AutoCad Native Fonts

[teiarch]

Is everyone satisfied that AutoDesk continues to bundle the same old crude looking, badly coded, ROMANC, ROMAND and ROMANS fonts with their new releases?

I have recoded and added more characters and symbols to these fonts and I think they are worthy of being considered for replacement of the ols "native" fonts.

Is anyone at AutoDesk interested in looking at these?

Technically, by the copyright agreement, they already belong to AutoDesk. Now I just need a contact to get them included in the packages.
Let me know where to send them....Thanks.

[Walt Engle]

While you are entitled to your opinion, let me point out that ANSI (American National Standards Institute) requires the use of single stroke Gothic in drafting
and Romans is the only font that fits that setting. While I prefer Arial, for those who must adhere to ANSI, they would be required to use Romans.

[Tom Smith]

Post by Walt Engle
Romans is the only font that fits that setting

Simplex is still supplied, and it's visually indistinguishable from Romans.
The charcter widths are very slightly different in a few cases. I've never
understood why they supplied two fonts which are almost, but not quite,
exactly the same.

[Dave (TC Fonts)]

Post by Tom Smith

Post by Walt Engle
Romans is the only font that fits that setting

Simplex is still supplied, and it's visually indistinguishable from
Romans. The charcter widths are very slightly different in a few
cases. I've never understood why they supplied two fonts which are
almost, but not quite, exactly the same.

The main difference is with the origin location of the characters.
Romans centers the characters in the bounding box, Simplex left
justifies them in the box. The former is more in line with current
font standards.

[Tom Smith]

Thanks for the info, Dave.

[Warren Trost]

Simplex may be supplied but it has not been documented since R11.

Post by Tom Smith

Post by Walt Engle
Romans is the only font that fits that setting

Simplex is still supplied, and it's visually indistinguishable from Romans.
The charcter widths are very slightly different in a few cases. I've never
understood why they supplied two fonts which are almost, but not quite,
exactly the same.

[teiarch]

Walt: Thanks for the ANSI lesson. My revised ROMANS is single stroke -just as the "old" ROMANS is. The difference is that it I rewrote the definitions do you can plot the characters 6 inches high and they will be nice smooth curves. Plus I added in all those little features that are described in the help files -plus I added all the other characters that I read that people would like to have at their proper UNICODE addresses.

[OLD-CADaver]

Gee, I've never really needed anything that's not already in those fonts.

[Dave (TC Fonts)]

Post by OLD-CADaver
Gee, I've never really needed anything that's not already in those fonts.

Really? I'm always getting requests for additional characters or at least
changes.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<Really? I'm always getting requests for additional characters or at least changes. >>

Like what, for instance?

[madcadd]

surprise surprise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many of us have! That doesn't surprise you does it?

[madcadd]

Gee, I've never really needed anything that's not already in those fonts.<<

I never needed power steering until I had it.

I never needed color TV until I had it.

I never needed CAD until I had it.

I never needed a bunch of stuff before I even knew it existed!

Have you got something against NEW or DIFFERENT? How did you ever graduate from DOS? Or for that matter, to DOS from the board? Loosen up a little. Get a grip. It's 2004 already already!

[OLD-CADaver]

<<Have you got something against NEW or DIFFERENT? >>

When it comes to custom fonts, I've posted my concerns elsewhere in this thread.

[Matt]

I think you're missing his point. OC doesn't want to use fonts that may
have to be transmitted to someone else along with his drawings. It's kind
of a pain anytime I recieve files from clients who use custom fonts and
forget or just don't (as a general rule with copywriting and so forth) send
those non-standard fonts.

Matt

OLD-CADaver: As a matter of fact, I do. I have also recoded ROMANC and

ROMAND so they look better. Not NEW but BETTER.

Try the attached ROMANM; it's NEW as well as better.

[teiarch]

Matt: ROMANSX is NOT a custom font; it is a more efficiently coded version of ROMANS with added features and characters to make it more useful. 'Nuff said.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<with added ... characters to make it more useful.>>

That makes it a custom font. And therein lies the rub.

[David Kozina]

Here's what I've learned over the years (often the hard way, of course)

If you modify the AutoCAD native fonts at all, you should change the name of
the font as well.
If you do not, and later send that font to a client with your drawings, they
may end up hosing *their* own font. (And imagine the fireworks if *they*
*also* had unwisely modified (without renaming) the *same* font to suit
*their* needs.)

