[libreoffice-users] Re: Simple way to draw graphs ?

2017-08-16 Thread Gilles
Found it: 1. Double-click on the chart 2. Format > Axis > Y Axis 3. In the Scale dialog, uncheck Automatic for the Major/Minor interval (count), and assign "1" 4. OK. Thanks ! -- View this message in context:

[libreoffice-users] Re: Simple way to draw graphs ?

2017-08-16 Thread Gilles
remygauthier wrote > You can adjust the scaling of number values by formatting the axis. Select > the axis (click on one of the numbers) on the graph, then right click and > select Format Axis... On the first tab (Scale), you can unselect the > "Automatic" scaling for the major and minor intervals

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Simple way to draw graphs ?

2017-08-16 Thread Remy Gauthier
Hi, You can adjust the scaling of number values by formatting the axis. Select the axis (click on one of the numbers) on the graph, then right click and select Format Axis... On the first tab (Scale), you can unselect the "Automatic" scaling for the major and minor intervals and then place the

[libreoffice-users] Re: Simple way to draw graphs ?

2017-08-16 Thread Gilles
Almost there :-) One last thing I didn't figure out: Why does Calc display the Y axis every other data (0-2-4, instead of 0-1-2-3)? https://s27.postimg.org/3uvol2mhf/Libre_Office.calc.empty.x.y.chart.png -- View this message in context:

[libreoffice-users] Re: Simple way to draw graphs ?

2017-08-16 Thread Gilles
Can Calc plot an empty x/y graph with just the labels on the two sides and grid, like this: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/278295/how-can-i-draw-an-empty-plot And if it can export it as a vector graphic, I could open it in a paint application and draw the curves manually without trying

[libreoffice-users] Re: Simple way to draw graphs ?

2017-08-15 Thread Gilles
Regina Henschel wrote > Or in case the scan is too ugly, you have to read the scan and enter the > coordinates as data in the table. From the image I guess, that five points > are sufficient. You need an XY-chart, because otherwise the years > are not at the ticks but between the ticks. > >