FontLab 4.6

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: mekka77
         
Is my FL4.5 serial number also valid for version 4.6? If so, where do I enter it?

The program states that I need to enter my serial at startup, but there's no possibility to enter anything anywhere, as it seems. I swear the app doesn't ask for identification or a serial number at startup. Or did I miss something?

TIA, Eric
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Yuri
         
>The program states that I need to enter my serial at startup, but there's
>no possibility to enter anything anywhere, as it seems. I swear the app
>doesn't ask for identification or a serial number at startup. Or did I miss
>something?

If you had FL 4.5 installed, then you will not have to enter any serial
numbers, both versions are compatible.

Best regards,
Yuri


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: TOlsson
         
Lucky you, Eric.

I´m not able to get the 4.6 update.
I have send the update request form bu nothing happen.
Does anybody know how to get 4.6 update
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Yuri
         
>I´m not able to get the 4.6 update.
>I have send the update request form bu nothing happen.
>Does anybody know how to get 4.6 update

I think that our sales manager who checks for serial numbers to give you an
update maybe overloaded. Please, contact sales[at]fontlab[dot]com if you
will not get 4.6 in some time.

This update is free of charge, but we will not provide freely accessible
update file, so you will have to post a request and include your serial
number.

Few notes about update installation: it comes as a full version installer
and will install to [a folder of your choice, usually Applications] :
FontLab 4.6. Previous version was [by default] installed in [your folder] :
FontLab 4.5. If you want to install 4.6 over the existing FontLab
installation, just rename FontLab 4.5 folder ("FontLab 4.5") to "FontLab
4.6". You must do it before installing version 4.6.

Best regards,
Yuri Yarmola
yar[at]fontlab[dot]com


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: TOlsson
         
I got the update info and download link from Lisa Devlinjust a minute after your answer.

Thanks

So far so good, but where can I find info about the new features in 4.6
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Yuri
         
> So far so good, but where can I find info about the new features in 4.6

List of most important new features is on FontLab page on our site but I
have a detailed list of changes which I don't want to make public but can
email by request early next week (I need to make some editing of it).

Best regards,
Yuri


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: sigurarm
         
I just got my update, installed and I am really, really happy so far.
This new Family Generator is fantastic and will save me a lot of time.
Thanks very much!


Happy, happy me



On Föstudagur, ágú 15, 2003, at 14:49 Atlantic/Reykjavik, FontLab
wrote:


/* Foreground colors */ .ThmFgColumnHeader,
A.FrameLink, A.HeaderLink, A.FooterLink, A.LgtCmd, A.MSNLink
{color:#FFFFFF;} .ThmFgTitleLightBk {color:#FF6600;} .ThmFgSmallLight
{color:#ff0000;} .ThmFgNavLink, A.NavLink, A.ChildLink:hover
{color:#666699;} .ThmFgInactiveText, A.SystemLink {color: #666666;}
.ThmFgFrameTitle {color: #FFFFCC;} .ThmFgTitleDarkBk, A.NavLink:hover,
A.TitleLink {color: #CC6600;} .ThmFgMiscText, A.Cat, A.SubCat {color:
#336699;} .ThmFgCommand, A.Command, A.LargeCommand, A.MsgLink {color:
#003366;} .ThmFgHeader {color: #333333;} .ThmFgStandard,
A.SystemLink:hover, A.SubLink, A.ChildLink, A.StdLink, SELECT.Standard
{color: #000000;} .ThmFgDivider {color: #CCCCCC;} /* primarily for HR
tags */ /* Background colors */ .ThmBgStandard {background-color:
#FFFFFF;} .ThmBgUnknown1 {background-color: #FF6600;} .ThmBgFraming
{background-color: #666699;} .ThmBgUnknown2 {background-color:
#666666;} .ThmBgHighlightDark {background-color: #FFFFCC;}
.ThmBgHighlightLight, #idToolbar, #tbContents {background-color:
#FFFFE8;} .ThmBgTitleDarkBk {background-color: #F1F1F1;}
.ThmBgAlternate {bIackground-color: #ECF1F6;} .ThmBgUnknown3
{background-color: #CCCCFF;} .ThmBgDivider {background-color:
#CCCCCC;} .ThmBgHeader {background-color: #9999CC;} .ThmBgLinks
{background-color: #8696C9;} .ThmBgSharkBar {background-color:
#8696C9;} .ThmBgGlobalNick {background-color: #9394A9;} /* R8 Header
Footer Sidebar Color */ .FRHdBG{background-color:#4a4d73;}
.FRHdSFB{background-color:#9c9db1;} /* Left Nav bar */
.frLeftNavBackground {BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6f7298;} .frLeftNavRule
{BACKGROUND-COLOR: #9ea1c3;} .frLeftNavLinkColor {COLOR:
#ffffff;TEXT-DECORATION: none;} .frLeftNavLinkColor:hover {COLOR:
#ffed9a; TEXT-DECORATION: underline;} .frLeftNavSelectedLinkColor
{COLOR: #ffed9a; TEXT-DECORATION: none;}
.frLeftNavSelectedLinkColor:hover {COLOR: #ffed9a; TEXT-DECORATION:
underline;} .frLeftNavContainer {BACKGROUND-COLOR: #8284a8;
color:#ffffff;} .frSignInColor {COLOR: #003366; TEXT-DECORATION:
none;} /* Calendar styles */ .calfgndcolor {color:#E00505;}
.calbgndcolor {color:#E00505;} <

<




1999,1999,FFFFFontLab 4.6


<




1999,1999,FFFFView other groups in
this category.


<





<




<




         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: APJ
         

I sended the update request on Friday evening, I received the notification Sunday (not a working day in France ! Thanks). So ist's work fine.

About User Manual : On the Web Site : there is an indication for a 4.6 Users Manual. After having download it : It's the same as for 4.5.

 

Agreeing (english ?) that writing an updated manual is very expensive, it would bee nice, fair, usefull, ...  to have a manual describing the new functions

 

What's your opinion ?

 

Thanks

 

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Yuri
         
>About User Manual : On the Web Site : there is an indication for a 4.6
Users Manual. After having download it : It's the same as for 4.5.

You are on Mac or Win side? Mac manual for 4.6 must be already uploaded with
Win verison following in a couple of days.

>Agreeing (english ?) that writing an updated manual is very expensive, it
would bee nice, fair, usefull, ...  to have a manual describing the new
>functions   What's your opinion ?   Thanks

In addition to the new manuals we are going to make a relatively small
document that will describe key differences between 4.5 and 4.6. We expect
to have it ready in about a week. Sorry for these delays - FontLab 4.6 is
not a single new release coming from us this time, so stay tuned :-)

Feel free to ask me here if you find something in 4.6 that you cannot
understand.

My personal new features shortlist (Mac version) is:

1. Smart panels (OpenType preview, Macro, OpenType features, Class and so
on). They are smaller, they are resizable and if they are aligned to sides
of the screen, main windows (Font, Glyph and Metrics) will not overlap them
when maximized. It saves a lot of time.

2. MM TT. You can make multiple master TrueType outlines and hint them with
the TT hinting tool. Instructions will interpolate (or extrapolate) when you
generate an instance. If set of T1 standard stems is the same as set of TT
standard stems, then even stems will interpolate (otherwise they will be
copied from the first master which is the only master that you can visually
hint). If you are making a TT family, think about how much time this feature
will save.

3. Smarter font blend algorithm. If outlines are "compatible" (have same
number of contours which have a pair in other glyph), FontLab will not
insert any points (and result will be marked green). So if you take MM font,
generate 2 instances and blend them - you will restore original MM design.
Check that with any of Adobe fonts :-) Sorting of contours and position of
startpoints is not important, FontLab will align them automatically.

