I don't want to be mean, but you clearly can't see the 3rd dimension. Most of your letters are faulty, missing parts or have the wrong geometry. I suggest you try again!

@Frodo7

What the… Is something wrong with your eyes today? The font’s perfectly fine.

NICE

@THE_CON-MAN calm down, Frodo is right. I highlighted some of the mistakes in the izometric projection. I guess you can spot the rest now too.

@Peter (Petruuccio)

Frodo7 said “You clearly can’t see the 3rd dimension”, which is wrong. You can clearly see it. It’s not invisible or obscured.

I already noticed those discrepancies you pointed out. They happen consistently, so I thought it was entirely possible that they were deliberate stylistic choices, not mistakes. Whether they are or not, I don’t really care. I was just expressing the absurdity of Frodo7 not being able to see the 3rd dimension. Perhaps what he meant to say didn’t translate very well from Hungarian.

I was reacting to the second sentence of both of you. The font as is, does not look "perfectly fine" to me. While it may be intentionally inconsistent, I doubt it.

I guess it would look better with either of the depths, just not with mix of various depths.

I agree totally with @Frodo7 and @Peter (Petruuccio). The font looks unfinished, and the supposed 3D effect isn't working for me. There's a lot of carelessness and lack of attention in the glyph construction, and the author could easily have fixed these shortcomings with a little more dedication... All this unless these obvious shortcomings in this aspect are considered "design choices," in which case I'd be quiet. I remember some of my fonts, created before FS enabled the use of color, where I included suggestions in the description for modifying it to achieve that capability (adding color and a 3D effect) using a graphics editor... in other words, these fonts was already designed for the 3D effect that color would provide later. In short, this kind of thing is work that should be done first and well, IMHO.

@Peter (Petruuccio): Thank you for helping me out. I was ready to illustrate what was wrong with the 3D effect, but you did it sooner. Google says it's an oblique projection, perhaps the cavalier version. The front face remains undistorted.

@TH3_C0N-MAN: I don't understand you. Given your good track record of creating nice fonts, how can you not see the issue with the 3D projection? Your argument that they are "deliberate stylistic choices, not mistakes" is utter nonsense. What would help the designer (Chris Burgess) more: pointing out the defects of his execution, or telling him that "the font’s perfectly fine"? Think about it.

i would like it more of it were to be shaded (after being fixed) like this (without border)

Is it me or does the cube for the Cavalier oblique look like it has twice the depth?

Indeed, the Cavalier projection looks disproportionate. Engineers use different oblique projections with lesser depth to achieve a more natural look.

@Frodo7

Surely you are aware that art is subjective. You didn’t know the intentions of the designer. You assumed they wanted to achieve a technically accurate projection. Why? Even the most prominent designers on this website almost never achieve technical levels of accuracy in their geometry. They are constantly using tricks to elicit their intended effect, regardless of how technically inaccurate it makes the letterforms. So that’s why I didn’t see the “issue”. I was shocked that you so quickly chose to interpret the font as having defects and concluded that the designer needed help. I actually considered the possibility that you’d been hacked, because only an imposter could speak so carelessly.

To me, the broadening diagonal edges on characters like C are reminiscent of the way light scatters in a humid atmosphere the further it gets from the source. I think it looks great, and it would be a shame if it was changed to be technically accurate and boring. We will always have plenty of technically proportional fonts, but we will never replace the unique touch of this designer. We do not know that the designer intended for the back faces to have exactly the same shapes as the front faces. For all we know, the back faces really are supposed to morph. And if they are, the font is richer because of it.

Furthermore, even if you were certain that a font contains legitimate defects, I really doubt you are helping by blurting out that most of their work is bad and telling them to do it all again. If I received your exact initial message, I would feel extremely discouraged. I understand that you were trying to be helpful, and attempted to soften it by saying you didn’t want to be mean, but it didn’t come off that way to me. It’s like saying “I’m not trying to be mean, but you’re fat. Do better”. Even if you had good intentions and wanted them to be healthier, saying it like that is most likely going to do more harm than good.

