Created attachment 125596 [details] 5.2 problem The visual output of LO 5.2 beta is not good. It looks like anti-aliasing is not working. I'm attaching shots of 5.1.3.2 and 5.2, both on the same machine. .deb Linux Lite (ubuntu 16.04) x64.
Created attachment 125597 [details] 5.1.3.2 comparison - no problem
The title of this bug was just changed, without explanation, from "anti-aliasing not working" to "different anti-aliasing". If this is a feature not a bug, we're in trouble. The actual appearance is much worse than the 1st .png depicts.
I don't think a different title means anything about the status by itself. Anyway, my question is, do you get this with an empty document, and other fonts as well? And is the version in the Version field supposed to mean that it occurred first in beta1, and still occurs in beta2?
The title change seemed like an excuse. I think it might better have been "freetype antialiasing not working", which preserves the essence of the complaint. IAC, the previous examples used Droid Fallback 11.5. I'm attaching shots using Verdana 11.5, that show the problem in that font as well. I don't know how I would test rendering in a blank document. I'm in beta 1, and know nothing about beta 2.
Created attachment 125604 [details] beta 1, problem with Verdana 11.5 Previous two shots were with Droid Fallback 11.5
Created attachment 125605 [details] 5.1.3.2, no problem with Verdana 11.5
Indeed, my question wasn't clear, I meant starting from an empty document, and typing some text in it. I couldn't reproduce this myself with LO 5.2 beta1 or 2 / Ubuntu 15.10. This support question shows some similarly badly rendered text: https://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/7127/calibri-font-not-rendering-correctly/ While I'm not sure that particular suggestion is applicable here, it makes me wonder if the current issue could be the result of some other fontconfig setting.
Thanks for the input. That reference goes back a ways, and I didn't find a similar file on my install, though I could be wrong. More importantly, I don't think this is a systemic problem, since 5.1.3.2 is unaffected. It seems to be within 5.2 beta. I've rechecked my settings and don't find a difference, though I could be wrong on that too somewhere. I tried a fresh file with fresh text, and the problem manifests there as well. BW, Paul
Some further information. I was in the package manager yesterday, and it told me I had broken packages (dependency issues). I had about a dozen, and they all pertained to 5.2 beta 2. "Fixing" those packages uninstalled the beta. Perhaps the broken dependencies had something to do with this problem.
Thanks for the further details. I'm not sure the conflicts are really a problem, but to make sure, could you give it a try by installing 5.2 beta2 in a separate directory, as described here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel/Linux
I'm going to give up on this, as I haven't the time. I just went through the whole sequence for the custom installation, but got a bunch of errors, mostly citing dependencies, preventing the program from installing. The 5.2 beta 1 also had install problems, which were resolved with a special command flag, but I was told that was over with beta 2. I will hope that when the full 5.2 comes out, and it uses my main profile, that the rendering problem will be gone. I'll report back then. Thanks for your input on this problem. BW, Paul
I'm sorry to hear that, but also understand your decision, as getting to the end of this could take some time. Just as a note, I wonder where you've been getting your dependency errors from, Step 3 from [1] typically doesn't give any issues. After that, Step 4 is important, but Step 5/6 should normally be skipped. Also, I don't remember beta1 having install issues, bug 100284 where I saw you commenting refers to beta2. Thanks for your patience so far, and we'll be looking forward to hearing your feedback after the final release. [1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel/Linux
Thanks again for your input, Aron. For the record, installed 5.1.4.2 this morning, and the rendering is affected there as well. Droid Sans Fallback looks very poor, whereas it had been very strong, and indeed my preferred font. Others such as Verdana and Droid Sans also look worse. In fact I see no difference when I turn off anti-aliasing in Options / View. Ok, I just tried turning OpenGL back on, and that seems to have rectified the problem? I'm sure I tried toggling that before, so I don't know what's going on, but for now it seems good on multiple documents. I'll report back if there's any change. BW, Paul
Thank you for the update. Knowing that it was introduced in the 5.1 branch between 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 could be valuable information. The issue is still very mysterious, though.
Hi again, I think I've narrowed this down a bit. I think there's a systemic problem with some of the fonts and some of the programs. My preferred font, droid sans fallback, fared very poorly on my linux lite 3.0 (ubuntu 16.04) system, using the default font download. I uninstalled it, then installed a slightly older font package, and the problem seems to be solved for that font. On MS's Verdana, I'm not sure that worked. I found a newer version and installed it. It may have improved things, but not the way it had been. So everything isn't perfect, but I do have droid sans fallback back on LO. BTW, I am not able to enable OpenGL in LO 5.1.4.2, fresh install. It crashes and rewrites the user profile, with OpenGL turned back off. I don't know if that is important, but I'm operating without it now. Thanks for your time. BW, Paul
These are FreeType rendering issues, there are few visible changes in FreeType default in 2.6 and 2.7 which can be the cause of the differences seen here. Nothing changed in LibreOffice in this area.