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.

[jaberwok]

I think Adesk see their future as being bound to Micros**t's.
I suppose, also, that it makes sense to left the OS do as much work as possible. From that, it follows that SHX fonts will eventually be dropped completely. Bear in mind that SHX was designed to work with PEN plotters - when was the last time you saw one of them?

Personally, I still use RomanS but I anticipate that the time will come when that is no longer practical. :-(

[bbeck]

Our office is making the move to "TTF" because of our decision to adopt Revit as our production software. I'm now changing some of our load LiSP routines to use "TTF" within AutoCAD to remain consistent. This marks the end of "SHX" for our office.

Brian Beck
CAD Manager
Rainforth Grau Architects

[Jordan Truesdell]

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.).<snip>

Engineer (didn't want to keep you in suspense). And I didn't mean the "pretty" part to be denigrating, though it may have come across that way - Architecture should be pretty. Along with the creativity comes a need to be individual - hence the proliferation of hand-lettered fonts. I guess my view is that your right to be pretty ends where interoperability and readability (and therefore, public safety) begins.

I do a lot of work involving older buildings. Some of the modern buildings will come with CAD files (another thread), and I have gotten some that specified a diagonal strut made of TS8x8x%. Well, there's a pretty big range of strengths that could result from a wall thickness of %, and the only way for me to find out what is in the field is to drive to the facility and dril a hole in the member big enough that I can get a set of calipers in there, then try and have the hole repaired. Drilling a hole wil result in a stress concentration - up to a 3.0 factor in stress increase - which could result in the member failing under its design load. That's potentially a couple thousand dollars worth of work because a font didn't get transmitted.

The key here is that fonts aren't embedded in the CAD file, so they can get lost. I'm not really keen on keeping tabs on everyone elses fonts, and having to make sure they're transferred to every system that needs them. More importantly, we as designers can't guarantee that digital files we send will be kept together and transferred to the next professional. While that may not be a big deal for the architectural representation, it is a big deal for the structural drawings.

A question that I have for those of you working with TTF: are you using the fonts which come with a vanilla install of windows (arial, courier, times new roman), or are you using custom or third party (bitstream) fonts?

Brian - what is it about Revit that made you move to TTF, or is it just a convenient changeover point?

[teiarch]

Jordan: Thanks for the reply. Apparently something didn't get transmitted to me because the reference to the TS member said "TS8x8x%". Maybe the problem of communication isn't confined to Autocad?

BTW: I assumed maybe engineer and refrained from using my standard engineer joke which goes:

"How do you scare and engineer?"

"Begin any question with the phrase: "What if....?"

IMO, "pretty" is not a good term for architectural drawings and it doesn't apply to mine which I consider "practical". Frankly, I am suspect of "pretty" drawings myself. The only way to cure this is to require the author of "pretty" drawings to build something from them and we all know THAT'S not going to happen!

The question of custom fonts will NOT go away. My continuing point is that Autodesk makes little if any effort to upgrade their shx fonts even though I've tried to offer my expanded versions. If they're intending to drop SHX fonts altogether in the future, why don't they just say it NOW? (It's a future "upgrade" selling point???)

Unless someone comes up with a new format that's less resource intensive, TTF fonts will present their own set of problems.

[Jordan Truesdell]

Jordan: Thanks for the reply. Apparently something didn't get transmitted to me because the reference to the TS member said "TS8x8x%". Maybe the problem of communication isn't confined to Autocad?


That's exactly the point. It should have been listed as TS8x8x1/4 or TS8x8x3/8, but instead of a thickness, I got a % sign because somebody used a font that wasn't standard, and the font files had been lost by the facility. I started with a custom font, too. Data entry was snazzy - just use %%2XX for a fraction character, where the XX was a number from 1 to 15, representing the number of sixteenths of an inch. So %%204 showed up in DText as 1/4 (stacked, of course). I realize the danger of this when I sent a DWG file to a client (architect) and on the final plotted drawings, there was a ?"x4" expasion anchor on the drawings. I sent the font file, but they forgot to put it into the fonts directory, so the 1/2" anchor that was necessary was now up for interpretation. That got corrected, but its a simple item which could have easily not gotten caught before the drawings went out into the field.

