TexturePacker and FontMachine

Monkey Forums/Monkey Programming/TexturePacker and FontMachine

ziggy(Posted 2013) [#1]
Is there any interest to modify the fontmachine module in order to allow packaging of fonts glipths to be done using TexturePacker? this could bring a much much better optimized fonts, but it would require me to add a third font format. And this to be useful would require people to have a TexturePacker license... ?

I have no plans of replacing current system with one requiring TexturePacker. The idea is to add (additionally) a way to pack the fonts using the wonderfully optimized texturepacker in addition to current system.

This could be a very big extra. I'm just wondering how many FontMachine users do have a TexturePacker license just to get an idea if it is worth it or not.


muddy_shoes(Posted 2013) [#2]
I use fontmachine and texturepacker but I can't say that combining them in code is a priority for me. Things that come to mind are:

1. Can the fontmachine tool be altered to remember previously used font files? Right now it's a real pain to track down the font files.
2. Can fontmachine work on the command line to provide a font to given dpi/pixel height requirements? this would make it scriptable for cross-platform dev.
3. If the above are problematic, can you open source the editor?

Thanks for the tool and library even if you don't want to make changes.


ziggy(Posted 2013) [#3]
@muddy_shoes:
Can the fontmachine tool be altered to remember previously used font files? Right now it's a real pain to track down the font files.

Yes, will add this-

Can fontmachine work on the command line to provide a font to given dpi/pixel height requirements? this would make it scriptable for cross-platform dev.
It can't but it would not be too complicated to do.

If the above are problematic, can you open source the editor?
I won't open source it as it is one of the selling points of Jungle Ide, but I could add a source download for Jungle Ide license holders, so any user can make changes and help provide improvements. sort of the same approach Mark has done with the mojo modules. I'll think a bit more about it. The editor code is a real mess, but I think I could tidy it up a little and allow users to have it and help improve it if required.


Skn3(Posted 2013) [#4]
What about building in more efficient texture packing to font machine editor?

I posted this blitzmax code for beaker the other day and it may be of some use?

http://monkeycoder.co.nz/Community/post.php?topic=141&post=47265


muddy_shoes(Posted 2013) [#5]
Making it command-line compatible and/or giving us the source would be great. I'd love to be able to script the font building for specific resolutions/targets.


Paul - Taiphoz(Posted 2013) [#6]
I think it would be a good idea, some fonts when adding a glow can fill out a lot of texture space when its really not all required.


secondgear(Posted 2013) [#7]
I use packed FontMachine fonts exclusively, and any change that would lead to more compact textures is welcome. I don't mind getting a TexturePacker license: it is affordable. What the workflow would be like? FontMachine Editor (to create unpacked font glyphs) and then packing them with TexturePacker?


siread(Posted 2013) [#8]
I agree with secondgear. Happy to purchase a license if it improves packing.

I'd also like to an option for FontMachine to "bake" shadows and borders in the render. That would save 2/3 of the texture space for those that want shadows and borders and don't need the option the turn them on/off at runtime.


Tibit(Posted 2013) [#9]
I like this too.