Throw out Romans.shx and use Arial

[Blam]

What would be the pros and cons associated with changing out our standard font of Roman.shx to Arial.

 

- From what I hear, Revit drawings don't use shape files and do not do translate well with Revit. Is this correct?

- Is it easier to make a searchable PDF or DWF with a true type font?

 

Are there any other advantages or stumbling blocks?

[ReMark]

The best way to answer your question is to actually test it. Create a drawing (or use an existing one) and populate it with text using the Roman.shx font. Do a "save as", to a slightly different name, then change the font to Arial. Now print it. Then create a PDF file and print that. Send a copy of both files to a friend and have him do the same. Any problems? Yes or No?

 

You may also want to test whether printing the drawing at half scale makes it difficult to read. Do letters fill in?

[tzframpton]

What would be the pros and cons associated with changing out our standard font of Roman.shx to Arial.

To each his own on this. Pros (for me) is that Arial is a clean font, and TTF Fonts don't get overridden by the CTB/STB file. Cons are (for others, I've never encountered this) that TTF's "act up" in AutoCAD. Never had it happen to me, but lots of people claim it. Still, I've been using Arial, Arial Narrow and Arial Black for well over six years now without issues.

- From what I hear, Revit drawings don't use shape files and do not do translate well with Revit. Is this correct?

1,000% correct. Arial only with Revit if you want to make your life as easy as possible.

- Is it easier to make a searchable PDF or DWF with a true type font?

Yes. Arial is searchable and shaped font files are not (to the extent of my knowledge).

Are there any other advantages or stumbling blocks?

I've pretty much summed it up but others may have some bits to include. Go Arial. Drawings look clean and updated.

 

[Blam]

Sound like a no brainer.

Here are all of the advantages I see - just to list them all and think out loud.

- True Type fonts are a must have for Revit. Anyone working with people who use Revit will cause them hassles by having a compiled shape file.

- Since it is a Windows True Type font is is also compatible with Bentley Microstation. On the occasion we convert between the two, it will make this a little easier.

- If you want to link a spreadsheet from Excel, it's font can match your text font. We have resorted to using other 3rd party software in the past to get the 'look' of tables correct.

- True Type fonts are needed for creating searchable PDFs. I think DWF files can use .shx files for searchable text, but people rarely use DWF files.

 

The only downsides are of course the bit of work needed to convert existing details, blocks etc. over to Arial, but it's not a hard fix. And like ReMark stated I have seen Truetype act wonky when printing. I have seen text appear not filled in. But I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

[f700es]

+100 to all points

 

To each his own on this. Pros (for me) is that Arial is a clean font, and TTF Fonts don't get overridden by the CTB/STB file. Cons are (for others, I've never encountered this) that TTF's "act up" in AutoCAD. Never had it happen to me, but lots of people claim it. Still, I've been using Arial, Arial Narrow and Arial Black for well over six years now without issues.

1,000% correct. Arial only with Revit if you want to make your life as easy as possible.

Yes. Arial is searchable and shaped font files are not (to the extent of my knowledge).

I've pretty much summed it up but others may have some bits to include. Go Arial. Drawings look clean and updated.

 

[BlackBox]

...TTF Fonts don't get overridden by the CTB/STB file.

 

This is the only reason I use RomanS.

 

I intentionally have Fine, Thin, Medium, and Thick font layers/styles which each plot at different lineweight.

 

As a non-Revit user (obviously), Arial (no matter the linweight/style) plots identical, so there's no distinction between existing/proposed (unless you include the applicable word in each-and-every-single annotation, or change case, etc.).

[tzframpton]

Yessir... the non-overridden aspect of it is ambivalent, however it can be advantageous on both sides of the coin. It's the end-user's call, ultimately. I for one use screening techniques and bolded fonts for alternative distinctions.

 

[Blam]

That's a good issue to bring up. I'm wondering about out telecom group. The sometimes have Dtext that is beside other text that needs to be bold to distinguish between proposed and existing. And they accomplish this with changing the color which in turn changes the printed thickness. Good point.

[Lee Roy]

I switched us from RomanS.shx to Monospac821BT.ttf

 

Monospac has a lot of similarity to RomanS, but is a True Type Font so our standards are smoother between AutoCAD and Revit. Also not having to worry about .ctb colors is great. Different disciplines can have different color text without worry of lineweight.

 

No one here is a fan of Arial on drawings.

 

I for one use screening techniques and bolded fonts for alternative distinctions.

We do this same practice; screening and bold/italic/underline.

 

We've been at it for almost 3 years now and we've encountered zero issues with PDF's, DWF's or e-Transmitting our files.

 

If you have support from your staff/superiors, I say go for it.