4. Generation of basic OpenType features for imported T1 Latin fonts. Open
any T1 font that has standard set of glyphs and check the OpenType panel.

5. Visual transformations: transformations panel (rotate, scale, slant and
mirror) can be used with Font and Metrics windows. It is also connected to
visual transformation tools, so you can visually rotate a selection and then
apply it to many glyphs in the font. Other cool thing is the Repeat
transformation command which is assigned to the shortcut and a button on
Transformations panel.

6. Better integration with ScanFont 4. SF4 and FL46 make a perfect couple -
you can process a font image in ScanFont and then simply drag character
cells from there right into the FontLab's Font window.

Don't ask me why this upgrade is free :-)

Best regards,
Yuri


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Claudio Piccinini
         
Yuri,
many thanks for your informations on FontLab 4.6 and the manual.
I'll send a request for the upgrade as I get back home with DSL.

Wouldn't be possible to have a very simple, dirt and quick direct tool for measuring em units between points or lines in FontLab? As far as of now I have not find any. I have not read the old manual in its entirety, but I've had a look and I have been unable to find such a feature.

Also, I'm working now on an old G3 iBook, under Os9.1, with CarbonLib 1.4 4I have became mad to find the right balance). The shortcuts I use normally on my G4 at home are related to the new Italian-Pro Mac keyboard, and since with the iBook I need to use the old Italian keybord (because the iBook has an old-style keyboard) I am unable to access almost any shortcut (viewing, hinting ones, etc.).
Is there a way to assign personalized shortcuts?

Many thanks for your precious support here.
Claudio
         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Yuri
         
>Wouldn't be possible to have a very simple, dirt and quick direct tool for
>measuring em units between points or lines in FontLab? As far as of now I
>have not find any. I have not read the old manual in its entirety, but I've
>had a look and I have been unable to find such a feature.

Try the Meter tool (Opt+4 or combination of Cmd+Shift+Option while edit tool
is
active).

>Is there a way to assign personalized shortcuts?

Yes. Customize command (I don't remember if it is in Tools or Application
menu) will do the job.

Best regards,
Yuri


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Paul van der Laan
         
FontLab  wrote:

> 3. Smarter font blend algorithm. If outlines are "compatible" (have same
> number of contours which have a pair in other glyph), FontLab will not
> insert any points (and result will be marked green). So if you take MM font,
> generate 2 instances and blend them - you will restore original MM design.
> Check that with any of Adobe fonts :-) Sorting of contours and position of
> startpoints is not important, FontLab will align them automatically.

The new blend algorithm is certainly a lot better! However, I still have
problems coming to terms with it...

[1] There's a new checkbox in the Blend Fonts menu: 'Do not interpolate
compatible outlines'. Surely there's a typo here and should read 'Do not
interpolate INcompatible outlines'. Or?
[2] When this checkbox is checked and I blend two fonts with compatible
outlines there's a warning saying: 'Some glyphs have different number of
contours in first and second fonts. They were not blended.'
However, when I look at the resulting font all the glyphs are blended but
some are not green. This happens for instance with two very simple glyphs in
my font. What is causing this?
[3] If I blend two compatible composite characters (like a-acute for
instance): why is the spacing screwed up?


Thanks,

-Paul



         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Yuri
         
>[1] There's a new checkbox in the Blend Fonts menu: 'Do not interpolate
>compatible outlines'. Surely there's a typo here and should read 'Do not
>interpolate INcompatible outlines'. Or?

There is no typo, but I agree that this sentence is strange. There are 2
ways to blend outlines: interpolate point positions if number of points is
the same and poins have the same meaning (corner, extreme and so on) and
perform a true blend which will insert points to match outlines of any
shape. If this checkbox is on, then FL will try to use first method where
possible and in case of success resulting glyph will be colored green.

>[2] When this checkbox is checked and I blend two fonts with compatible
>outlines there's a warning saying: 'Some glyphs have different number of
>contours in first and second fonts. They were not blended.'