Provide a suitable prefix for all your modified fonts for easy
identification:

_XYZCoRomanS.shx
_XYZCoRomanC.shx

Once you have the new/modified/renamed font, then use it in your drawings as
you need, but **be sure** to send it along with your drawings, if you wish
it to appear correctly when others view/plot them.

About the only really useful changes I have found to be are just modifying
the <,>,[, and ] characters to be Superscript ON, Superscript OFF, Subscript
ON, and Subscript OFF, accordingly.

Since I find I use the (,),{,} characters much more frequently (for comments
and mtext formatting), I leave them alone.

If I don't need Super/Subscripting, then I just use the AutoCAD Native Font.

Pretty much all other desired modifications (I am speaking here about
*added* characters/symbols) I have placed in a BIGFONT file and access them
via the escape key sequence `<char> (although you can have a different
escape key, and even more than just one, should you need)

The `,<,>,[,] characters themselves are available in the BIGFONT file and
are accessed via ``,`<,`>,`[,`]

The BIGFONT shx file is sent to clients if/when I send drawings to them.

The BIGFONT file itself also makes extensive use of SubShapes for definition
brevity and integrated appearance with the Textstyle Font it is associated
with. Learn how to use SubShapes - you'll be glad you did.

The advantage of using a BIGFONT is that you can use it in conjunction and
as an extension with/for other fonts, without modifying those fonts.

Best regards,
David Kozina

Post by OLD-CADaver
<<with added ... characters to make it more useful.>>
That makes it a custom font. And therein lies the rub.

[David Kozina]

See below...

David: Thanks for your comments. The nice thing about these discussion

forums is the diversity of opinions and solutions(?).

I have also learned most of my stuff the hard way (like I can't detach a

title block xref if I use it in a drawing for more than one layout...oops!
another topic?).

The fonts under discussion in this thread have different files names.

'Nuff said.

I use a suffix instead of a prefix so it displays in line with the

"original." 'Nuff said.

Sending a custom font along with the drawings needs no further discussion.
Don't agree with having special characters/symbols outside the font. Can

be confusing to some, but to each his own....


Actually - this is exactly why a bigfont (with subshapes) is nice, since I
can associate the *same* *single* bigfont file with RomanS, RomanD, RomanC,
amongst others, in the TextStyle definition, and get the extended characters
without double/triple the hacking.

Downside: Bigfonts don't work with .ttfs :(

Use of subshapes keep the 1/16 fraction numbers (in my bigfont fractions) in
sync with the associated "uber-font" (RomanD, say).

Superscripting and subscripting toggles in the uber-font (I've only
modified/renamed a RomanS for this, fwiw, but it would be easy to do the
others) allow for other, even less common, fraction-like/exponent/subscript
text. But since I don't actually need this capability too much, I only pull
in the modified/renamed RomanS on an as needed basis.

The additional symbols you describe below are in the bigfont file and also
appear 'in synch' with the associated "uber-font", since they too are
defined with subshapes.

Funny thing about the bigfont I have, as much as I like it, I actually need
to use very little of it. Only the sixteenth fractions get much of a
workout. Very little else.

People are always looking for some special character to be included that

THEY always use. The ones that seem to pop up the most are plate or
property line, center line (or centre line for Canadians and on the
continent), flow line, base line and monument line. These are compound
characters which can be created either by including them in a font
definition OR creating an editable attribute where the proper letters can be
plugged in.

The native fonts I rewrote make extensive use of subshapes which AutoCad

native fonts don't use as much as they could -not even in the latest
versions.

My original assertion that started this topic was that AutoCad spends a

lot of time and effort in putting new bells and whistles into the "big exe"
but doesn't update the native fonts in proportion. For example, RomanS has
a few added characters but is still vector coded; RomanC and RomanD bundled
with 2005 are the same as they were in 1996.

Thanks for the comments.
You can try RomansX5 for yourself.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<ROMANSX is NOT a custom font; it is a more efficiently coded version of ROMANS with added features and characters to make it more useful. 'Nuff said. >>

BTW is the same ROMANSX.SHX written by Chester Cannon that was posted to the CADALYST website back in May of 2002? Or us this ANOTHER romansx.shx?

[teiarch]

OC: Wasn't aware of this. Have to check it out. My Initial font name was ROMANSX so it's most like a duplicate name. My lLatest update is ROMANSX5.

