Attention Flexisign Users....

[Bobby H]

If I'm not mistaken, Flexi has really been more of a rip over a design solution. Yes, they may have added more design centric elements and they do hock their design suite pretty heavily with "industry standard sign-specific design tools", but it's main todo (and what they actually bold on their website) is being a RIP.

The RIP functions in Flexi were a later, optional add-on. Even today the RIP-equipped version of Flexi is the most expensive version. Going back to the 1990's the original functions of Flexi were originally geared for designing signs, directly controlling vinyl cutters and creating files for output on computerized routing tables. We've never had the RIP functions of Flexi turned on in any of our licenses, due in part to rival RIP software being bundled with large format printers we have purchased over the years. VersaWorks came with our Roland VP-540. Then we started using Onyx with our HP Latex printers. Now we have a copy of Rasterlink that works with our Mimaki flatbed printer.

At any rate it doesn't make much difference which functions were added first to Flexi. The software is higher priced than other basic sign design/vinyl cutting applications, such as Vinyl Master Pro. I think it ought to offer a good bit more in return.

I don't know how difficult it is for software engineers to enable sign design/production applications like Flexi to "see" all the extended features in a given OpenType Font file rather than only the basic Latin/English character range. Given the fact Adobe has supported advanced OTF features in Illustrator and InDesign going back to their first Creative Suite versions it should be something that is do-able. At the very least SAi could build in a Glyphs palette so users can manually insert special characters. I really like the method Corel uses, where you can highlight individual characters or groups of characters and a visual drop-down menu will reveal the alternates available for that character or group of characters. Adobe Illustrator adopted that approach to a very limited degree. But Illustrator has some features I like more, such as a better glyphs palette.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I don't know how difficult it is for software engineers to enable sign design/production applications like Flexi to "see" all the extended features in a given OpenType Font file rather than only the basic Latin/English character range. Given the fact Adobe has supported advanced OTF features in Illustrator and InDesign going back to their first Creative Suite versions it should be something that is do-able.

It's hard to say how "doable" something is without knowing the difficulty level for that specific application, what bugs it may create (a lot of people are already complaining about buggy versions as it is, and wanting to add new features into the mix?), what existing features may be affected, what code may or may not have to be revamped.

I mean, when is Ai going to get a larger design size? Bigger sizes have existed in other programs for a long time, if not since their first deployment. Why can't Ai do it? A lot of yrs of code bloat in Ai, something that might seem as trivial to the outsider looking in, may not be for those down in the front lines.

And while software (no matter the development model) has been sold/given under "as is" and if it works...great. If not, well hopefully it'll get worked out in the later versions. For programs going on more then a couple of decades, customer base isn't going to take to well to something that gets heavily fubar'ed, if in order to implement a feature causes the need for drastic change elsewhere.

This is all speculation, it could just be as simple as what it seemed to you earlier and they aren't aware of these "new" abilities (which brings up some other concerns in my mind, but I digress).

 

[bannertime]

Flexi's font tool is more than lacking. It treats advanced OpenType fonts as if they're 256 character fonts made over 25 years ago when we only had basic TrueType and Postscript Type 1 fonts. Flexi doesn't see all the advanced character sets contained in my OTF files. That's a big problem. One of the primary reasons for buying new typefaces is being able to use all the extended, alternate character ranges in those fonts. If you purchase a license of the Helvetica Now family Flexi won't have it looking any different than Helvetica or Helvetica Neue. The alternate characters, like a straight leg "R" or hooked lowercase "l" will remain hidden. I don't think Flexi even supports basic stuff like the difference between Tabular Lining and Proportional Lining spacing for numerals.

The OpenType Font format itself was first developed by Microsoft and Adobe back in the late 1990's. It's not a new thing. I had plenty of criticism for Corel dragging their feet until version X6 of CorelDRAW to finally support the full OTF spec. I don't know what the excuse is for "CAS" software vendors.

The Tabular lining would be pretty nice to have. Typically I'll just use a mono font. I was going to mention that I don't really use the alternate characters. If I have a need for that, then I'm probably already using Illustrator anyway. Going along with the tabular lining, I miss using In Design's leader dot feature. I'm not a graphic artist anymore and I like to go by production designer after seeing someone here use it. So, I don't really do a bunch of heavy text formatting or design work. Flexi's type tool is more than adequate and like I said, probably the best, at creating banner and sign layouts. I can copy whole word documents, break apart by line, and mock up layouts in minutes. In Illustrator, I'd still be breaking apart or copying text. I guess what I'm saying is, it depends on what your situation is. Flexi is not a professional design program. It is a really good sign layout program.

