Chilvence wrote:Well, first I should explain is that the time spent is not directly proportional to the amount of characters done.
Let's not get picky. I think you know what I meant. Besides, I'm just using the times you gave and it looks like a few hours of work using your figures (assuming a user knows exactly how to do this - which is doubtful).
Interestingly it may be that you are using exactly the sort of stuff I'm suggesting be part of a built-in font package (or something similar)?? Inferred from the way you described how the fonts were made - But I could be wrong
Please no more example by people who know how to do this - anyone with
experience knows how to do this. The point is not that you can do it, the point is that
anyone can do it. Plus any example ignores the fact that you have only created ONE set at ONE size with ONE colormap.
What I'm talking about is almost infinitely flexible (size wise) and infinitely colorable. It would take seconds to alter size, shape, color, etc whereas the "hand" stuff takes that much time (doesn't matter how fast your are) each and every time.
Considering the broad range of filters and tools available in most good packages,
And that is exactly what I'm proposing. A broad range of filters and tools available all
built in so the average person can do this in seconds - without the need for other "tools".
Secondly, I would like to ask why someone who is unskilled in graphic editing would have an intrest in replacing my good friend the doom font with a plain old truetype, if he isn't going to be doing any other graphics to compliment it (:
LOL - that's exactly my point. As to why? It would be like asking why a person replaced a flat and not a "texture". Or why they put a door there instead of a lift. The DOOM font is simply put - not interesting and a bit ugly (IMO of course) and it would be interesting to a modder to just have something different for his level.
Once implemented, custom fonts can all be easily used by rank amateurs for whatever pleasure they get out of doing so.
As you all know, by definition TTF fonts are scalable, any color and easily rotateable without losing crispness (have no idea where the 7 pixel high stuff came from?). Plus character spacing - top/bottom/sides (done totally wrong on the ttf comparison example above) is also variable.
IOW, they can scale according to resolution or whatever with very little programming effort (just some settings in the font def). Basic color is just a setup call. Basic shadowing can just be a simple offset. More advanced mapping/texturing features can just be added as time permits.
And since perhaps only a few have any experience using TTF fonts (outside of simple document use), I suggest any coders look at the MSDN SDK example and see the code for making
3D fonts from any TTF base (any font can be minipulated). The code is ALL THERE. That's ignoring the fabulous coloring and texture mapping that's possible.
And NO, these are not flat-shaded fonts at all. You'd be amazed at what can be done with regular fonts, nevermind the huge inventory of artsy fartsy fonts.
As I already said, the plugins available amply demonstrate the tremendous leverage available by just starting out with TTF as a base. If you don't have any of those plugins, then you can't relate, so look around at least and explore the methods available.
Just do a google search for 3D fonts and you'll find not only stock libraries but also some programs that transform rather plain fonts into something much more interesting.
As to the patent stuff - just read the link Randy gave. This applies mainly to non-windows code which is relevant only in an abstract sense [although I wonder how Open Office get's away with it -- mmmm?]