[OLD-CADaver]

Okay, so now there's at least two fonts called ROMANSX. What happens when a file using one is opened on a machine that has the other?

[teiarch]

Don't know the structure of the "other" ROMANSX. Went to CAdalyst site and couldn't find it -perhaps looking in the wrong place? In any event, if the other author didn't significantly change the defintions of US keyboard characters, probably you would see no difference. Only if you tried to invoke a special character or symbol that wasn't defined would you get the "?".

[teiarch]

Hey Madcadd: Perhaps you should follow your own advice. You should be aware that everyone eventually reaches their own confidence and satisfaction level which, when compared with yours, may be intolerably low.

Looking through the responses to this topic, it's evident that many don't care if a font is ordinary or superlative. They're just satisfied if it puts the right character on the screen when they type it in. If Autodesk were to plop in my improved version of ROMANS instead of the old one, they wouldn't even know the difference -nor would they care, as long as it works.

[madcadd]

Hi teiarch,

Look at these replies once more. I was lambasting OC, as he is doing what he always does in all these threads. He tries to stir it up and usually does. Both my replies were to him.
*************************
Reply From: OLD-CADaver
Date: May/19/04 - 10:08 (CDT)

Re: AutoCad Native Fonts
Gee, I've never really needed anything that's not already in those fonts.
*****************
Reply From: madcadd
Date: May/20/04 - 11:28 (CDT)

Re: AutoCad Native Fonts
surprise surprise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many of us have! That doesn't surprise you does it?
*****************
Reply From: madcadd
Date: May/21/04 - 11:58 (CDT)

Re: AutoCad Native Fonts

Gee, I've never really needed anything that's not already in those fonts.<<

I never needed power steering until I had it.

I never needed color TV until I had it.

I never needed CAD until I had it.

I never needed a bunch of stuff before I even knew it existed!

Have you got something against NEW or DIFFERENT? How did you ever graduate from DOS? Or for that matter, to DOS from the board? Loosen up a little. Get a grip. It's 2004 already already!
*****************
Reply From: OLD-CADaver
Date: May/21/04 - 12:16 (CDT)

Re: AutoCad Native Fonts
<<Have you got something against NEW or DIFFERENT? >>

When it comes to custom fonts, I've posted my concerns elsewhere in this thread.
********************
And I DO LIKE your font. And I am (too much) a perfectionist. I hate faceted circles, faceted shading and faceted font. And txt.shx.... why do they still have that in here?

As a matter of fact, I not only want AutoCAD to upgrade and continually improve, I am currently battling a couple of my own "Wish List" items.

I do however, after reading the developing post, have to agree with (shudder) OC that using it (now) when it's not part of AutoCAD's package would be foolish. But if you can convince AutoCAD....I'm all for you and I wish you all the best in this endeavor. But don't hold your breath. GL ;-)

[Anne Brown]

You have been repeatedly asked to stop "lambasting" other users
of these discussion groups. Take it to email or possibly lose
your privelege of posting to these groups. They are a place of
business and will be treated as such. Posts aren't "to him" or
"to any one person". These are public groups and your language
and demeanor reflect on you.

If you care to post a legitimate email address I will send you
the URL for a group where you may argue as you wish.
---
Anne Brown
Discussion Groups Administrator
Autodesk, Inc.

Post by madcadd
Hi teiarch,
Look at these replies once more. I was lambasting OC, as he is doing what he always does in all these threads. He tries to stir it up and usually does. Both my replies were to him. (snip)

[madcadd]

Post by Anne Brown
You have been repeatedly asked to stop "lambasting" other users

of these discussion groups.<

FALSE... "lambasting" was MY word, perhaps the wrong choice, but none the less, my usage. I was never asked to stop "lambasting" anything or anyone.

READ the thread ANNE, read the thread before you jump. Sounds similar to what I tell OC.

Post by Anne Brown

your language and demeanor reflect on you. <<

Thank you!

[Walt Engle]

This could be discussed for several weeks and there would never be a concensus. To each his own (I never did go for redheads - just brunettes and blondes). I was
just pointing out something as concerns ANSI; otherwise, as I said, I prefer Arial as it shows up better in a dwg.

[teiarch]

Well Walt, you've denied yourself some interesting life experiences by your lack of interest in redheads....I;ve been married to one for 42 years and can speak with some authority on this matter -the same as my assertion that my revised version of ROMANS is better all around than the original......