 

[Bobby H]

It's hard to say how "doable" something is without knowing the difficulty level for that specific application, what bugs it may create (a lot of people are already complaining about buggy versions as it is, and wanting to add new features into the mix?), what existing features may be affected, what code may or may not have to be revamped.

I might have sympathy for that situation if the developer was asked to incorporate a brand new, unfamiliar technology. OpenType is not brand new at all. A lot of mainstream applications are able to use the extended features in OTF files, whether it's a graphics application like CorelDRAW or even freaking MS Word.

The developers of "CAS" applications like Flexi have had the past two decades to figure out to properly adapt OpenType into their applications. Meanwhile they're falling even farther behind applications like Adobe Illustrator. It's now possible to use OpenType Variable Fonts and SVG Color Fonts in some of Adobe's applications, including Illustrator.

Unless Flexi starts getting bundled with a lot of large format printer models the software is going to become irrelevant. SAi has long marketed Flexi as an all-in-one design, cut and print application. If all it's good for is acting as a large format RIP there are other dedicated RIP applications that beat it either in features or price (or just come included with a given large format printer model). There are relatively cheap alternatives for driving vinyl cutters, be it a stand-alone program or a plug-in for CorelDRAW or Adobe Illustrator. That leaves an application like Flexi kind of dependent on its design functions being a selling point. But if it cannot do something as basic as seeing the extra characters in a modern OpenType font then that's a serious deficiency. Just about any new commercial font release will have a good dose of extended OTF character set functions. Plenty of free fonts have extended character sets too.

I mean, when is Ai going to get a larger design size? Bigger sizes have existed in other programs for a long time, if not since their first deployment. Why can't Ai do it? A lot of yrs of code bloat in Ai, something that might seem as trivial to the outsider looking in, may not be for those down in the front lines.

Adobe Illustrator was originally made to create graphics for the printed page. Obviously the developers didn't think an enormous max art board size was necessary. When Illustrator was built on Postscript technology the max art board size was only about 120" X 120" (if even that). When it was re-built on PDF technology the max art board size grew to 227" X 227". We also saw other important changes to allow those increases, like shifts from 16-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit code and computers with a lot more memory capacity.

No vector-based drawing application, or even CAD application for that matter, has an unlimited size work space. Every app has a range where things are going to be nice and precise. Go too big and things start going wonky. The same thing applies if you try to work too small. I've personally seen the instability happen with CASmate and Flexi on projects where I'd have an art board over 200' wide holding multiple full size elevations of a bank building or something else huge. Precision would take a hit. I couldn't zoom in as tight as usual. And an action like welding or cutting some super size objects might crash the whole program with a fatal floating point error. I observed one error in CASmate where the application glitched and took off on a series of endless undo steps until there was nothing left in the document.

I don't know if or when Adobe will increase the max artboard size in Illustrator. I do know their developers have fielded many requests and complaints about it. Of course far more users have griped about Illustrator not offering a true multi-page setup; Adobe's response about that is they can use multiple art boards or just fire up InDesign. Regarding larger art boards, I have the feeling Adobe will have to change the program's most basic underpinnings to fulfill the request. It might take a complete code re-write from the ground up, like the switch from Postscript to PDF.

By comparison, I don't think it's a big request at all for a graphics app to see more than the basic 8-bit code page equivalent characters of a modern OpenType typeface.

The Tabular lining would be pretty nice to have. Typically I'll just use a mono font. I was going to mention that I don't really use the alternate characters. If I have a need for that, then I'm probably already using Illustrator anyway.

Good quality fonts will have number sets for both tabular lining and proportional lining. I can't stand the default tabular lining spacing found in most fonts. Spacing around a numeral "1" is always going to be awful. Tabular lining is fine if you're setting columns of numerals in a spreadsheet or making math equations. When I'm putting something like a phone number or store hours into a layout being able to use proportional spacing saves time.

I'm a big fan of alternate characters, especially in connected script typefaces. Plenty of alternates, swash alternates and context sensitive ligatures can make the lettering look far more natural.

