LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: LPub3D (2.0.3) - Fading not applied to step 2?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi Trevor,

I'm encountering unexpected behaviour where the fading is not being applied to step 2 but it is applied from step 3 onwards. If you take a look at this PDF, you will see that wherever a step 2 occurs (e.g. within a sub-assembly, a callout), the prior parts have not been faded. For steps 3 onwards it applies the fading as expected. I've attached the LDraw mpd file used to create the PDF to this thread.

Do you encounter similar behaviour for this LDraw file?

Regards,

David
(2016-06-29, 0:01)David Manley Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Trevor,

I'm encountering unexpected behaviour where the fading is not being applied to step 2 but it is applied from step 3 onwards. If you take a look at this PDF, you will see that wherever a step 2 occurs (e.g. within a sub-assembly, a callout), the prior parts have not been faded. For steps 3 onwards it applies the fading as expected. I've attached the LDraw mpd file used to create the PDF to this thread.

Do you encounter similar behaviour for this LDraw file?

Regards,

David

This looks like a bug. I'll take a look...
(2016-06-29, 19:33)Trevor Sandy Wrote: [ -> ]
(2016-06-29, 0:01)David Manley Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Trevor,

I'm encountering unexpected behaviour where the fading is not being applied to step 2 but it is applied from step 3 onwards. If you take a look at this PDF, you will see that wherever a step 2 occurs (e.g. within a sub-assembly, a callout), the prior parts have not been faded. For steps 3 onwards it applies the fading as expected. I've attached the LDraw mpd file used to create the PDF to this thread.

Do you encounter similar behaviour for this LDraw file?

Regards,

David

This looks like a bug. I'll take a look...

David - Just to let you know this is fixed in version 2.0.4.

Cheers,
(2016-07-03, 3:55)Trevor Sandy Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Trevor,

thank you. I saw that it had been fixed in the release notes in the other post. I tested it and can confirm this issue has been resolved.

Regards,

David