U14 part 3

[Mercury13]

Going on, right now… ✅ 045 dashed line → seeds 0FB 0FC no major changes: jagged lines, wrong directions, extrema, short curves to straights etc ✅ 227 228 22E replaced weapons, technical quality ✅❔ 379 to 37B enlarged to the size of 258 (actually drew from scratch) ✅❔ 42F enlarged to the size of 258 ✅ 441 442 just made, widths 1389 and 695 ✅❔ 443 made for test probably good ✅❔ 444 to 446 just made, half width is to match 442, and half height is ½

[Mercury13]

@dwerning, 443 done! Please check it for usability. Going to bed for now

[dwerning]

@Mercury13 I feel your test very good for 443-446.

Moreover, the same spacing will also work for the different topic of overlays (447-477).

[Mercury13]

@dwerning What about tall hash? Should its advance width be ½ of normal hash, or hash width ½? Or both, with shorter hangouts?

[dwerning]

@Mercury13 The hash should have the same resolution/spacing/..... Just cut the full hash as you have it in half. Cf.

Probably a little less than half width but full height. Same for the horizontal half. The quarter shade (alias "half shade") should be a little less then half width/height.

[dwerning]

@Mercury13 Actually, ideally the issue is more complicated.

If, for example, the half shades are going to appear in a vertical group, it may shrink a little. Ideally, the widths of the hash strokes and space between the hash strokes would not shrink, only the size of the rectangle.

Cf. the horizontal hash in two envorinments:

However, this is probably much asked. So for a start, as long as the hieroglyph alignment controls (430-43B) are not implemented, a sign with fixed size would be very helpful.

[dwerning]

BTW: note that the overlays (447-455) are even more complicated since they adapt to the canvas of the signs. The size of it are dependent on the size of the hireoglyph. Nevertheless the width and space of the hases should not shrink. This is why overlay shading is not implemented without programming.

Cf.

[Mercury13]

@dwerning That’s why I wrote “someday”. I understand that it’s complicated, and I just don’t know how to.

[Mercury13]

@dwerning 444 to 446 made somehow, though I doubt how to make 444. Got two alternatives: as I made, and almost dots at the top and bottom, but clear diagonal.

[Mercury13]

@dwerning, At last I made myself do something. Enlarged cartouches to the size of 258.

[Mercury13]

@dwerning 045 now seeds

[Mercury13]

@dwerning 227 228 22E weapons, technical quality

[Mercury13]

@dwerning Are you here?

[dwerning]

@Mercury13

• Size of cartouches: ideally, we would check the appearance in a ttf/otf version of the font
• 443-446 look good to me; ideally, we would check the appearance in a ttf/otf version of the font
• 045: nice
• 227, 228, 22E: great

[Mercury13]

@simoncozens Review 0FB 0FC, and merge?

[simoncozens]

Yes, thanks again for this contribution - would like to hear feedback on 0FB/0FC and then happy to merge.

[Mercury13]

@simoncozens 0FB/FC technical changes only, no changes into general look. Extrema, line’s butt visible where it shouldn’t be, very short curve to line, contour’s direction etc.

[Mercury13]

@simoncozens Here’re 0FB’s differences (top layer is translucent, and bottom one is visible below → so green fringe everywhere) Sorry for strange Paint.NET + FireFox interaction, I know the exact cause and talked to both.

[Mercury13]

@simoncozens 0FB fixed back/butt junction, I’ve just noticed: too thick line, cusp node instead of smooth 0FC OK here, other topology

[Mercury13]

@simoncozens That’s why I called you rather that Werning — I did technical changes only to baboons. Neither conceptual nor even artistic, just minor technical improvements. No need to ask approval from Egyptologist.

[simoncozens]

No problem, I will build and check.

[simoncozens]

LGTM, will merge. Thank you very much again for all your effort!