TTF vs .shx

[gadjet]

Our office is using V 2004, but will be upgrading to 2006 very soon. We are changing some of our standards and the debate is hot over what font we should use. The research I've done so far is confusing, with some saying true type fonts will slow AutoCAD down (especially in mtext), and others saying it's the only way to go, (especially in mtext)! So what's the answer, is this an issue that is not really an issue since the v 2000? Or do we need to choose only .shx fonts or only TTFs??

[Maverick91]

Our office is using V 2004, but will be upgrading to 2006 very soon. We are changing some of our standards and the debate is hot over what font we should use. The research I've done so far is confusing, with some saying true type fonts will slow AutoCAD down (especially in mtext), and others saying it's the only way to go, (especially in mtext)! So what's the answer, is this an issue that is not really an issue since the v 2000? Or do we need to choose only .shx fonts or only TTFs??

How often do you send your dwgs out of your office to someone else? It would be beneficial to the outsiders to keep to the more common fonts, either Windows fonts or ACAD fonts.

[cadkiller]

The display of the fonts may be an issue.
SHX fonts are better than TTF when it comes to legibility on your display.

I used to notice performance issues in previous versions; but not anymore.

I had a poll recently and got mixed results.

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=34163

[aaronrumple]

Our office is using V 2004, but will be upgrading to 2006 very soon. We are changing some of our standards and the debate is hot over what font we should use. The research I've done so far is confusing, with some saying true type fonts will slow AutoCAD down (especially in mtext), and others saying it's the only way to go, (especially in mtext)! So what's the answer, is this an issue that is not really an issue since the v 2000? Or do we need to choose only .shx fonts or only TTFs??

SHX is dead technology.

I benchmarked TTF's when 2004 was released. Performance of TTF was slightly better by a fraction of a second than SHX. R14 was pokey.

[gadjet]

Thanks for the input! Anyone have info on which text mtext prefers? I've read that mtext uses only .shx and makes proxy text if a ttf is used (as I understand it this is why regens are supposedly slower)...then I read the exact opposite!

[jimmy.bergmark]

mtext uses TTF and SHX proxys.
I recommend TTF. Looks better on screen and plotted. PDF's are smaller if created with TTF text converted to text. Don't bother about lineweight on the text. Etc.

[sgoodmansen]

TTF looks better when plotted, however sometimes while zooming in and out in the drawing the TTF looks odd on the screen. Sometimes one set of MTEXT will look bold even though it is identical in style and color to mtext next to it. zooming in and out with a lot of TTF mtext can be confusing to users until they realize that just because it looks different at that zoom level, it isn't.


I like TTF better, however we are having the argument in the office which way to go. So far its an even split.

Steve

[teiarch]

Better to come in late than never.

I prefer SHX fonts from the standpoint of the drain (or lack of it) on resources. Not everyone has scads of VRAM (which is the solution to using TTF fonts) and I don't believe using TTF fonts is the rationale for having to "upgrade".

I will not argue that generally, TTF fonts look better and plot better, especially at larger text heights BUT there are workarounds for this.

The issue IMO is the poor quality and inefficient programming associated with most SHX fonts. This issue is further exacerbated by Autodesk's lack of concern about improving their SHX "native" fonts. RomanS is NOT written as efficiently as it could be and the definition for one character added in 06, "Initial Value", located at h0E200, is NOT correct.

I have written improved versions for Romans, RomanD and Simplex and have tried to get Autodesk to look at them but without success.

I have created SHX versions of Arial look-alikes and other fonts which could resolve many display performance issues if used. It seems like Autodesk is "pushing" TTF by not upgrading their SHX fonts. IMO SHX fonts have taken a bad rap.

[Jordan Truesdell]

I use the romans shx exclusively. After sending and receiving drawings that turned out to be illegible due to missing fonts on other computers (both TTF and SHX), I decided that Mtext using fraction stacking was the only way to go. My logo has a non-standard TTF font (three, techncially), so I converted to vector and solid hatched them.

Also, I have had problems with TTF not being WYSIWYG in the MTEXT editor. Since drawings are all about the proper presentation of information, that is not accepetable.

Essentially, I am willing to live with a little less flair so that the content is accurate. IOW, I'm not an architect, so I don't get paid for pretty - I get paid for "it doesn't fall down if you build it like I drew it"

[teiarch]

J.T.: First of all, your comment about architects sounds like it comes from an engineer or perhaps a senior experienced cad drafter. To paraphrase a Pink Floyd song: "...We don't need no REGISTRATION...." I get paid for pretty AND I INSIST they build it the way I draw it.

You comments about TTF vs. SHX are appreciated. The issue of missing fonts in drawing exchange is easily solved if one simply sends fonts along with the drawings. It's done all the time and has nothing to do with Autocad "native" fonts (except if you use one, opening it on another computer makes text display predictable.).

The point I was trying to make is that there are good shx fonts out there. I have created a few of them. What I can't understand is WHY Autodesk will NOT put out more efficiently coded an expanded versions of their "native" fonts. It's like they don't care.

I hope someone on this site can offer some rationale for this.