Flexi is not a professional design program. It is a really good sign layout program.

A sign can stand outdoors on the landscape for literally decades. If the layout is barfed out using inadequate software that's not going to be such a good thing. I think sign design software ought to be just as advanced in handling type as something generating graphics for print. Most printed stuff is going to go into the trash or recycling bin not long after being read. Signs can have a great degree of permanence. Great looking signs can compliment the look of a city or town. Badly designed signs have the reverse effect.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I might have sympathy for that situation if the developer was asked to incorporate a brand new, unfamiliar technology. OpenType is not brand new at all. A lot of mainstream applications are able to use the extended features in OTF files, whether it's a graphics application like CorelDRAW or even freaking MS Word.

I have to wonder if you've been apart of software development in any form, even as a beta tester. I think your sympathy levels might be a little higher if so.

Bare in mind too, you complained about how slow DRAW was to implement this very same feature. Sometimes it takes certain brands of software a longer time to institute changes.

Think of it this way, that same digitizing program that I talk about (which is my version of Flexi) didn't get 64 bit until the last 6 months. It's directly interfaced with Corel DRAW and DRAW has been 64 bit for quite a few releases and yet, switched into a 32 bit program, which is a helluva lot more expensive then DRAW (even quite a bit more then Flexi).

The wheels turn much slower on niche software.

Like it or not and Ai, DRAW doesn't constitute the level of niche software that I'm talking about.

The developers of "CAS" applications like Flexi have had the past two decades to figure out to properly adapt OpenType into their applications. Meanwhile they're falling even farther behind applications like Adobe Illustrator.

Absolutely, and that's why people should always re-evaluate their tools on a regular basis. What was a good decision to use 20 yrs ago, may not be the case. If they never implement it and other software surpasses it. These are just tools, should always be willing to switch to something else. Either change with the times or the times change you.

There are relatively cheap alternatives for driving vinyl cutters, be it a stand-alone program or a plug-in for CorelDRAW or Adobe Illustrator.

Don't forget free open source alternatives that can either be stand alone or a plugin for inkscape (yes I had to go back there).

Adobe Illustrator was originally made to create graphics for the printed page. Obviously the developers didn't think an enormous max art board size was necessary.

Just because it wasn't necessity back then, doesn't mean that it doesn't have more importance now. Again, have to change, evolve as the times evolve.

No vector-based drawing application, or even CAD application for that matter, has an unlimited size work space.

I didn't say "unlimited". I said "bigger". There is a difference between the two.

Every app has a range where things are going to be nice and precise. Go too big and things start going wonky. The same thing applies if you try to work too small. I've personally seen the instability happen with CASmate and Flexi on projects where I'd have an art board over 200' wide holding multiple full size elevations of a bank building or something else huge. Precision would take a hit. I couldn't zoom in as tight as usual. And an action like welding or cutting some super size objects might crash the whole program with a fatal floating point error. I observed one error in CASmate where the application glitched and took off on a series of endless undo steps until there was nothing left in the document.

That's where you get into coding limitations (or more precisely how it was coded). One of the many reasons why software has that caveat of "as is". Sometimes that matures on out, sometimes it doesn't.

Regardless if there are performance hits, they are still bigger. This would just be a way for Adobe to shine and code it in a better way (or just buy a software package that already has it and implement that, EEE at it's finest (I'm still reeling over Substance Painter (yes, I used closed source programs on Linux, what is the world coming to).

Regarding larger art boards, I have the feeling Adobe will have to change the program's most basic underpinnings to fulfill the request. It might take a complete code re-write from the ground up, like the switch from Postscript to PDF.

Well, considering that they are doing that major revamp for Ps to get it on ARM, now would be the time to tweak things in other parts of their suite. I think I would have a revamp of the code base for an x86 processor versus an ARM one, but that's just me.

By comparison, I don't think it's a big request at all for a graphics app to see more than the basic 8-bit code page equivalent characters of a modern OpenType typeface.

Without knowing what's involved with how it applies to the existing code base of Flexi, it's hard to say one way or the other.

And who is to say that they aren't working on it and have a pull branch just haven't merged it on over?

 

[Bobby H]

I have to wonder if you've been apart of software development in any form, even as a beta tester. I think your sympathy levels might be a little higher if so.

