Hi,
I was wondering if there is a tool/feature in glyphs that can blend fonts with each other like the „Blend Fonts“- feature in FontLab Studio 5. In FontLab Studio 5 you can just open two font files and blend them, even if outlines are not compatible. E.g. blending Arial with Times New Roman or Gill Sans with Helvetica, etc.
Thanks in advance 
Screenshot from the FontLab Studio manual for reference:
You’d have to make them compatible first.
Yes, making the fonts compatible is the problem. FontLab Studio 5 can blend fonts even if they are not compatible.
If the blue box is unchecked here, it just adds missing nodes.
I just figured out that FontLab 8 has a feature that is called “Match Masters”. This feature creates additional anchor points for each glyph to make them compatible.
This is how it looks when I match the “a” of Helvetica and Times New Roman:
It’s a bit messy but both glyphs have 93 nodes and are fully compatible. The interpolation of course would look a bit weird since I matched a sans and a serif.
I think it’s very similar to what FontLab Studio 5 is doing with the “Blend Fonts” feature.
Is there something similar in GlyphsApp? It would be super cool if Glyphs would have a feature like this too Or is there a script or something that can do that?
Should this way of making ‘new’ fonts still be a thing in the ’20s? The result is going to be mediocre for the most part, and you are modifying two legally protected fonts. I think this method feels old and questionable (both legally and ethically), and should be discouraged.
The philosophical question aside, I think the process of making compatible outlines can always be improved. I personally want to see improvement in Correct Path Direction function (better ordering of shapes, better matching of start nodes).
Hi Tosche,
blending Helvetica and Times New Roman was just an example to illustrate the feature. I didn’t want to start a debate about legality or good outlines.
I just thought it would be a cool if Glyphs would have a feature like that 
This discussion is becoming repetitive and the initial question has been answered. I’m closing the thread.