It took a bit of work and personal re-training to use mtext objects and the autostack function, but it's one less thing to worry about. I have zero professional liability claims for my company, yet my E&O insurance premiums are in excess of 12% of my gross revenue. Uncle Sam is the only out of house "vendor" who gets more of my revenue stream. I don't need my E&O to be an issue.

BTW - I liked the engineer joke. There's nothing you can throw at me that I can't support, as long as I can use my US Skyhook catalog to solve the problem. Their current line of unobtanium alloy beam stiffeners are a real project saver.

[bbeck]

Brian - what is it about Revit that made you move to TTF, or is it just a convenient changeover point?

TTF is the native text format for Revit. In fact, this is no other option within Revit at this time.

Brian Beck
CAD Manager
Rainforth Grau Architects

[aaronrumple]

I have some WordPerfect Laser Font cartridges... Want those? ;-) How about some AutoCAD DOS drivers for your plotter?

Technology changes. Move on.

[bbeck]

I have some WordPerfect Laser Font cartridges...


HAH! man the good ol' days of font cartridges, what a nightmare that was from a network perspective.

Brian Beck
CAD Manager
Rainforth Grau Architects

[teiarch]

Aaron: Pretty snippy for someone from the midwest; must be a transplant.... The time will come when someone applies that comment as an excuse to lay you off. Then it won't be so germain. Technology (or lack of it) is what fuels the consumer computer market and keeps the software vendors hopping. It also contributes to the problem of what to do with "old" computers no one wants any more. Vance Packard predicted this year ago: it's called planned obsolesence.

Jordan T. Glad you liked the joke. My wife is a "glass half full" type; I'm the opposite. Best line I've seen lately is: "Some people will say the glass is half full; others will say it's half empty. An engineer would say that the container is twice as big as it needs to be.!"

Getting back to Mtext....my theory about Mtext is that it was created out of necessity because of the chaos of character locations before the advent of UNICODE. Before Autodesk decided to adopt UNICODE/UNIFONT text formatting, everyone who created a font sorta stuck characters where they felt it would be convenient. There were no standards until UNICODE started organizing things. Actually, Romans has had 1/4 and 1/2 fraction symbols for some time (like 1993) but no one bothered explaining where they were or how to use them.

Mtext in version 06 is catching up on UNICODE character locations with their symbols insertion feature. The fact that you use the autostack feature in Mtext is semi-foolproof but the some one will complain (as they already have) that stacked fractions aren't the way THEY would like to have them. Point is that no matter what is done, someone ain't gonna like it. Myself, I seldom if ever use Mtext because my lack of skill with it makes it cumbersome and unpredictable (for me) to use. (Readers need not respond this comment; I've read most of the rationale. It's my perogative NOT to like Mtext!).

The ROMANS7 font, a revision of Autocad's Romans font that I've expanded on, is a good example of what could be done if Autodesk would simply make it their native font but they choose not to for reasons unknown. Download and try it or Simplex61 from CADDEPOT.COM. Both are better, more efficiently coded fonts than the ones Autodesk sends out.

Cheers.......

[aaronrumple]

Aaron: Pretty snippy for someone from the midwest; must be a transplant.... The time will come when someone applies that comment as an excuse to lay you off.

Gee - at least one person can catch a joke.

Now on the technical side of AutoCAD, I've done benchmarks of Mtext and SHX for several versions of AutoCAD now. Regen times for each were virtually identical in 2004. (I use large blocks of text from books on Project Gutenberg to get appropriate randomized words..) AutoCAD simplex shx takes twice as long to regen in 2007 as the same text composed in a courier or arial TTF.

I have no doubt that Autodesk could expend resources optimizing and developing SHX. But why? They aren't the one's that made SHX obsolete. We - the market - did. We demanded to be able to use the same font in our drawings as we used in our word processor. We wanted to be able to scale fonts when printing at any size without loss of resolution. Autodesk didn't come up with a better SHX - so they had to adopt someone else's technology.

There are plenty of true CAD issues for Autodesk to spend our license fees on. I wish they would dump some of the older technology in AutoCAD. They wouldn't then have to spend development time and resources which could be spent in other areas.


...and yes, all the time I spent working in Word Perfect, I kept thinking, "There has to be a better way to do this font thing...."

[Jordan Truesdell]

The last time I tried to use Arial TTF, the results of MTEXT were not wysiwyg between the editor and the appled text. Have they fixed that yet?

I'm not sure about the font speeds. AutoCAD 2006 is just slow as dog doo in winter on my machine with most of the "new" features enabled. I'm trying it again just to see if maybe it was me, but even with the hardware accelleration there's a noticable lag in performance. (FWIW, I'm using a Mobile P-M with a 2.8GHz equiv. speed, 2GB of ram/no swap, and a 256MB nVidia 1400go PCI-E 16x). It seems like TTFs are/were slower to regen, but even Romans is a dog, especially with general notes that run for 22 column inches.

Is 2007 making TTF faster, or have they added some do/while loops in the embeded fonts to try and force people to switch. (Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that they must be programming ACAD in BASIC. It's the only way I can imagine that it runs slower on 3GHz machines than Pro/E used to run a decade ago on Pentium Pro/200s).

Sorry if it sounds like I'm whining. Just got finished a big plot, wishing that I knew enough to be more efficient.

BTW - if you're adding content to the glass, it's half full. If you're removing content from the glass, it's half empty. If the glass is just sitting there, you have half a glass. What can I say, I'm truly an engineer.

Oh, and what the heck was wrong with WordPerfect?!? Are you saying you actually like the total lack of formatting control that Word offers? Maybe it will be fixed if they let you turn on the xml code in the 2006 releases. 'Til then, I long for the old word days. (PS - how many people remember sending the Esc-G Esc-E sequence to Epson line printers to get bold and emphasized print for headings?)

[teiarch]

Aaron: I composed lots of slams intended for your direction but then logged out before I sent them.... DUHHHHHH!

Anyway, you can benchmark 'tll the cows come home but it doesn't help. If you have a modestly equipped computer with nominal VRAM and O/S Ram, putting lots of notes on drawings in TTF causes slow regens, jeky panning and larger file sizes.

Folks are reporting that TTF runs faster in v 07 than SHX fonts do. Hmmmm, wonder why? Technology, as you say, can work wonders. It can also be used to skew anything one way or the other. Methinks the Autodesk developers are playing games where TTF will win without really having to compete.

Jordan: Nothing wrong with WordPerfect AFAIK. The only issue was the steep learning curve. Used to be a steep learning curve in Autocad as well but the developers are working furiously on "cadd for the masses" .....

Frankly, I enjoyed having an edge in knowing a lot about WP BUT if you want to sell software, make sure the price is about the same as the low end IQ of the average consumer and you have an instant hit. It took some skill and intuition to run WP and make it do what you wanted. Along comes Word and through the magic of over-the-top marketing to large use customers, it simply overwhelmed WP. The fact that the original family that developed WP took their golden parachute and sold out to Novell a few years back didn't help the cause either. I had to start using Word simply because my clients demanded it.

Having trouble with Arial? Try this SHX look-alike.... It's an example of what SHX fonts could look like with a little attention. :-)

[redraiderr1999]

We have just gone through the whole argument recently. The conclusion was an approach of using .shx fonts in model space (ie..arch fonts) and TTF for Title blocks and Title bars for Clarity and readability, We also had issues with TTF showing "ghost" text showing through model space to paper space. That has all stopped with this approach. There were also memory issues with solid fill TTF if used in abundance. Like a 5 second delay when snapping to objects.
There's my two cents of experience.

