New Font Collection in .affont format

We get sucked into the Affinity system. Than pay, pay, pay….

But only what you need or want to use.
With Adobe you and everybody is paying for their shit.

Quote from DarkClown

why the font addition (Fontsmith Collection) is supplied in the proprietary .affont format?

Because this is part of the Monotype deal why you get a font collection worth $1000 for free.

Quote from DarkClown

You can't use the fonts in any other program

You can buy the fonts you need directly from Monotype in any standard format.

Quote from DarkClown

I can only see disadvantages

You're also free to simply ignore this generous gift.

Quote from DarkClown

Just asked myself why would you introduce a new font-format at the first place anyhow?

Hm… let me guess…

Because it enables Serif/Affinity/Canva to offer fonts for free which would otherwise cost thousands of dollars…?

Just my half-educated guess, of course.

Quote from DarkClown

you can't convert the fonts

Actually, technically you could if you desperately want to, but you'll have to do some actual work yourself while also likely breaking the license agreement:

1. type all characters in Affinity
2. convert to curves
3. export to individual files or copy/paste…
4. … into the font editor of your choice (e.g. I still have TypeTool installed which is a bit dated and runs only in a Windows wrapper on my new Mac but it would still do the job)
5. export as ttf

Quote from loukash

technically you could if you desperately want to, but you'll have to do some actual work yourself while also likely breaking the license agreement

There’s no “likely” about it, as far as I can see.

And everybody knows what happens with personal licenses.
Load the otf or ttf in say typetool>change its name and use it for free.

Quote from loukash

Actually, technically you could if you desperately want to, but you'll have to do some actual work yourself while also likely breaking the license agreement:

1. type all characters in Affinity
2. convert to curves
3. export to individual files or copy/paste…
4. … into the font editor of your choice (e.g. I still have TypeTool installed which is a bit dated and runs only in a Windows wrapper on my new Mac but it would still do the job)
5. […]

When you're there you're only halfway of the work.
The longest and most requiring part of a font creation is to decide and set how each character will combine with others. — Remember the time and precision required to position adequately Letraset/Decadry letters (and in that case you had only to consider one combination at the time ; when creating a font, you have to manage any possible combination, for many languages).

And after that, you also have to set how these characters will render when they're rasterised for output as display or print (hinting))

The question, of course, is why anyone would be so desperate to use these particular fonts – there are plenty of free fonts available, if that's what you need. I really can't see why there is a problem with a company giving a free gift that can only be used in their own software and not in their rivals software.

Regardless of the previous discussion, the fonts are not stored on the storage medium, but in RAM. Only the names of the activated fonts are stored in the CS file. If you remove the link to Serif.ID, the fonts will no longer appear in the font list.

When transferred as a package, Fontsmith fonts are not included in the package. On another system without the Fontsmith fonts, these fonts are displayed as missing when the package is opened in Affinity Studio.

Quote from loukash

but you'll have to do some actual work yourself

A LOT of work.

Bravo, loukash!

Quote from Oufti

The longest and most requiring part of a font creation

Well, there's certainly a reason why many fonts cost… money.

Yes, the amount of work involved in font design is a lot, but it can be very lucrative if you design a really innovative typeface. Especially if it has opentype features and is a variable font.

i designed mine previously in Illustrator and CorelDraw (now I do it in Affinity), then export or copy and paste the glyphs into FontLab.

It's a lot of fun, but a ■■■■load of work...

Quote from DelN

Yes, the amount of work involved in font design is a lot, but it can be very lucrative if you design a really innovative typeface. Especially if it has opentype features and is a variable font.

Is it reasonable to describe a typeface as “really innovative” if it doesn’t have any OpenType features?

Variable fonts are widely regarded as a must-have nowadays, but I think there are very many static fonts that haven’t outlived their usefulness.

Quote from Alfred

Is it reasonable to describe a typeface as “really innovative” if it doesn’t have any OpenType features?

No, there are some exquisite 'static' typefaces. I have many... It's just that many designers look for them these days...

Quote from DelN

there are some exquisite 'static' typefaces

There are indeed some (I would say many!) exquisite typefaces whose fonts are not only static rather than variable but also don’t include any OpenType features, but I venture to suggest that they tend not to qualify as ‘innovative’. It’s no doubt all in the eyes of the beholder, or perhaps that should be ‘the B holder’.

Quote from Alfred

all in the eyes of the beholder

It sure is, Alfred. My favourites at the moment are 'Kafka' and 'Briar' fonts from http://www.barrettrm.com...

Those are both fantastic, Del, but I’m confused again! I thought you were arguing in favour of static fonts rather variable ones.

Timeless classics...

Quote from Alfred

Those are both fantastic, Del, but I’m confused again! I thought you were arguing in favour of static fonts rather variable ones

I love them both, Alfred. Beauty, whether old or new, is still beauty. Marlene Dietrich, Lauren Bacall, Ayra Starr, Jada Kingdom... Elegant and beautiful...