Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

kenmcd

Members
  • Posts

    1,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,760 profile views
  1. Do not install both OTF and TTF versions of the same fonts - this will cause conflicts in Affinity applications. Seeing "9 option" is the result of having multiple versions installed. "I installed just 5 font types" does not make sense. Google fonts only has three styles for their OFL version (TTF). Adobe fonts has four styles for their commercial version (OTF). Fonts from other places may be broken. For example the four OTF fonts from Font Squirrel have broken names (with name conflicts), the vertical metrics need to be fixed, and the four fonts do not all have the same character set. And they have virtually no kerning at all (12 pairs). Do not use Oxygen fonts from font download sites. Often when multiple versions are installed and causing conflicts, Affinity applications will sometimes show nothing. Not sure what the first two images are supposed to show, but the third image which looks like characters on top of each other is often caused by installing multiple versions of the same fonts, or without un-installing the old versions first (and making sure the files are gone), and ending up with multiple versions of the font files in the Fonts directories. Un-install all the fonts, then check both the Windows Fonts folder and your User Fonts folder, and delete any Oxygen font file leftovers. Then install one version of the fonts (which is not broken). I do not have the Adobe Fonts version - so I have not checked it. The Google Fonts version is fine.
  2. You have the perfect storm of fonts with difficult naming issues. The Arial Narrow family from the Windows version of MS Office has "Arial" as the Typographic Family, but has "Arial Narrow" as the Font Family (style group). For font "best practices" these should be the same. This may be confusing the Affinity font matching. The name you see in your dialog image above - e.g "ArialNarrow-BoldItalic" is the PostScript Name. Affinity should be able to match on the PostScript Name, but that does not appear to be what they are doing. The Arial Narrow family from the Mac version of MS Office has "Arial Narrow" as the Typographic Family, and has "Arial Narrow" as the Font Family (style group) also. And the PostScript Names are the same. BUT, they only have Italic and BoldItalic fonts in the style group, and that violates the OpenType specs and common sense. From your image I cannot tell if you have the Windows or Mac fonts as the PostScript Names are the same in both. Again, Affinity should be able to match on the PostScript Name, but that does not appear to be what they are doing. Regarding the Futura PT fonts - the names inside the entire family are basically a font nightmare. Nothing is correct. Amazingly they are still being sold on MyFonts like this. So trying to match based on the family names and styles is quite a mess, and even the other settings such as the weight numbers are also a mess. These issues are probably confusing the Affinity font matching. But, again, Affinity should be able to match on the PostScript Name, but that does not appear to be what they are doing. Do not know why they are not matching on the PostScript Name as that makes the most sense given that is what is normally embedded in the PDF. So unfortunately nothing you can do here. Affinity needs to fix this. Use search/replace to replace the fonts.
  3. Please attach a screenshot of the opening dialog which lists the fonts to replace. That should show the font names embedded in the PDF. Some applications embed the fonts with font names that do not match-up with the PostScript Name (which is usually what is used). Affinity fails to match the names in that case. Do you know what application was used to create the PDF? That is often in the PDF document info.
  4. Odd metrics in that font. The Typo metrics (used by Affinity and many other apps) add up to exactly 1,000. So basically the default line spacing is 100%. The Mac and Win metrics both add up to a little over 150%. Which makes more sense for a handwriting font. So odd settings in that font explains your issue. And as you have found setting a fixed leading is the solution.
  5. No. The default line spacing is determined by the ascender/descender settings inside the font. With a plain-vanilla text font you generally want those to add up to approx. 120%. But decorative fonts can be much more. As @walt.farrellmentions above the descender and ascender are almost touching (not good) and it just looks tight. And what handwriting would be that tight? The font needs some tweaking.
  6. @AlboWhat font is that? The vertical metrics do seem to be too tight.
  7. The Athelas fonts are in a TTC file (a TrueType collection file). So you have to extract the individual TTF files and then rename the fonts (not just the file name). In one of the other threads here in the forum a user gave step-by-step instructions using FontForge. You can also use FontCreator. Easiest is to use FontLab 8 if you have that available.
  8. Athelas is what Apple now calls a "Document-support" font. Fonts included with macOS Ventura https://support.apple.com/en-asia/HT213266 "These fonts are available only to documents that already use the font, or to apps that request the font by name. Some are older fonts that were included with earlier versions of macOS or Apple apps." It appears this is not working in Affinity applications. Search this forum for "Athelas" to see other discussions. The only work-around I am aware of is to rename the fonts. The commercial version is named differently so that will also work.
  9. From an old post by Moderator SeanP: "There is a known issue that PostScript fonts are not displaying in the Glyph Browser ..."
  10. This is quite odd. In the Std and Pro newer versions of this font the Light is in a style group with the Bold, but it does not display like this in the Glyph Browser. Is this an old Type 1 font? Do any of the Univers fonts appear in the Glyph Browser? IIRC with Type 1 fonts the glyphs do not appear. What version is this Univers font family? Univers LT Std v1.029 family and styles do not display like this in the Glyph Browser. And the glyphs show fine. Regarding Photina MT - not sure what issue your image is supposed to show. Photina MT may be really old conversion fonts (and may be badly configured). The newer OTF releases are named Photina MT Std and Pro.
  11. IIRC Minion Pro has a way of handling fractions which enables the user to just type, but it requires a particular sequence of characters. IIRC the OpenType fractions feature does not just use the usual ligatures substitutions, but it also uses contextual alternates (so the fraction is triggered by the following space or punctuation). Never did find any documentation of how it is supposed to work. A few other Adobe fonts work the same way. So you may be able type a 1, then a ZWS or hairspace, and then 3/16, and then space (and the text style has Fractions On by default). Then you can align that text as you wish. On my phone at the moment so I cannot look inside the font or test (can look later today).
  12. The versions you have were probably found thru a web search - and most of those are broken with name conflicts like this. There are no "HelveticaNeue" (no space) official fonts. The macOS Helvetica Neue is also broken. It may work in Apple applications and most of Adopey apps, but it will never work properly in Word, LibreOffice, and apps like Affinity. Apple did this on purpose to prevent others from using their fonts. Helvetica Neue LT Std (which is easy to find as it is in the old Adobe Font Folio 11) has a different family name so there will be no name conflicts like you have now. Same with Helvetica Neue LT Pro. BUT, both of those font families are configured with multiple R/I/B/BI style groups (2), and Affinity apps do not handle multiple R/I/B/BI style groups well. The fonts may or may not work properly. They may appear to work and then you may have the wrong font(s) get embedded in a PDF. One thing is for sure is you need to get rid of the broken non-macOS Helvetica fonts. They will continue to cause problems. The Std or Pro or WG1 versions have different family names which will not conflict with the macOS versions. So they may work for you. If you have something like TransType, you can rename the fonts to work properly (if you know what you are doing). You may want to consider Helvetica Now. Being a much more modern font family it does not have the old numbered font naming issues, or the R/I/B/BI style groups naming issues. Or consider changing to one of the many free or less expensive options available now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.