Russell
CAD Manger

[teiarch]

Russell: Makes sense; use each font type for its best purpose. SHX fonts (except single stroke) don't do well if text ht. goes beyond about 1/2 inch; TTF is good at any height. The one exception to this is the revised RomanS font I did (Download from CADDEPOT.COM). Since all curved elements in my revised one are either bulge or octant arcs, it will display smooth curves when plotted at any text height. Can't do this with the one Autodesk ships because they really haven't updated it (except to change format to UNICODE and add a few characters) since its inception. Too bad...my revised version of this font has many useful characters added.

[noozybkk]

I'm with John B on this one. I also still use RomanS and RomanD.

I've tried using TTF fonts in every version that they've been available in, and always come back to my beloved SHX files.

I've noticed performance improving down through the years, we still find issues with plotting large drawings with TTF fonts and entities disappearing or being moved out of position or the magenta, cyan and yellow pens not lining up with each other.

All problems we had went away when the ttf fonts were replaced with shx.

My own humble stance therefore is that I will stick with good old shx fonts until they take them away from me.

[teiarch]

Noozybkk: Thanks for the kind words about SHX fonts. I agree with your comments. You should download my revised versions of RomanS and RomanD from CADDEPOT.COM and try them out. I think you might like them better than the ones supplied by Autodesk.

Cheers.....

[noozybkk]

Noozybkk: Thanks for the kind words about SHX fonts. I agree with your comments. You should download my revised versions of RomanS and RomanD from CADDEPOT.COM and try them out. I think you might like them better than the ones supplied by Autodesk.

Cheers.....That sounds like a shameless plug..!!! :P

[r.grandmaison]

Gee - at least one person can catch a joke.

[size=2][color=black]Now on the technical side of AutoCAD, I've done benchmarks of Mtext and SHX for several versions of AutoCAD now. Regen times for each were virtually identical in 2004. (I use large blocks of text from books on Project Gutenberg to get appropriate randomized words..


I think benchmarks based on regen times are pretty useless comparison methods. I've tried TTF's over SHX and, while I'd be happy to migrate over purely to TTFs, the comparison for USER use time is not the same as basic benchmark regens. TTFs behave oddly in AutoCAD for moving, editing, Osnapping, and just about every other opertaion I can think of! They're slower, much slower, than working with SHX when it comes to working within a drawing, not just running benchmark regens.

So, until TTFs can match the speed of SHX within the drawing editor, we'll be sticking with SHX.

Comments anyone?

[noozybkk]

So, until TTFs can match the speed of SHX within the drawing editor, we'll be sticking with SHX.

Comments anyone?I'm with you on this one. I'd forgotten about the osnap thing with ttf fonts. The bizarre way the insertion point snap works.

[teiarch]

Noozybkk: Good on-line acquaintance is webmaster for CADDEPOT.COM which probably has one of the better libraries around as far as variety and extent of content are concerned. Shameless plug? Maybe, but since he has been kind to me ., I return the favor any way I can.

r.grandmaison: Your response falls in the category of "suspicions confirmed". The manner in which you explain how TTFs behave in Autocad is what I've been trying to point out (albeit badly) in this and other forums. Some users are reporting that TTFs in 06 and 07 seem to perform better than SHX fonts. One can tweak the software to prove any point or steer users towards or away from a preference, I suppose. A company that deliberately keeps changing the file format for the sole purpose of making previous versions obsolete has to be a little suspect about its motives for other things as well......

[r.grandmaison]

...A company that deliberately keeps changing the file format for the sole purpose of making previous versions obsolete has to be a little suspect about its motives for other things as well......

WHAT?!? I can't believe someone would actually think the SOLE reason Autodesk may be changing a file format is to make older versions obsolete. It's impossible to advance a program software very far if they're stuck with the library of objects in the dwg database based on old technology and methods. Many releases have been backwards compatible for file format for a release or two, but there comes a time in the DWG format when, if they want to incorporate major changes to how the software works, they have to make changes that make it impossible for older versions to work with. And, I don't really see what any of that has to do with TTF's anyway!

[codejunkie]

No offense to anyone that has commented in this thread, but does this debate really matter?

What difference does the font make to the conveyance of the design? I realise we all want to have nice looking drawings. As long as the necessary information is on the drawing, the look of the chosen font, to me really is immaterial.