Just out of curiosity, Is there a maximum number of masters you can have in a Glyphs 3 file?
There is no hard limit. But the usability and performance is going down. What number are you thinking about?
I currently have a font with 2 masters (Thin, Black). I can see myself adding two additional axis (oblique, width).
The current two masters I have are somewhere between condensed and wide in terms of width, and they are not slanted/oblique. I will probably need to add oblique counterparts for the two masters I currently have. Moreover, perhaps 4 additional masters for the oblique and Roman versions of the condensed and wide ends of the spectrum.
Maybe 8 total masters.
8 is absolutely no problem. It’s when you start working with 20+ masters that it becomes a bit annoying to handle.
I think I calculated the number of needed masters wrong. I am having difficulty understanding the correct way to extend my file to include more. I am going to take some time to think of the right questions to ask and get back to you (I will likely start a new topic incase other people have the same questions).
For now, I just have one thing I’d like to clarify:
If I understand correctly, all you need is a single Glyphs file in order to export both individual static instances and a variable version of a font, correct?
Yes.
In order to calculate the amount of masters needed (not strictly, technically speaking, but in best practice): use your axes as a coordinate system. In the case of three axes, that means three dimensions. Each corner of your coordinate system needs a master.
Or, if this makes it easier: for every axis location (pole), you need a master for each location of every other axis.
(0,0,0)
(1,0,0)
(0,1,0)
(0,0,1)
(1,1,0)
(1,0,1)
(0,1,1)
(1,1,1)
1 Like
If it makes it even easier, a three-dimensional system with axes for weight, slant and width can be easily illustrated as a cube graph, like this (with the numbers mentioned by @SCarewe in colours to show the individual axes):
Im still not sure I understand what I’m looking at. Does every gray dot represent a master?
Yes, exactly. As Sebastian said, you need a master at either end of each axis, so you’ll need the eight masters plotted out there (using thin/bold, upright/slanted and narrow/wide to represent the extremes of each axis):
Thin upright narrow
Thin upright wide
Thin slanted narrow
Thin slanted wide
Bold upright narrow
Bold upright wide
Bold slanted narrow
Bold slanted wide
Once you have all those – and your masters are all compatible for interpolation – you can export all the static instances you want as well as a single variable version that will cover all of it.
I think I understand. I am visualizing it a bit differently in my head (please tell me if what I came up with on my own below is wrong). Sebastian said that, “for every axis location (pole), you need a master for each location of every other axis.” In the case of a font family width a weight, width, and oblique axis, you’d have the following structure:
Condensed Masters:
Condensed Thin (Master #1) → Condensed Black (Master #2)
Condensed Oblique Thin (Master #3) → Condensed Oblique Black (Master #4)
Wide Masters:
Wide Thin (Master #5) → Wide Black (Master #6)
Wide Oblique Thin (Master #7) → Wide Oblique Black (Master #8)
Your result is correct, that list of masters is what you need.
Remember that if you find you need to add a Condensed Regular master, you’ll need to replicate that weight axis location (wght=“Regular”) for all other axes. So you’d need the additional masters Condensed Regular Oblique, Wide Regular and Wide Regular Oblique.
Got it. My font family only has 2 masters at this time (thin, black). They are not oblique and are somewhere between condensed and wide in terms of width (let’s call them regular). According to what you said, I’d need to create 2 more regular-width masters on top of the other 8 in the diagram (thin oblique, black oblique). Is this correct?
Yes, correct.