I could easily accuse you of making “faulty” fonts, but I would rather assume the best in you. For instance, in Chernobyl Chill, you had an unusual situation where the shapes of Д and Л were in completely different styles, but I didn’t assume it was a defect. I said I found it interesting. And on the chance that it was a mistake, I asked if I could provide suggestions. Upon seeing that you were wiliing, I also asked you why the diacritic in Ў was different to the one in Й. Again, even if it was a mistake, I didn’t just blurt out that it was objectively wrong.

@TH3_C0N-MAN: Your argument - although very detailed - doesn't hold much water. Saying "art is subjective" and "the intentions of the designer" are lame attempts to relativise the issue. We know the intention of the designer, because he wrote it down for us: " I would try a 3D version of my State font". He succeeded partially, and there are a number of things to improve on his 3D font. If you still don't see the issues with his faulty oblique projection, I'm sorry, we have nothing more to talk about. I can't explain the colours to a colourblind. 

You said: "If I received your exact initial message, I would feel extremely discouraged." But my comment was not for you. Yet you have jumped on it with barely concealed passion. I'm sorry if my language was too direct for your taste. It's a cultural difference: we, in Eastern Europe, speak plainly and to the point. As the English say, when I see a spade, I call it a spade. I prefer to tell the truth directly, without sugar coating, even if it's unpleasant. It is much better than your "gentle parenting" approach (telling him the font was perfectly fine).

@TH3_C0N-MAN: (regarding your last paragraph)

I believe you assume too much. My fonts are far from perfect. In fact, I can't name a single one and say it's perfect. Not one. They have both small and large defects, inconsistencies here and there, and design compromises. If you see one, please let me know. I would rather learn the shortcomings (and correct them) than remain nonchalantly ignorant. 

Too many times, we celebrated mediocrity when there was clear potential for improvement. I want my fonts tested with acid and fire, direct critique, because I want them to be better. Chernobyl Chill is awaiting a review and an extension. Your critique will be very welcome. 

@Frodo7

I regret having to draw out this argument, but you clearly haven’t understood what I said. Can you please read carefully? I’m not arguing about what you think I’m arguing about. It’s much deeper than that.

Of course the intention was to make a 3D font, as you quoted, but that is not enough information to base your assumptions on. You are still reiterating the same points about oblique projections, but “3D” doesn’t specifically mean “perfectly accurate oblique projection”. You could make it 3D in any other way, and it would still fulfill that intention perfectly. You are finding fault beyond what we know of the designer’s intentions. What you don’t seem to understand is that it doesn’t even need to be an oblique projection in the first place.

Why don’t I go to one of your fonts, make up my own imaginary constraint in addition to what you’ve actually stated, and say that your font is faulty because of that?

If we did find out that this was explicitly supposed to be a perfect oblique projection, then I would take your side, of course. I do already understand the issues you’re trying to explain. I didn’t need them to be explained.

As for your language, I actually really value the way you are straightforward. I wish everyone could be like that. But again, the issue was much deeper than that. I was not sugar coating anything. In fact, I was being exactly as straightforward and honest as you. The difference in our comments wasn’t due to culture, it was due to our views about our purpose here. Forgive me if I’m exaggerating, but it seems like you view this as a bootcamp, where we are all supposed to relentlessly improve and achieve excellence at all costs. So you point out anything that seems wrong to you, even at the risk of sounding mean, because their potential improvement is the most crucial thing and is worth the risk. I view my purpose more casually. I have no burning desire to impose my idea of excellence on anybody. If people publish their work, that tells me they’re already happy with it. People naturally improve on their own and redefine their own standards. It’s not for me to decide what their flaws are in their own pursuits. So I am telling the truth directly when I say it’s perfectly fine from my standpoint.

Correction: when I said "nonchalantly ignorant", I meant oblivious. I just couldn't find the right word. Nobody uses words like nonchalantly in a regular conversation.

@TH3_C0N-MAN: Do I regret starting this conversation? Yes, and no. Yes, because I didn't want to antagonise anyone with my opinion. No, because we had a lengthy civil discussion that almost reached philosophical and moral heights, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. We both express ourselves in whole sentences, even paragraphs - the way it's been done since antiquity. Your argument is coherent and flawless; elegant, I should say, even if I disagree with it. And that is the first thing I'm worried about: I still don't understand your point. It is possible that I am the colourblind person, and no amount of conversation will change that. Simply, I may not have the receiver for your frequency. We should leave it like that.

