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/> .
Message
Re: Hello
2002-10-22 by tsomneevich
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.