Tru Type vs Shx Fonts

I seem to recall in the past there were issues regarding the use of true
type fonts in AutoCad drawings (regen speed, plotting etc.). Are these or
any other issues still relavent or is the trend now to use true type fonts
most of the time? Any info would be appreciated.

 

We still stick to shx fonts for the majority of text in our drawings, with
the exception of some ttf stuff in our title blocks. Speed issues are still
there, but much less noticeable with today's fast computers. It's funny,
though, how that the faster they make computers, the more bloated software
becomes, so the end result always seems to be about the same...

John

 

John: Ah! Another deep thinker that recognizes the true purpose .... sell more computers and more software. I totally agree with you on your observations.

Too bad people can't go back and experience the thrill of working with a program on a computer that clocked a 4mhz and had 640K of ram. Some of the software designers had some programs that worked pretty well under this environment. Then along comes speed and cheap RAM and lazy programmers and we have today's environment.

Terry: Search this forum using Truetype and SHX as search keywords. You'll find lots of information and opinions. As for me, if there's any way of avoiding using TTF fonts, I will do it. On any computer at any speed, SHX fonts generally work better than TTF fonts. I'm sensitive to file sizes and using SHX fonts is a factor in this area as well.

Granted TTF fonts look better but that is mainly due to sloppy programming of SHX fonts. IF SHX fonts are properly defined, they will plot about as well as TTF ones without the sluggish regens and all the other stuff.
But, you do what makes you happy.

Cheers!

 

Both of you could not have said it better...

An example of the opposite of bloatware:
http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm

 

as well.

I had an 89k drawing with nothing in it but typical notes using romans
(maybe a couple thousand words).

switched to arial font and there was no discernible file size change.

however a plot file size went from 7.9 meg to 33.4 meg!

I would avoid ttfs for large blocks of text.

 

R.K.M: Thanks for the kind words. Seems software development has paralled certain attitudes in some segments of today's society -for what ever its worth.

 

however a plot file size went from 7.9 meg to 33.4 meg!<<

I just went to using a ttf and the plot sizes went way up.

You can adjust this by the TEXTQLTY sysvar. I set mine down to 20 and I
could not tell a difference.
But a full sheet of notes still takes a noticeably longer time to plot.

Rick

 

thank you, I'm sure this one is just super, but i have learned to avoid
non-standard fonts, for a litany of reasons.

 

thanks, i will experiment. i would really like to go all ttf someday.

 

Doug K: Think you may be a victim of "AutoDesk conditioning."

Somehow, judging from the responses I've gotten on this and other forums, it appears that AutoCad users have become convinced that whatever fonts AutoCad chooses to bundle with their software are the only "safe" ones to use.

Granted, if everyone uses AutoCad "native" fonts, they become the defacto "standard" fonts I think you're referencing but that should not be the only reason for not trying other fonts if they serve a purpose. With the ability to use Truetype fonts, AutoCad has, in essence, made these fonts "standard" as well.

In this instance, I was offering you a reasonable alternative to using Arial.TTF. If you were to gamble and use it, I think you would find that your file sizes would drop back to something more manageable and to all except typography experts, very little difference between Romanm2 and Arial.ttf would be noticed.
Sorry you're gunshy.

 

Teiarch,

Not sure about Doug K, but the reason we avoid 'non standard' fonts here is
because it causes font problems between us and clients (if they don't have
the same font) and sometimes even here in the office. Most of the
inner-office problems have gone away now that everyone is calling all their
info. from the server, and you can use e-transmit to avoid the client issue,
but not everyone uses either or both of these methods. Even with
e-transmit, we've had some clients raise concerns about installing new fonts
(or any other information) on their computer, and with all the problems out
there these days, I can't say I blame them too much. Of course, we don't
know what his whole 'litany of reasons' is yet either! Have a good one!

--
John Michalik
Drafting and Design
LDD/CAD Development & Standards

it appears that AutoCad users have become convinced that whatever fonts
AutoCad chooses to bundle with their software are the only "safe" ones to
use.

"standard" fonts I think you're referencing but that should not be the only
reason for not trying other fonts if they serve a purpose. With the ability
to use Truetype fonts, AutoCad has, in essence, made these fonts "standard"
as well.

Arial.TTF. If you were to gamble and use it, I think you would find that
your file sizes would drop back to something more manageable and to all
except typography experts, very little difference between Romanm2 and
Arial.ttf would be noticed.