Buying and using a specific software title is not a form of charity. If that application's developers are not making the appropriate efforts to keep up with their competition those guys cannot expect me to continue being a customer. If there is a better tool out there I can use to do my job I am going to use it. I refuse to do without certain features (like the software seeing the all the characters in a modern OpenType Font) just to stay "loyal."

Bare in mind too, you complained about how slow DRAW was to implement this very same feature. Sometimes it takes certain brands of software a longer time to institute changes.

I'm not afraid to make complaints about any application. It's not like I'm being disloyal to some team or something. They're not paying me to use the software after all. In the past I responded to Corel's decade of foot-dragging on OpenType by using Adobe Illustrator and/or InDesign when I wanted to use those extra text capabilities in a design. I'm sure not going to take the fanboy approach where someone sticks with that one piece of software no matter what and maybe even take the attitude a great feature in a rival piece of software is totally unnecessary.

Just because it wasn't necessity back then, doesn't mean that it doesn't have more importance now. Again, have to change, evolve as the times evolve.

In the case of Adobe Illustrator their customer base is far more than just people who design signs. They're going to develop and improve the software in the direction of helping the biggest number of users. As I said before, Adobe's development team for Illustrator has heard the complaints about the art board size limits. If they can do something about it they will, but I think any solution on it will probably require a great deal of work. Meanwhile I can work around the art board size limits. It's not a big problem for me to design in scale; I end up having to do that from time to time even in CorelDRAW. But there are no good work arounds for an application with a very dated text engine that only sees a fraction of a typeface's character table.

I didn't say "unlimited". I said "bigger". There is a difference between the two.

Nevertheless, most of the complaints about Illustrator's art board size limits are usually accompanied with the demands for unlimited sizes, sometimes accompanied by claims of a rival app can do that already.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Buying and using a specific software title is not a form of charity. If that application's developers are not making the appropriate efforts to keep up with their competition those guys cannot expect me to continue being a customer. If there is a better tool out there I can use to do my job I am going to use it. I refuse to do without certain features (like the software seeing the all the characters in a modern OpenType Font) just to stay "loyal."

But what most people forget, this nice little handy dandy line that's in every software EULA out there (including open source):

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS." SA INTERNATIONAL INC.AND ITS SUPPLIERS AND ITS LICENSORS DO NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING THE SOFTWARE OR SUCH FILES. SA INTERNATIONAL INC.AND ITS SUPPLIERS AND LICENSORS MAKE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO TITLE OR INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO RIGHTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Now obviously some parts of that will be swapped out and replaced with the more relevant company for the next EULA, but that's it in a nutshell. Pay particular attention to the last bit in bold in the EULA.

That's what everyone agrees to when they use any piece of software that they haven't solely created themselves.

In the past I responded to Corel's decade of foot-dragging on OpenType by using Adobe Illustrator and/or InDesign when I wanted to use those extra text capabilities in a design. I'm sure not going to take the fanboy approach where someone sticks with that one piece of software no matter what and maybe even take the attitude a great feature in a rival piece of software is totally unnecessary.

This seems contrary to your notion here:

Many of us older sign guys with long established shops made our choices 20, 30 or more years ago,

This, to me, indicates that this decision was made and dammit, we are sticking with it.

In the case of Adobe Illustrator their customer base is far more than just people who design signs. They're going to develop and improve the software in the direction of helping the biggest number of users.

All software vendors are going to be doing that. So far, I've seen one user that doesn't totally have an issue with the text engine of Flexi as they just use something else (who is to say there aren't others and maybe your use case is on the lower end?).

As I said before, Adobe's development team for Illustrator has heard the complaints about the art board size limits. If they can do something about it they will, but I think any solution on it will probably require a great deal of work.

And exactly what makes you think that dealing with this code in Flexi's software wouldn't present a daunting text of trying to get the feature that you want? Other software may have had it, but it may have been easier (or they were just smarter, I'm not saying that this is the case, just a possibility) to implement in that particular software package?

This particular issue here applies to a lot of software out there as well. The exact functionality may be different, but everything else pretty well spot on.

Now, granted, I've only been doing this for 25 yrs this June, so take it for what that's worth, but in all that time, while I always try to strive to use the least amount of software packages for a project, I have yet to have one software package that does it all. Some come close and they still don't even have what I would consider the most basic type of functionality. It's like, why in the hell weren't they thinking that.