[OLD-CADaver]

<<the same as my assertion that my revised version of ROMANS is better all around than the original>>

Did you name it ROMANS or something else?

What happens when somebody gets the file and doesn't have your custom font?

Special characters, like a centerline symbol, usually require some special code, what's the advantage of some special code over just keying in the abbreviation?

[teiarch]

Old-CADaver:

The file name is ROMANSX.SHX.

The same thing happens as any other font. If you don't have it resident on your computer, your software substitutes your specified default.

The advantage of special coding lies in the fact that UNICODE, Inc. has assigned a specific hexadecimal address for these codes. (For more info, visit UNICODE.ORG) Using these addresses makes the font usable in other countries. This is why Autodesk rewrote ROMANS using UNIFONT format in 1996.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<The same thing happens as any other font. If you don't have it resident on your computer, your software substitutes your specified default. >>

And the special coding becomes..? gibberish?
If the substituted font has a different definition for that special code, I'll see something different on the drawing. IMMHO, bad idea.

The advantage of UNICODE disappears if I don't have a font that defines that code EXACTLY the same that your font does.

[teiarch]

All character addresses in the current ROMANS font are UNICODE addresses. ROMANS has a set of characters which people in other countries use instead of the ones on US keyboards via remapping the keyboard via different country codes. These characters have been there since day one (or at least since R11).

I've included a complete character chart with ROMANSX which shows the location of a characters -existing and added ones. Once you know where things are, including special characters gets easy.

[OLD-CADaver]

I'm aware of unicode addresses, what I'm talking about are your added characters. If I use your added special characters, then send that file to someone who does not have ROMANSX, the special characters become gibberish. IMMHO, bad idea, bad practice, bad business.

[Glenn White]

agree - however, if ROMANSX is not copyrighted, it should be included with
e-transmit (the only way to fly for sending drawings if you want to be sure
all required data are attached) - no problemo.

Post by OLD-CADaver
I'm aware of unicode addresses, what I'm talking about are your added

characters. If I use your added special characters, then send that file to
someone who does not have ROMANSX, the special characters become gibberish.
IMMHO, bad idea, bad practice, bad business.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<agree - however, if ROMANSX is not copyrighted, it should be included with e-transmit (the only way to fly for sending drawings if you want to be sure all required data are attached) - no problemo. >>

And if I could control every place this file went after it left my desk, it solve many problems. But I don't have that capability.

I also can't control the font name ROMANSX. I can attach the one I use, but when the guy receiving the files already has a different one called that and chooses not to over-write it, what then? If we're lucky, gibberish.

Again IMMHO, custom fonts are a bad idea all way 'round. Even if they did something that I couldn't accomplish with the standard fonts, I'd think they were a bad idea.

[teiarch]

OLD-CADaver, Glenn White: You are both correct. You would have to send it along just the same as you would have to send along any other font that is used in your office but may not be used in the receiver's office -no difference.

ROMANS carries the Autodesk copyright and according to provisions of the copyright, ROMANSX carries the same copyright notice which means that technically, the font "belongs" to Autodesk.

This leads back to my original assertion that Autodesk should include my version simply because it's an improved edition of ROMANS.

[Martin Shoemaker]

If you're willing to share them, why not post in customer files? I'm
just an end user, but I'd be interested in at least looking at the font.
I agree that ROMANS could use some work. My pet peeve is the '3' --
I prefer two loops to two lines and a loop.

Martin

Post by teiarch
Is everyone satisfied that AutoDesk continues to bundle the same old crude looking, badly coded, ROMANC, ROMAND and ROMANS fonts with their new releases?
I have recoded and added more characters and symbols to these fonts and I think they are worthy of being considered for replacement of the ols "native" fonts.
Is anyone at AutoDesk interested in looking at these?
Technically, by the copyright agreement, they already belong to AutoDesk. Now I just need a contact to get them included in the packages.
Let me know where to send them....Thanks.

[teiarch]

Martin: ROMANSX can be downloaded at CADDEPOT.COM. In rewriting the code, I didn't change the shape of any characters because my goal was to clean up some of the inefficient coding and add some more useful characters.Sorry about your '3' but it's still the same as it ever was. The only difference you'll see is that the curved portion is now a smooth curve instead of a series of jerky line segments -as are the curved portions of all other characters.

[OLD-CADaver]

Matt's correct. We don't use custom fonts. period. We use what comes in the box, and only a couple of those. They are more than sufficient to accomplish any given task (short of specialized letter making plasma cutters and such).

IMMHO, using custom fonts is a bad idea that can come back on the user. At the very best a font failure cause text to be gibberish, at worst it can cause costly errors in construction.

Even if they work, there is little or nothing (IMMHO) gained by their use.

[Martin Shoemaker]

OLD-CADaver,

Howdy in this thread....

I beg to differ. I use a custom font as a security measure. I only
deliver paper copies except for coordination, so transmitting font files
isn't an issue. My custom fonts do not get sent with coordination
files, but I don't use any non-standard characters so readability isn't
an issue. Since I don't give out my font I can be virtually certain
whether a print came from my office or is a forgery/copy/etc. Having
had my work product reused without authorization in the past, I think
it's a security measure with significant value. Not a perfect solution,
though -- no help the time someone just used white-out to change an
address (the AHJ didn't even question that the address was the only
thing typed on a sheet that was obviously computer generated), or the
time someone just cut a legit title block off one job and taped it to
another (the AHJ didn't question that, either).

Martin

Post by OLD-CADaver
Matt's correct. We don't use custom fonts. period. We use what comes in the box, and only a couple of those. They are more than sufficient to accomplish any given task (short of specialized letter making plasma cutters and such).
IMMHO, using custom fonts is a bad idea that can come back on the user. At the very best a font failure cause text to be gibberish, at worst it can cause costly errors in construction.
Even if they work, there is little or nothing (IMMHO) gained by their use.

[teiarch]

Martin: Strange you should comment on security measures. I was trying to explain that very issue to a non-cadd-literate architect firm recently in hopes they would hire me to develop a font for them. They just sort of looked at me funny....(OH, that'll never happen...just like NO ONE would ever fly a plane into a building!).

Your comments reaffirm that I'm not losing it out here in the midwest!

teiarch

[OLD-CADaver]

<<but I don't use any non-standard characters so readability isn't an issue>>

Which is my only concern. If such is the case, you've found an interesting visual check for you security solution.

Our clients nearly always get the electronic files and where they go from there one can only guess. It is the use of non-standard "added characters" that cause the problem.

Case in point, several years ago some magazine posted a coded font for stacked fractions and called it SIMPFRAC. It used lower-case letters to display the stacked fractions starting with lower-case q=1/8 and moving up (werty) in 1/8 increments. Some folks needed 1/16 so they started with q=1/16, some q=1/32, some turned it all around and started with m=1/16. All of the fonts were named SIMPFRAC. In one font lower-case u=7/8, in another it was 7/16, and yet another it was 7/32, and another 5/8. Bad idea.

More than once I've rec'd files with "?" all over the place only to find that the contractor was using a font called ROMANS that had centerline symbols built-in as some special code. They were returned for non-compliance.

I really have no problem with custom fonts, but I do with "added characters".

[Martin Shoemaker]

Kitchen consultants and prototype drawings for fast food restaurants.
That's where I see that the most. What bugs me even more is clients who
reassign the STANDARD style on their system, then complain when my title
block doesn't match theirs.

Martin

Post by OLD-CADaver
<<but I don't use any non-standard characters so readability isn't an issue>>
Which is my only concern. If such is the case, you've found an interesting visual check for you security solution.
Our clients nearly always get the electronic files and where they go from there one can only guess. It is the use of non-standard "added characters" that cause the problem.
Case in point, several years ago some magazine posted a coded font for stacked fractions and called it SIMPFRAC. It used lower-case letters to display the stacked fractions starting with lower-case q=1/8 and moving up (werty) in 1/8 increments. Some folks needed 1/16 so they started with q=1/16, some q=1/32, some turned it all around and started with m=1/16. All of the fonts were named SIMPFRAC. In one font lower-case u=7/8, in another it was 7/16, and yet another it was 7/32, and another 5/8. Bad idea.
More than once I've rec'd files with "?" all over the place only to find that the contractor was using a font called ROMANS that had centerline symbols built-in as some special code. They were returned for non-compliance.
I really have no problem with custom fonts, but I do with "added characters".

[teiarch]

Martin: Amen! People who redefine the STANDARD font are suffering from I refer to as the "center of the universe" syndrome. I believe they think they're the only one who ever thought of this. I have one client who took things a step further. He renamed all "his" favorite fonts 1.shx, 2.shx, etc.