It means exactly what it says, there was something like attempt to blend L
and B which is not possible.

>However, when I look at the resulting font all the glyphs are blended but
>some are not green. This happens for instance with two very simple glyphs
in
>my font. What is causing this?

Points may have been inserted in non-green glyphs. Check your font again,
there are some glyphs that are not blended.

>[3] If I blend two compatible composite characters (like a-acute for
>instance): why is the spacing screwed up?

Please, provide more information on this. Are they true composites (with
references to components) or they were decomposed prior to blending? What
exactly means "spacing screwed up"?

Best regards,
Yuri


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Paul van der Laan
         
FontLab  wrote:

>> [1] There's a new checkbox in the Blend Fonts menu: 'Do not interpolate
>> compatible outlines'. Surely there's a typo here and should read 'Do not
>> interpolate INcompatible outlines'. Or?
> There is no typo, but I agree that this sentence is strange. There are 2
> ways to blend outlines: interpolate point positions if number of points is
> the same and poins have the same meaning (corner, extreme and so on) and
> perform a true blend which will insert points to match outlines of any
> shape. If this checkbox is on, then FL will try to use first method where
> possible and in case of success resulting glyph will be colored green.
Thanks you Yuri, this explains a lot to me. I never knew there was a
difference between blending and interpolation.
But - forgive me - I still don't understand. If you specify 'Do not
interpolate compatible outlines', you actually say: 'always blend compatible
outlines'. That's exactly the opposite of what you wrote.
Why not have a checkbox saying 'Insert points to force blend' to make things
clear?

>> [2] When this checkbox is checked and I blend two fonts with compatible
>> outlines there's a warning saying: 'Some glyphs have different number of
>> contours in first and second fonts. They were not blended.'
> It means exactly what it says, there was something like attempt to blend L
> and B which is not possible.
I checked and checked but couldn't find anything wrong.
The strange thing is that the blended font contains the exact same number of
glyphs as my two original masters. I can't see what went wrong and judging
by the amount of glyphs that were successfully blended I get the impression
nothing is wrong, but still FL gives me a warning. Perhaps an idea to have
FL to mark them red? Or just a log file (like Fog4) would do.
 
>> However, when I look at the resulting font all the glyphs are blended but
>> some are not green. This happens for instance with two very simple glyphs in
>> my font. What is causing this?
> Points may have been inserted in non-green glyphs. Check your font again,
> there are some glyphs that are not blended.
It doesn't make sense: I try to blend two different zeroes for instance,
both with exactly the same amount of points at exactly the same place. They
interpolate perfectly in Fog, but FL does not mark it green after
interpolation.
 
>> [3] If I blend two compatible composite characters (like a-acute for
>> instance): why is the spacing screwed up?
> Please, provide more information on this. Are they true composites (with
> references to components) or they were decomposed prior to blending? What
> exactly means "spacing screwed up"?
I'm sorry. I meant I have two versions of a-acute. Both are true composites
in the sense that they reference to glyph 'a' and 'acute' in their
respective fonts. The blended result in FL is not marked green and has a
width of 0 units, whereas it should be 519 units (like Fog is doing).

Contact me personally if you need sample files, Yuri.


Thanks,

-Paul



         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Yuri
         
>Why not have a checkbox saying 'Insert points to force blend' to make
things
clear?

I think we will change it in the next update.

>I checked and checked but couldn't find anything wrong.
>The strange thing is that the blended font contains the exact same number
of
>glyphs as my two original masters. I can't see what went wrong and judging
>by the amount of glyphs that were successfully blended I get the impression
>nothing is wrong, but still FL gives me a warning. Perhaps an idea to have
>FL to mark them red? Or just a log file (like Fog4) would do.

The problem glyphs may get the small mask icon in the Font window, but it
will happen only if you are making the MM font as a result of the blend
function. If you statically blending fonts, there is no easy way to find
problem glyphs. You are right, making them with red is a good idea and we
will do that in the next update.

