Hi Charles,
I'd be willing to try .2mm. Sometimes I think the .4mm looks a bit...
clunky. As long as it's legible, it's good by me :)
I used Arch font for a design once. It looks really good -- not too
fancy. I heard once that Schaeffer can take any fonts you send them.
Anyone else heard of this?
Scott
--- In motmpanels@y..., Charles Stella <scelectronics@e...> wrote:
> Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I am referring to the text height. All
text
> sizes for that matter. I have always used DIN 1451 for text except
for some
> logos where I use a script font which looks awesome. When I say
clearer it
> is more aesthetic than functional. The .4mm looks more "stamped"
for lack of
> a better word. Text appears to run into the next letter more. The
appearance
> is coarser and not as refined. The .2mm is detailed and just looks
better to
> my eye. It does have less of that engraved look though. I still
use .4mm for
> tick marks although lately I have been alternating between the two
per 15
> degree tick. Charles.
>
>
> Welcome Charles,
> > started with the.4mm because that is what Tony's files had. Then
> > I started experimenting with the .2mm tool. It is so much clearer
> > and better looking especially for text in the 2.5 to 4mm range.
> > Anybody else notice this? Charles.
> >
> I never experimented much with the text, so this is interesting.
By "text
> in the 2.5 to 4mm range" are you referring to the Text height in
the Text
> engraving Properties box? Have you looked at fonts other than DIN
1451, 1
> stroke? Is it "clearer" under varying lighting conditions?
> Jeff
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .