by elmoyenique
Download disabled
The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.
Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.
If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.
A sans serif display unpretencious font with a slightly futuristic touch. Readable even at pixel size, although its legibility decreases somewhat when used for long stretches of continuous text. "ff" and "tt" ligatures available.
PS: My huge thanks to Sed4tives for his much appreciated help.
28 Comments
A sans serif display unpretencious font with a slightly futuristic touch. Readable even at pixel size, although its legibility decreases somewhat when used for long stretches of continuous text. "ff" and "tt" ligatures available.
Apart from that I think it's a great futuristic / tecno font. I love how there is a ever so slight weight accent on the 45 degree diagonals, I don't know if this was by design or accident, but it's a very nice touch.
@meek: Thanks a million, dear Boss!
@Sed4tives: Oops! So sorry. I didn't think those zones were so annoying. I'm going to change them asap. About the 45° diagonals, i just can't make they in other way (suggestions are welcomed)... Thanks a lot for your continuous support and help, pal!
@Sed4tives: Thank you very much for this perfect explanation. Of course, I've fixed all the B glyph and the like, but I was talking to you about the 45° diagonal line brick, not the B problem areas you pointed out... Any thoughts on that?
Sorry mate, I was too quick on the draw so I failed to understand you meant the 45 degree slopes. I made another template for you to fix the stroke weight of those too!
Cheers
@Sed4: A million thanks! It's gonna be perfect! Hands on it!
That being said, I do think the slight thicker strokes you originally crafted remains a nice little nuance that kind of evokes sort of that inverted stressed contrast, But in such a subtle way that it doesn't defines it.
So personally speaking I do not want to motivate you into actually correcting them to be honest.
But of course it's up to you to decide...
@Sed4: Well, I've been trying your idea, but when I use this new thinner diagonal brick the letters become unbalanced to the right. I'm not sure I'd change it right now, but with it you give me other points of view to consider. Thank you veeery much one more time.
@Sed4:Thanks a lot again. Using your last proposal (a little bit modified), I'm changing the entire set of glyphs.
@To all FS users: WIP. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll try to be as quick as possible. Thank you.
Oh nice, I just dropped back out of the FS-editor where I was doing basicallt the same actually. I have just completed the Basic Latin set. I was planning on surprising you with a fixed mod... Now I see that you gone in at deep end yourself I can abandon mine!
But yeah from what I get out of the work I did it seems to work perfect for the font.
Glad I got you going mate, have a blast!
Done!
The second solution for the diagonals you went with is slightly thinner than the first suggestion. Whereas the diagonals in the innitial solution had exactly the correct stroke weight to make the font truly monolinear, the diagonals in this second solution in reality are only 88% of the font's default stroke weight. Still this variant looks fairly good and balanced, but besides that this solution also preserves the glyph contour outlines, since all modifications were done inside enclosed parts of the letters. The counters is where changes got implemented, as a direct result of this they got a bit more opened up than what they originaly were. So now the letters should have slight more negative whitespace.
But after structing the suggestions to help out my fellow brother in arms I simply started to extrapolate the updated segments into all other glyphs to share with you later, but when I found you were doing it yourself I quit the effort.
I haven't deleted it yet, I will not publish the work, and it probably be deleted sooner or later, but for now I kept it so that I can make a type specimen sample image for comparison, if this is okay with you.
I'm really curious how different yours is compared to mine. :)
Cheers
Some additional information about the two suggestions I gave, since I think it will be helpful to a lot of people.. I hope you don't mind elmoyenique. This will be my last spam in your thread my friend, since this should remain reserved for your conversation, not mine!
@Sed4: Don't stop posting what you want here, please. It's a trully delight for me to all that you share. I'm really enjoying it.
@Sed4: It's true that this solution I've chosen covers only 88% of the line width. My initial solution was 106% of the line width, but it felt too thick. The current solution looks better visually, as you pointed out.
My thought for this font:
@Kiên Trung: Thank you very much for your kind comment and valuation!
NICE
Cool!
Please sign in to comment.