I'm considering your second point: perhaps "relentlessly improve and achieve excellence at all costs" is not the ultimate goal. Maybe we should take fontstructing more casually and just have fun. - I realised you are a better hobbit than me. I'm a perfectionist who detests disorder. I'll continue to seek excellence and improve my work. However, I should not impose my ideas and standards on others. Peace.

oh my paragraph

@Frodo7

I’m relieved to hear you enjoyed it. I worried that I was irritating you. When people see paragraphs, they usually get emotional and shut off their ability to cognitively reason on it. It’s good to see you’re one of the few who don’t.

Thanks for your kind words. Sadly, I suppose it’s just a fact of life that understanding is not guaranteed, even after the most prolific explanation. In fact, I’ve been struggling with getting people to understand me my whole life, and that in itself may be why I believe so strongly in trusting people in their own pursuits and not assuming I understand their intentions.

Sorry to Chris Burgess (maneman) and anyone else who might have been disturbed by this

My humble opinion is that typeface design is an interesting convergence of art and design. It must visually take a stance and perform the task as well. The art part being subjective can never reduce down to a single interpretation therefore the artist designer decides something and that is it. The design part can be somewhat objectively evaluated against standard measures of readability, legibility, performance in different context like headline, body text, used as graphical element, &c. Typeface designers are all at different stages of their art and design skills development. Some may not even want to pursue it professionally. While praise may raise a designer's morale temporarily, constructive criticism has the potential to be biting in the immediate-term and beneficial in the long-term. Being pointed out someone got it wrong hurts but they can also learn from it if they choose to do so. That is the foundation of peer-reviewed scientific research...and no one has come up with a better alternative for it.

Thank you both Frodo7 and TH3_CON-MAN for an insightful and civil discussion. Apologies for butting in.

@thalamic: Thank you for joining. This is an open and public discussion; there is no need for apology. You've made a very good point by separating the two aspects of typeface design: art and function (I believe you meant "function" when you said "design"). A typeface is a tool for rendering text. It has very weak copyright protection due to its utilitarian nature. Otherwise, each printed page would become a derivative work. And as you said, this part can be objectively evaluated.

PS: If anything, we need more meaningful discussions on FontStruct, like in the good old times.

Without intending to delve deeper into the controversy, and simply in case it is useful to the author, this is how I think the shadows of this font should appear.

Excuse me, but how did you end up with these quotes, when the only thing that needed to be in purple is highlited with black borders, here in the above sample, and doesn't cover everything?

Also, the [$] is missing some bricks, towards the bottom-lefy

@Chris Burgess (maneman): You are an old-timer at FontStruct, and remember, we used to help each other. I wanted to help you with this project. I saw potential in it. 

There is a second issue with the letters: the diagonal parts are too thick (M, N, V, W) or too thin (X, Y, 4, 7). This problem was solved many years ago. You may clone this resource shared by Goatmeal - Tutorial - 45 degree angles - and select the right one for your project. If that is still not good enough, I have a more precise formula, but it requires custom bricks. Remember, at 45° the width comes out as n√2, where n is the width of the horizontal or vertical stroke (measured in whole bricks), and √2 is an irrational number (see the Pythagoras theorem). Thus, we can only approximate the true width of the horizontal or vertical strokes. For the purpose of typeface design, it is good enough.

I hope I didn't bore you with the technical details. In ancient Greece, the discovery of irrational numbers, such as √2 (which cannot be expressed as a simple fraction), caused a major crisis and paradigm shift among the Greeks.

@Chris Burgess (maneman) - If you go to my FontStruction, please read the comment section below there for an explanation of my thought processes.  Good luck!   :^)  And my thanks to @Frodo7 for even remembering that old tutorial.  ;^)

wait, a graph composition book? like a maths notebook graph paper one?

@Chris Burgess (maneman) - I am happy that you are happy!  Glad to have helped.  :^)

An easy way to add 3D would be to have two copies of each letter on different layers offset from each other, then filling in the space between them…

@maneman: Awesome

@maneman will you add shades now?

If the interior were mere angles or intersecting lines, the shades (or even a third color) would be a nice enhancement.  Unfortunately, many interiors are curved, so blending shades or colors from one plane to another effectively will prove difficult.

he could use the “pizza slice” brick (1/8 circle) on top of another with different colours, but that would only work with some…

:(