 

more like 20 years of cad drafting conditioning

Arial.TTF. If you were to gamble and use it, I think you would find that
your file sizes would drop back to something more manageable and to all
except typography experts, very little difference between Romanm2 and
Arial.ttf would be noticed.

the font you provided is copyrighted, and i have to share my drawings, which
is a small part of my "litany." i'm sure its adored by many, but i will
stick to what i know works for us. IIABDFI

there is a difference between gunshy and prudence.

 

The font I sent you WAS copyrighted -by me since I substantially....

Oh, never mind!

 

Doug K: What's with the copyright excuse? All of AutoCad's native fonts are copyrighted. By your logic, you shouldn't use them either. If you read the notice in the SHP file, it says anyone can use or modify the fonts as long as they don't try to profit from them and retain the copyright notice "as-is".

teiarch.

 

are copyrighted. By your logic, you shouldn't use them either.

sure i use them, but i don't have to copy them to give to others, since they
already have them.

 

Doug: Yes, that IS a problem if you have to send them because some IT guys get really paranoid about adding anything to the server files -no matter how innocuous it might be.

Recently had the same experience trying to get a landscape architect to cooperate. He didn't want to send me his originals to plot with my title block so I sent him my title block and font (the same one I sent you, BTW) and he freaked out -afraid the IT guy was going to accuse him of being some sort of "cadd jehad".

All of this points to the issue that originally started this thread -the lack of good SHX fonts that AutoCad will bundle. Truetype is not the route to go IMO because of the issues already discussed ad nauseum in this forum.

My Romanm2 is easier on file size that Arial.TTF but the brain trust at Autodesk forces people to live with TTF fonts because the can....instead of offering reasonable alternatives.

(Soapbox back in the closet)

Thanks anyway.

 

Doug: Yes, that IS a problem if you have to send them because some IT
guys get really paranoid about adding anything to the server files -no
matter how innocuous it might be.

One nice thing about SHX fonts is that you can place them in the drawing
folder, which you already have access to, with IT knowing anything about it.
I like to keep a copy of any nonstandard fonts in the project folder anyway,
as a reminder to always transmit them with the drawing, and to ensure that
they get archived together.

Personally I've never had any problem "remembering" to send along the
necessary fonts and xrefs with a drawing. But from numerous posts I've seen
in here, this seems to be a huge issue for some people. Why, I'll never
know.

 

Tom S: Glad to see someone offering a reasonable alternative.

People who don't send fonts along work at the center of the universe -they are also the ones who open AutoCad the first time and the first thing they do is redefine the "Standard" font to "their" standards -then field calls from people they send their drawings to who call and say the text looks "funny" HELLO?

I prefer to think of the poorly coded fonts that AutoCad ships as "native" fonts -not "standard" fonts. They are referred to as "standard" because everyone that uses AutoCad has them. Perhap a more appropriate term would be AutoCad "common" fonts because they're pretty common....

Visit CADDEPOT and download ROMANSX version five and plot it out at about 2 inches high then do the same thing with AutoCad "common" RomanS. The differences are obvious.

 

Until you can guarantee that the font will "ALWAYS" follow the drawing, I'll stay with the "native" fonts thank you, and so will all those who supply files to our organization. I'll not waste another manhour trying to find out what happened to the font some bozo thought was "better".

BTW, been doing this a VERY long time, never needed to plot text 2" high.

 

I have to agree wholeheartedly. With the advent of etransmit and the like,
it is hard to see how a custom font couldn't get sent with the drawing, but
the fact of the matter is that it happens...all the time. I've had several
times to spend hours hunting down a font so that I could read the text from
another company. It's a ridiculous waste of time. I think some of this may
be a discipline specific thing. Some disciplines may have a need for a more
stylish approach to their drawings for the visual appeal. And granted, in
some arenas, that appearance is everything since some clients have no
experience at all with the meaning of the drawings and therefore rely solely
on the appearance to make their decision on whether or not to use your firm.
However, from the Civil and Surveying end, and even some Architectural exp.,
I've never found a case where the fonts supplied by the program couldn't
give a crisp, organized appearance to the drawing and present itself well to
clients and subcontractors. And anyone I might send it to has the fonts.
Back to the original strain of this thread, I am experimenting here with
going to true type in some cases, primarily for proposed design work, since
that frees me of the need to have colors assigned for text weights, allowing
more freedom for that particular text style and freeing those colors for
other uses.

--
John Michalik
Drafting and Design
LDD/CAD Development & Standards

I'll stay with the "native" fonts thank you, and so will all those who
supply files to our organization. I'll not waste another manhour trying to
find out what happened to the font some bozo thought was "better".