This question refers (again) to the problem of broken decal links, when the file path is broken.

Where possible, I now try to save all decals with the part by ticking the 'store appearances in model file' box. I don't think i'm alone in finding it frustrating that you can't set this as default, and am constantly forgetting. Anyway... this has been mentioned numerous times before on this forum.

My question refers to the process of re-attaching decals which have broken paths, and embedding them. I'm assuming there is no easy way of embedding existing decals without deleting, ticking the box, then re-applying... I would love someone to tell me otherwise. My issue is that when you delete your list of decals, if you have numerous configurations you have to work your way through each configuration and delete one by one. Correct?

This is annoying enough, but i've just discovered something else. It seems that if that part is used in a sub-assembly, when you go to the assembly it still shows the decal link as broken. Even though the decal is now supposedly embedded in the part. If you delete the decal in the assembly, it of course deletes it in the part and you have to reattach.

With regards deleting decals across multiple configurations, I think its the same problem with appearances linked to display states. Its useful to be able to delete an appearance on one display state but not the others, but shouldn't there also be a way of deleting appearances across ALL display states.

Whilst i'm on the subject, why is it that materials are linked to display states, whereas Decals are linked to configurations?

To summarise... i'm foreever deleting and re-applying materials&decals, only to find that previously discarded ones are still hanging around in one of the other configs. The appearances interface should display this information much more clearly, perhaps showing the materials/decals for each config simultaneously so that you can compare.

I'd be interested to hear how others find this part of PV360 (2011), perhaps i'm missing something obvious.

Thanks in advance,

Tom