Created attachment 63731 [details]
file with a problem
LO Calc 3.6b2 shows multiple 3d bars instead of surface on the chart.
Created attachment 63732 [details]
Screenshot from XL2003
How it should look like.
[Reproducible] with "LibreOffice 22.214.171.124. German UI/Locale [Build-ID: 24b32b4-b87ec2e-85c8e98-87a4e20-9a1b8c1] on German WIN7 Home Premium (64bit), same with LibO 3.3.3 and OOo 3.1.1, so inherited from OOo.
Looks more or less ok with Gnumeric, fine with MS EXCEL Viewer.
Another problem with a document created with SoftMaker software (?)
I doubt that many users are affected, so not MAB
Please contribute info concerning your OS!
Please set Status to ASSIGNED and add yourself to "Assigned To" if you accept
(no solution is given there)
In order to address such chart types, we need a 3 surface renderer (I mean, something like z=F(x,y)).
One could (internally) delegate the plot to gnuplot.
I'm using LO 3.6.2 under Linux, same effect as noted by the reporter.
*** Bug 72045 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I am changing this to an enhancement request - we just don't have this particular type of charting ability, adding it is an additional feature and therefore an enhancement
There is a basic workaround available for surface charts:
Of course, it is not a replacement for real Surface charts, but it might be sufficient for a few use cases.
"Type" added to summary so that all enhancement requests relating to chart types are readily findable.
LO 6.0, and still no surface plot/chart.
*** Bug 81510 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 142713 [details]
This is Excel 4.0 from 1992 can do 3D plot
Changing priority back to 'medium' since the number of duplicates is lower than 5
Is it possible to contribute to bumping up the priority by commenting here or do I have to create a duplicate request? (Looking at the last comment here)
This is *the* feature I have been missing for many years. 3D surface plots are the best way I have found to visualize stuff like RAID controller performance. It would be very nice to have it built in instead of having to reformat data for gnuplot and run an external program.
(In reply to birger from comment #13)
> Is it possible to contribute to bumping up the priority by commenting here
> or do I have to create a duplicate request? (Looking at the last comment
Nope and Nope. Neither here or the feature request page. This request is simply turned down every time I contact them. Including Facebook and others.
The actual "usable" answer I got way: Pay one of the developers, and the MAYBE the feature will be programmed.
I would not have a problem shelling out three digit Euros for KNOWING this feature will be included within three month, and it's usability improved in later version. But in its current state LO does IMHO not have the right priority list. Making new icons is more important than a 28 year old excel feature - why?
Luckily there are other free office products, though not open source, which can do it when needed. Softmaker Freeofice is one example.
Created attachment 170892 [details]
LibreOffice 126.96.36.199 XYZ Chart simulation
This is the closest to a XYZ chart you can get with LO 188.8.131.52
I tried contacting certified developers again, like a few years ago. Clearly saying "you don't have to do it for free".
What is the problem with LO/Document Foundation not listening to users, not even when they don't have to do it for free.
It is like there is no interest in improving, no matter how old feature requests are, not matter how much they make sense.
Just because not enough users reporting dupes. Which means: Advanced users who know how to use the bugsearch are excluded this way.
Result: Giving up. Again. Being force to MS-Office and Softmaker Office 'cause LO does not have interest in users requests.
(In reply to Joachim Otahal from comment #16)
> I tried contacting certified developers again, like a few years ago. Clearly
> saying "you don't have to do it for free".
> What is the problem with LO/Document Foundation not listening to users, not
> even when they don't have to do it for free.
> It is like there is no interest in improving, no matter how old feature
> requests are, not matter how much they make sense.
I wonder: have you considered the possibility that there may simply be no developer interested (enough) in working on this particular feature request?
(I love how the complainers almost always generalize from "my pet bug isn't receiving attention" to "LO is ignoring bug reports", "LO is not listening to users", or similar.)
(In reply to David Tardon from comment #17)
> (I love how the complainers almost always generalize from "my pet bug isn't
> receiving attention" to "LO is ignoring bug reports", "LO is not listening
> to users", or similar.)
You are absolutely right, this is one of those petty pet features. There is absolutely no reason denying. It is just one among some, but not many, features forcing me to use MS Office in parallel, even though many other small things in LO are better than in MS Office.