>It doesn't make sense: I try to blend two different zeroes for instance,
>both with exactly the same amount of points at exactly the same place. They
>interpolate perfectly in Fog, but FL does not mark it green after
>interpolation.

Probably FontLab doesn't think that they are compatible. You may send me
sample font with these two zeroes and I will check what's happening there.

>I'm sorry. I meant I have two versions of a-acute. Both are true composites
>in the sense that they reference to glyph 'a' and 'acute' in their
>respective fonts. The blended result in FL is not marked green and has a
>width of 0 units, whereas it should be 519 units (like Fog is doing).

Must be a bug somewhere. Are you making MM font or it is a static blend?

Best regards,
Yuri
yar[at]fontlab[dot]com


         

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- News and announcements ----------------------------- => Announcements from the forum’s moderators => News from the font industry ----------------------------- Type design and font technology ----------------------------- => Principles of type design => OpenType Layout feature development => Hinting => Font Formats and OpenType => Web font embedding => Font licensing ===> Electronic EULA Abstract (EEULAA) ----------------------------- Education and collaboration ----------------------------- => Work: Offers => Work: Looking for => Education: Offers => Education: Looking for => Typographic Events and Conferences ----------------------------- FontLab products ----------------------------- => News from FontLab => FontLab Studio ===> FontLab Studio Problems ===> FontLab Studio Tips and Tricks ===> FontLab Studio Wish List ===> FontLab Studio Public Preview => Fontographer ===> Fontographer Problems ===> Fontographer Wish List => TypeTool => AsiaFont Studio => TransType => ScanFont => SigMaker => Other Products ----------------------------- Photofont products ----------------------------- => BitFonter => Photofont WebReady => Photofont Start => Photofont ID => Photofont QX => The Photofont technology ----------------------------- Adobe Type products ----------------------------- => Adobe FDK for OpenType (AFDKO) ----------------------------- Apple Font products ----------------------------- => Apple Font Tools ----------------------------- Microsoft Typography products ----------------------------- => Microsoft Font Validator => Microsoft Visual OpenType Layout Tool (VOLT) => Microsoft Web Embedding Fonts Tool (WEFT) => Microsoft Visual TrueType (VTT) ----------------------------- Other products and Python scripting ----------------------------- => Python scripting => FontTools/TTX => Other font-related tools ----------------------------- Special interest groups ----------------------------- => SBL Fonts ===> SBL Hebrew ===> SBL Greek ===> SBL BibLit ----------------------------- FAQ and TechNotes ----------------------------- => OpenType Layout feature development FAQ and TechNotes => Hinting FAQ and TechNotes => Font Formats and OpenType FAQ and TechNotes => Web font embedding FAQ and TechNotes => Font licensing FAQ and TechNotes => FontLab Studio FAQ and TechNotes => Fontographer FAQ and TechNotes => TypeTool FAQ and TechNotes => AsiaFont Studio FAQ and TechNotes => TransType FAQ and TechNotes => ScanFont FAQ and TechNotes => SigMaker FAQ and TechNotes => BitFonter FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont WebReady FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont Start FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont ID FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont QX FAQ and TechNotes ----------------------------- Archive (MSN Groups) ----------------------------- => Archive: Old FontLab forum ===> Archive: FontLab Tips and Tricks ===> Archive: FontLab Bugs and Problems ===> Archive: FontLab Wish List ===> Archive: FontLab Announcements => Archive: Old Microsoft Font Validator group => Archive: Old Microsoft VOLT group => Archive: Old Microsoft VTT group ===> Archive: VTT Downloads ===> Archive: VTT Support ===> Archive: VTT Suggestions => Archive: Old Microsoft WEFT group ===> Archive: WEFT III ===> Archive: EOT for Email => Archive: Old SBL Fonts group ===> Archive: SBL Hebrew ===> Archive: SBL Greek ----------------------------- Various ----------------------------- => fontlab.com — the FontLab website => forum.fontlab.com — this forum => Other Topics