Nevertheless, most of the complaints about Illustrator's art board size limits are usually accompanied with the demands for unlimited sizes, sometimes accompanied by claims of a rival app can do that already.

Nevertheless, it isn't relevant to this discussion as unlimited canvas size wasn't mentioned.

But there are no good work arounds for an application with a very dated text engine that only sees a fraction of a typeface's character table.

What, is doing a workaround similar to this one:

In the past I responded to Corel's decade of foot-dragging on OpenType by using Adobe Illustrator and/or InDesign when I wanted to use those extra text capabilities in a design.

Not going to work anymore?

If that isn't a good enough method, then go to an alternative piece of software. If you aren't taking the fanboy approach and they aren't providing you with what you are needing/wanting, simple go elsewhere. Then if you find out that they have indeed changed that behavior, look at them again and see if it's worth going back to them.

Now if, for whatever reason, you are stuck with using them, theeeeennnnnn probably looking at more then likely having to lump it and hope for the best.

 

[Bobby H]

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? Or are you arguing with me just for the sake of arguing? I brought up an obvious long-standing issue that Flexi doesn't properly support OpenType. In response you're here brow-beating me with flurries of nit pick, line by line responses of every word I've written. And there doesn't seem to be any real point to it. We have off topic side bars about Illustrator art board sizes, EULA's, open source, and blah blah blah. Are you trying to defend Flexi's lack of OpenType support, as if greatly expanded character sets in OpenType are unnecessary? Are you trying to convince me to use Flexi for sign design purposes, despite the issues I have with it? I mean, really, what is the overall point of this discussion? I don't have time to respond to the 9 freaking separate things you wrote in your last post.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The main point that I was trying to make is people should know their EULAs in my first post in the thread. But since I mentioned "joys of closed source", it just derailed from that, because instead of it being construed that "joys of closed source" meant a more restrictive EULA, it was thought that it was an ad for open source, which it wasn't. Then from there, it just derailed.

As to why even the EULA would be on topic, the OP complained about unsatisfactory means of re-selling the software. That's all dictated in the EULA, what is supposed to be transferred what is/isn't supposed to remain with seller (typically nothing). And with the theme of "joys of closed source", these tend to be more restrictive. I can see that with re-selling. Because if someone is buying previously owned, that means that they aren't sending money to OEM. It's to discourage it and nothing discourages more then hitting the ole pocketbook.

I don't agree with it, I sure as shit don't like it but it shouldn't come as a surprise, that's my point.

In the software world, especially of a certain licensing model, the used market is trying to be done away with, so this is only going to get worse. At some point, there won't be a previously owned market for certain software packages. "Joys of closed source", more restrictive. Doesn't mean that the software isn't good or isn't worth using, it just comes with it's drawbacks. Cost of doing business.

As to long standing issues of bugs, lack of functionality that one wants etc.

Again, software (all software regardless of development model, so this is where they all have the potential to suck) is "as is", no promises of fitness for a particular purposes (this covers bugs and lack of functionality). Which goes into the responses that the OP was dealing with in the bottom portion of his post, blaming everything else etc on other variables (printers, connections etc).

I do not like it, I don't think it's right, but I'm aware that that is a risk that I take when using their product (in fact, I can't recall a time that I actually called customer support for an individual software other then 1 time to see if Adobe would open up another seat for my license (something that I would have had to do, no getting help from Google on that one, at least not legally)). It behooves them to fix it, to add that functionality in the long run, but whether they do or do not actually do that is a risk. If it goes for so long, may have to consider dumping using that product, even if one has used them for 20+ yrs (I've got some software at 23 yrs and the platform at 30 yrs of having used before I had to start switching, not advocating that, just mentioning to give an example).

 

[FrankW]

You haven't bought Flexi, you have bought a license to use it.

 

[michael Mahoney]

We have an extra version of Flexisign and wanted to sell it, no big deal, did it before, so I sent an e-mail to Sai to get the license transferred. Come to find out, you cannot sell an extra version of Flexisign without completely transferring your whole account to someone new, which costs $450 now. We were told that Flexi "was never meant to be resold" - sorry, but I paid $2800 for this software a few years ago, if I want to sell it, I should be able to sell it. This is once again one of many Flexisign's quirks that new users should heed and stay away from this company before you're wrapped into their endless system of problems.

