Architectural fonts
David S.
for me!
what do you think?
--
Yours Truly,
David Shabat
davids...@hotmail.com
"Arcella, Emerson" <1@2> wrote in message
news:21261945.107135994...@jiveforum2.autodesk.com...
> I am in search of some architectural fonts for Autocad 14 & 2000. Can
> someone please help me out on this one.
>
>
TALSKY
like it better.
Jack Talsky
"David S." <david...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:407f4d25$1_1@newsprd01...
Dean Saadallah
not hand drawn DWG file.
--
Dean Saadallah
Add-on products for LT
http://www.pendean.com/lt
--
Tom Smith
for me!
> what do you think?
As one who drafted for quite a few years before computers came along, and
took pride in good lettering, I personally HATE the "blueprint" fonts that
come with Acad. They don't look anything like an architect's lettering, more
like a very non-observant high school student's attempt at it. Back when we
had to learn this skill, the slanted horizontals were the first thing you
had to learn not to do. And the skinny compressed letters just look bad --
it takes a width factor of at least 1.5 to get these fonts into the realm of
proper letter proportions. You won't get any points for using these, from
anyone who cares about lettering. I'd rather see plain simplex.
There are a number of good hand-lettering style SHX fonts around, but I've
never been able to find a TTF that even came close. Like Jack, I don't mind
StylusBT. It doesn't really look architectural, but at least it isn't ugly,
just a neutral "hand" style.
Walt Engle
to ANSI which dictates that lettering be "single stroke Gothic". The only shx
font that approaches this is Romans.shx. If you just happen to do a job for the
US govt, then you must use Romans to conform to ANSI. On the other hand though,
Romans is a little too "thin" for me so I use what I consider the next best
thing, Arial.ttf which shows up better when printed or plotted. Just a matter of
choice. (City blueprint is awful).
Dave Byrnes
BUT MY FAVOURITE FOR DRAWINGS THAT DON'T HAVE TO GO TO OUTSIDE FIRMS IS THE ARCHTEXT SERIES (NO LONGER AVAILABLE). THEY CAME IN BOTH SHX AND TTF. DEAN SAYS THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE SHXS BUT THE TTFS WORK GREAT FOR ME.
--
David Byrnes/Vancouver BC
AutoDesk Discussion Group Facilitator
Dave Byrnes
But my favourite for drawings that don't have to go to outside firms is the
Archtext series (no longer available). They came in both SHX and TTF. Dean
says there are problems with the SHXs but the TTFs work great for me.
--
David Byrnes/Vancouver BC
AutoDesk Discussion Group Facilitator
"David S." <david...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:407f4d25$1_1@newsprd01...
Tom Smith
conform
> to ANSI which dictates that lettering be "single stroke Gothic". The only
shx
> font that approaches this is Romans.shx. If you just happen to do a job
for the
> US govt, then you must use Romans to conform to ANSI.
Walt, by "simplex" I only meant that I'd rather see plain Gothic lettering
than an ugly decorative font. At my present firm we use the Archstyl font,
which is pretty good looking. We don't do government work, and don't have to
conform to ANSI.
I've always wondered about simplex versus romans -- why they would package
two fonts that are virtually identical. The letter forms appear to be
exactly the same, but simplex seems to have a very slightly wider letter
spacing.
Personally I don't have really strong feelings one way or the other about
using "hand" style lettering on an obviously computer-generated drawing (as
Dean said). I've worked in places that were all romans. As long as the
information is readable, it's fine with me.
But if you're going to fake a thing, I always say, at least do a good fake!
All of the Windows "architectural" fonts I've found have been horrible.
Apparently the only people trying to design these fonts are folks who can't
letter, and don't even recognize good lettering.
Dean Saadallah
Freebies I still see around that are close to the ARCH* series (without the
%% issues) are called HAND2.SHX and HAND3.SHX with a single stroke HAND.SHX
that goes with them). I'll post a sample PDF of SHX fonts you can find on
the Internet with google in customer Files.
ARIAL: you cannot go wrong with that in a static drawing from AutoCAD
though.
Walt Engle
Gordon Price
> for me!
For CDs I use Garamond for body text, and Tahoma for titles. Neither look
hand drawn, but then they aren't. I also prefer lower case and a serif font
for body because it is much easier to read, which is my real goal,
readability. For presentation drawings where I want a more hand drawn look
(and I will be rendering over the drawing, or using Squiggle to soften it
up) I like Stylus BT, I think it is a better designed font than any of the
SHX derived fonts I have seen.
Gordon
TALSKY
otherwise
mundane exercise.
I learned the same style as you for lettering. At one point I could letter a pretty
good
Helvetica Medium in pencil or ink.
Arrows were another requirement. An exact width of 3/32" or 1/16" (I don't remember
now), and a length of 1/8".
Knowing how to make a consistent and nice looking arrowhead was important.
Speed was important too, and one could not dwell on one arrowhead too long, but had
to developed a way of making them
so they always came out nice looking and the correct size....and dark.
Now, I have to say this.....If I worked for you, I would put the North arrow where
ever, and the entry facing down, but if
you were working for me, it would be North arrow up or to the right, and the entry
might be facing down, but it might not.
Isn't that the true criteria? What does the boss want?
Just having some Friday night fun.
Jack
TALSKY
since using a computer.
But StylusB is a reasonable alternative for a stylized lettering. It just not have a
bold, and is True Type, so
it does not respond to plotted lineweights.
Jack
"Dean Saadallah" <info [at] pendean [dot] com> wrote in message
news:4083cc7f$1_1@newsprd01...