I recently decompiled and identified the "original" fonts he had renamed and put it all in a big chart for him to use and he couldn't understand what the big deal was! Not surprising since he refuses to use paper space or layering standards...he never does two projects using the same techniques or standards...free spirit.

Thanks for your comments.

[teiarch]

Dear OC: Fraction routines are included in the version of RomanS I rewrote. Usin these routines, you can make ANY fraction you wish. Link is at response to David Kozina's comments.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<Dear OC: Fraction routines are included in the version of RomanS I rewrote. Usin these routines, you can make ANY fraction you wish. Link is at response to David Kozina's comments. >>

But therein lies the problem, I can't (and neither can anyone else) control how the files are transferred after they leave my desk. If the custom font does not accompany the file the results are, at best, gibberish. Bad idea. Were the font definition attached to the DWG file like a linetype, I'd be open to modifications and custom characters. Until then, bad idea.

[Dave (TC Fonts)]

Post by OLD-CADaver
Were the font definition attached to the DWG
file like a linetype, I'd be open to modifications and custom
characters. Until then, bad idea.

SHX V2.0 has an embedding flag, but that has never been implemented.
We are hoping that eventually DWFs will be used as Xrefs - that
would help some of the situation.

[Stephen J]

Just my 2 cents... (maybe a 50 cents it got kind of long)

I have over 350+ fonts listed in my style dialogue, how many of them are
acad native? I don't know. Whenever I upgraded a release I would copy the
previous font files into the new release. So, over the years they have
added up.

I have anything from txt to xrated, there are also wingdings and symbols. I
figure if you attach your 'revised' romans, ROMANSX, to your drawings
eventually there will be another font file in my directory.

I will not use it - the reason being that I use romans and times new roman
in all of my drawings. So, 360+ fonts and I use 2. I had to trace our
title block logo font style and made it a dwg because it was a custom file
that was not available through Autodesk. The owner decided on the font for
the letterhead and didnt think "is this available in autocad?" or ask for
input.

I don't need a romans that is clearer when printed at 6" high. The tallest a
font in my drawings will ever get is 1/4" high.

I have dealt with custom fonts before, an architect wanted arial and arial
bold to match their spec's fonts. This is before they were available
through Autodesk and before TrueTypes were recognized. Man what a nightmare
regenerating the drawings and plotting them too.

So, if you can convince Autodesk to replace their existing romans then you
will see your romans on my drawings, if not it will sit in my font directory
along with the txt or xrated font.

Stephen J

[teiarch]

Stephen J. : AutoCad native fonts include ROMANC, ROMAND, ROMANS, ROMANT, SIMPLEX, TXT, and a smattering of others.

Go to CADDEPOT and look in Autodesk>Fonts, pages 5 and 6 and you can add to your collection.

Good Luck.

By the way, didn't copying the previous set overwrite the current set when you upgraded? Just curious....

[teiarch]

Stephen J: While you might not plot RomanS larger than 1/4", someone, somewhere will use it for titling. The smoother version I rewrote would l make that person happy with the results.

Your choice not to use it but if you ever had an occasion where you wanted to insert a true copyright, or registered or trademark symbol in a string of romans text -or wanted to create some fraction, or wanted to insert a universal warning, recycle, radioactive, or biohazard symbol, or be able to use any number or letter superscript or subscript, they are all available in ROMANSX5.SHX.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<We simply accept what is offered without questioning whether it is adequate for all users' needs or not. >>

I guess that's where my curiosity comes up. For us the romans that comes OOTB has been more than adequate since it was added back in V2.x, so I'm having some difficulty working up support for any change. If we can't realize a production advantage from any given change, then why bother?



<<The purpose of starting this topic was to try to get the attention of someone at Autodesk to look at the improvements I made. Apparently I have not used an effective approach. >>

This is truly a peer-to-peer forum, any involvement by an AutoDESK employee that could actually do something would be accidental at best. You'd be better of with the wish-list or feed-back interface.

[teiarch]

OC: One cannot evaluate whether a revised font is useful until it is downloaded and the accompanying documentation is read and understood. Only then can an individual decide for themselves if the font will help them be more productive. These fonts can be downloaded at CADDEPOT.COM -feel free to look them over at your convenience.

RE: Peer to peer....My mistake for not recognizing that this is the incorrect venue......

