Would you mind sending me the file? I have a feeling something funny is recently going on with the sources “remembered” by the glyphs (although I haven’t changed that part of the code recently).
Regarding the Tuner shortcut, I noticed that as well. That’s only in Glyphs 3. RMX doesn’t do anything differently there for the Tuner, maybe there is a hard-coded shortcut for Cmd+Shift+T in Glyphs 3 (@GeorgSeifert)?
My problem is on Glyphs 3, sorry, I forgot to mention it. Sent You the file.
Thanks for sending the file. Could you tell me which glyphs you were trying to generate with the Scaler?
the .sc files I did one by one, the .numr happened that problem (this file that I sent you is an old file that I’m working on it to make a new one. The “red” glyphs are old glyphs). I realized that if I delete the vectors, instead of just running Scaler over the old design, it works fine.
First of all, thank you for these terrific tools; they’re vital to my workflow these days.
Second: any word on the new tool to replace Scaler/Monospacer? I’m working on a very large family with 32 masters, hopefully to be launched in September, and I’m wondering whether I can use Monospacer on the tabular glyphs.
Sorry, I can’t promise anything. It might be this summer or autumn.
Are you sure 32 are necessary? I’m somewhat surprised. Glyphs allows for any set-up of masters – I’d try to set up as few masters as possibly, only what is necessary to formulate the design(s). You need only one master more than the number of axes (although in practice, it may be a couple more).
Thanks, Tim. I look forward to the new tool whenever it arrives.
Believe me, I’m trying to do with as few masters as possible. But there will be eight widths from ultra-compressed to ultra-wide and eight weights from hairline to black, and upright, italic, and contra-italic forms of each style. When I use fewer weights, I’m not happy with the results.
Hey Tim! The RMX tools are great and frequently used in my day to day workflow.
I’m just wondering if you are planning to increase the number of masters the RMX Scaler is able to handle? Many of the projects I work on have more than 10 masters, so I have to split the files to use the scaler, which interrupts the workflow and takes quite a long time.
I was just running into the same issue for the umpteenth time. Yes, please! Time has progressed and nowadays projects very often have much more than 10 masters. I find myself having to split files into subfiles just to use RMX and then re-merge them afterwards.
I’m also more than happy to pay for an upgrade/new version, it’s only fair after so many years of RMX doing so much work in all of our projects every day.
This will be supported at some point.
I don’t quite understand why working with more than 10 masters is to be considered progress, though. To me, it doesn’t make sense.
A lot of designs and variable fonts are not possible with such a small amount of masters. The minimum required for three axes already come close.
HOI will undoubtedly fundamentally change our dependency on actually drawn masters, but until then, we often need control over intermediate axis locations, especially in cases with very large axis ranges.
I’d really like to see a design that is not possible with <10 masters. I may well change my mind but I don’t think there are “a lot” of them. And I wonder whether it is a smart decision to work on a design that requires this, and whether the result is worth the effort.
The minimum required number of masters for three axes is four, i.e. dimensions + 1. I am currently re-working and extending JAF Lapture, and this is exactly how I work: Three axes, four masters. Of course, there are designs (and individual glyphs, in my case) that may require a couple more masters but certainly not 2^dimensions.
I am aware that variable fonts have particular (unnecessary) requirements as to the master setup but please let’s not call this “progress”. I’d be surprised if these superfluous masters prescribed by VF couldn’t be synthesized on export. Manually designing redundant masters just to support an obscure technology is not progress in my eyes.
A very basic example. I am currently working on, I assume, a very standard setup.
Three axes: width, weight, italic.
I have three masters on the width axis (which goes from 40% to 130%), two on the weight axis and two on the italic. That makes 3×2×2, which is 12. I don’t see how such a family can be properly designed with less masters. Add an optical size axis and you get 24…
For JAF Lapture, when you speak of four masters across three axes, are you including the italic axis, and thus the italic masters? I find it hard to imagine that such a design is possible with only four masters (including the italic), but maybe I am misunderstanding something. I should note I am talking about an interpolatable italic axis.