you using to view the file? I just realized that the file is now in a read-only state, but you should be able to Export as PDF, and also Export using the EPS file-type. Thanks. John -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Marc; Before doing this, is there anyway to upgrade to the latest version of LibreOffice? I will do that. I downloaded version 3.5.3, but I need to close a few windows before I can install it. Looks like 3.5.4 is coming along. As far as the length of time goes, the triage of bugs does take time depending on the severity of bugs submitted. Also, most of the devs are volunteers and it does take some time for someone to either be assigned to it or for someone to pick it up. Thanks for giving some perspective to the time line. The bug was assigned to libreoffice-b...@lists.freedesktop.org, but I have no idea what that means, or if anyone has actually even seen the bug. I will update the bug report as soon as I install V3.5.3 or 3.5.4 and try things. Thanks. John -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Marc; BTW ... I downloaded your graphic. I am not all that familiar with Draw, how do I go about finding out the dimensions of your drawing so that I can compare its size to the EPS version? The reference file file should look properly scaled when viewed in Draw. You can see it correctly scaled by visiting the product page and looking at the picture of the correctly scaled image as printed on the product: http://www.johnhardyco.com/990OpAmpDetails.html It is when you Export the file using the EPS file-type and view the EPS file with GIMP (and other viewers) that you can see that things are scaled incorrectly. The first clue when viewing the EPS file: Look at the model number, 990c. The c is overlapping the 0. It is not supposed to overlap. I created two separate text boxes, one for the 990 and one for the c, so that I could control the spacing between the main part number (990) and the suffix (c), as well as use different sizes for the text in each box. Somehow during the incorrect scaling everything gets about 10% bigger and the c overlaps the 0 as a result. If you take the reference file and Export as PDF, it should be correctly scaled when viewed as a PDF (the c does not overlap the 0). So something is different between Export as PDF, and Export with the EPS file-type chosen. Yet both methods work OK in OpenOffice 3.3. Let me know if you need further information or example files. But comparing the results of [Export as PDF] and [Export with the EPS file-type] should reveal that the EPS approach is not scaling things correctly. Thank you. John -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Marc; By the way, if it is allowed to attach images here, I can provide an image of two of the aluminum potting shells side-by-side, one having a correctly scaled image, the other incorrectly scaled. John -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Hello; On April 6th I filed bug #48365 for Libre Office Draw [Exporting as an EPS file results in an incorrectly scaled image (appears larger than original)]. It is now six weeks later and there is no sign that anyone has acknowledged the bug report, much less looked into it. Perhaps this is the way it works, with long response times. I would appreciate any comments. If I have incorrectly filed the report, I will be happy to modify it. If it just takes time, I would appreciate knowing. Here is the link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48365 Thank you very much for your help. John Hardy -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Bug #48365 filed six weeks ago. No sign of acknowledgement.
Tom; It does just take time but it's not a que. It just depends on it catching the eye of the devs. It might be worth askingt he devs list what they think. Apols and regards Where might I find the devs list (and how to subscribe)? Thanks very much. John -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