We're incredibly tired of dealing with this company, they released their Flexi 12 software, and drivers that worked completely fine in Flexi 11, are now riddled with flaws and connection issues in Flexi 12. We purchased a new machine, and Flexi STILL cannot get the drivers to work for it correctly a year later. It won't connect, wrong data format errors, we have to send the job sometimes 7 times for it to send. They make up weird excuses as to what we should try, but no one has a real solution for us. They blamed it on the printer manufacturer, they blamed it on our connection, but never took the responsibility UNTIL the print manufacturer called them and said "it's your problem, fix it". Even a year later, connectivity issues persist. FlexiSign won't connect to production manager through TCP/IP any longer, and we have to change the settings constantly to keep it connected.

Recommended you guys stay away if you're a new user.

dont know if you sold this or not but im sure you can sell it just the new owner will not be able to receive and support from flexi if you still have it let me know i can just use it in my off internet computer im sure as my machines are connected through serial port and plt ports

 

[Pat Whatley]

I spoke with one of the guys at the SAi booth. He seemed to be unaware of all the extended features available in many OpenType fonts and also unaware that mainstream graphics apps like CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator support those OTF features.

This always bugged the crap out of me with FlexiSign before I switched to Illustrator. There are issues, things that could be improved or actual problems. I called repeatedly about some of them (this was a decade ago) and asked if there were any plans to correct them. Every single time the stock answer was "Nobody else has ever asked about that, it must just be a problem on your end." Then you ask other sign people and they tell you they've been calling for a year with the same complaints.

All that said I really with Illustrator would get a step and repeat and an auto-numbering function as good at FlexiSigns.

 

[Bobby H]

"CAS" software developers like SAi, Gerber and others have to realize their industry-specific software does not exist in a vacuum. General purpose vector drawing programs have slowly been eating into their territory for a long time. It's feasible to do large scale design, like full size sign design, in CorelDRAW and even Illustrator.

The thing that is really hurting "CAS" applications is they're falling farther and farther behind in terms of design and typographical features. If applications like Flexi or whatever fall behind far enough they will fall out of relevance. I think I've said it before, we have 3 Flexi licenses at my workplace, but I have no need for it on my computer since I don't send any vinyl cutting jobs or large format printing jobs directly from my workstation. I haven't really found any unique design features in any "CAS" application that I can't do within CorelDRAW or Illustrator.

Vinyl cutting plug-ins or applets have been available for general purpose drawing programs for a long time. We already use separate applications to drive routing tables and large format printers; those applications are mainly geared for just managing output to the specialty devices.

The primary "CAS" applications were meant to double as both a front end for general sign design tasks as well as driving vinyl cutters. The primary "CAS" applications also export files for use on routing tables or in large format printers. But CorelDRAW and Illustrator can save files that can be used in large format RIP software or routing table applications, just like the "CAS" applications. There is a lot of doubling of efforts taking place.

Regarding numbered lists, Adobe needs to at least make the function work at least as well as it does in InDesign.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

There is a saying that I had actually heard with regard to a different industry, but I think it's applicable to all industries:

Either change with the times or the times change you.

Because of that, as an end user (of whatever tool/machine you want to talk about), I've always believed in constantly evaluating on if I should stay with the current vendor or look elsewhere. Just because a vendor was good 10, 20 yrs ago, doesn't mean that they are still good now (it sucks, but it does happen). I think they are a few people worried about the current state of some software companies with recent decisions, same thing applies. Really, for some of these companies, the only true way to change things, get features etc is if the vendor's bottom line is affected by what is going on, not always an easy thing to do.

They are just like any one of us when we get feedback from our customers. Can either use it and make changes or file it in that "specialty bin" from which nothing happens. Their product, their choice. I hate seeing some go under, but it does happen.

 

[Chuck Davis]

It is now 2021 and it's still a problem. I'm answering a support question about Flexi and LHF Desire today. It is nothing short of a hinderance to progress. Starting in 2016, I attempted to offer the Glyph Copier method, along with the use of special "GC" fonts, but that only added to the confusion because Flexi could not understand all the glyphs we used. So I have since done away with the Glyph Copier completely.

I strongly recommend moving away from FlexSign. It is an insult to both sign and font designers alike.

For those still using FlexiSign, I continue to recommend using another application in conjunction:
https://www.letterheadfonts.com/support/alternate_characters.php

If you get stuck let me know and I'll try to help you out.