[OLD-CADaver]

<<One cannot evaluate whether a revised font is useful until it is downloaded and the accompanying documentation is read and understood. Only then can an individual decide for themselves if the font will help them be more productive.>>

That assumes I'm being less productive currently, or at least feel there is room for increased productivity in that area. As I stated previously, the OOTB ROMANS font is more than adequate for our needs. To be moved from that position, it would be necessary to provide just cause for exerting the effort you describe. I have not, as yet, seen such cause.

More simply, what will ROMANSX do for me, specifically, that ROMANS cannot?

[doug k]

one of the original posts mentioned the font being more efficient. there
was mention of plot file sizes or some such. i would be interested in
hearing something more specific on that matter. if true, i would probably
use the "refined" font.

Post by OLD-CADaver
<<One cannot evaluate whether a revised font is useful until it is

downloaded and the accompanying documentation is read and understood. Only
then can an individual decide for themselves if the font will help them be
more productive.>>

Post by OLD-CADaver
That assumes I'm being less productive currently, or at least feel there

is room for increased productivity in that area. As I stated previously,
the OOTB ROMANS font is more than adequate for our needs. To be moved from
that position, it would be necessary to provide just cause for exerting the
effort you describe. I have not, as yet, seen such cause.

Post by OLD-CADaver
More simply, what will ROMANSX do for me, specifically, that ROMANS cannot?

[OLD-CADaver]

<<one of the original posts mentioned the font being more efficient. there was mention of plot file sizes or some such. i would be interested in hearing something more specific on that matter. if true, i would probably use the "refined" font. >>

For some that may be an added benefit. But with our files running over 15-40 Meg WITHOUT annotation, a couple K savings isn't worth reviewing the font.

[teiarch]

Doug K: The code was rewritten to be a bit more compact than the '96 and '03 versions. The term: "efficient" as I was using it means that I used the programming codes more recently available to refine the defintiions BUT, I doubt with the processor speed of contemporary computers, one could not detect the very slight increase in plot speed.

I added about 60 characters and symbols to the original but only increase the file size about 3K so the efficiency is more applicable to code structure. Not very exciting, is it?

[teiarch]

OC: YOU are as productive as you think you are. Glass half full: You could be more productive...Glass Half Empty: That assumes I'm being....etc.

It's entirely up to you whether you to examine the font or not.

'Nuff said.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<OC: YOU are as productive as you think you are. Glass half full: You could be more productive...Glass Half Empty: That assumes I'm being....etc.

It's entirely up to you whether you to examine the font or not.
Oh, come on. How much more productive would a font make me? I mean, now I'm bangin' in text, later I'll be bangin' in text. It'll cost money to review the font, it'll cost money to implement the font, it'll cost money to make sure the font is transmitted. What do I get for my investment, text, just like I have without the investment.

There's no half-empty/half-full scenario here. It's more like glass-full/glass-full-wallet-empty.

[teiarch]

Sorry, I don't wish to discuss this further. Suggest you start a new thread on productivity....

'Bye!

[OLD-CADaver]

I don't want a thread on productivity, but rather, how will your custom font profit me or anyone else. You started this thread promoting it, if it is of no value why bother?

It's smoother?
Well that's indistinguishable for letters 1/10" high.

Added characters?
We already shot a hole in that boat.

What else ya' got?

[teiarch]

OC: Went back to Cadalyst site and found what you mentioned. Mr. Cannon modified a 1987 version of SIMPLEX with added characters. He could have done all of us a service had he converted it to UNIFONT format but....

Not quite the same.

[OLD-CADaver]

<<OC: Went back to Cadalyst site and found what you mentioned. Mr. Cannon modified a 1987 version of SIMPLEX with added characters. He could have done all of us a service had he converted it to UNIFONT format but....

Not quite the same. >>

Therein lies the dilemma of customized fonts. Unless or until the font is one that comes OOTB, we won't use it. Furthermore, we specify that our contractor/suppliers use only fonts that come with the software. Finding a question mark "?" on a plot results in a back-charge.

[teiarch]

Bottom line to this thread topic is that when it comes to fonts that AutoCad offers, we all seem to have a low GAS factor. We simply accept what is offered without questioning whether it is adequate for all users' needs or not.

The purpose of starting this topic was to try to get the attention of someone at Autodesk to look at the improvements I made. Apparently I have not used an effective approach.

The fact remains that I have rewritten RomanC, RomanD and RomanS to be better, more efficiently coded fonts that come with the "box" of software.

Apparently the folks at Autodesk have a low GAS factor as well...

'Nuff said.....