Hello!  It's been a while, hasn't it?...

The creation of this font is my first real activity on this site after an almost 2.5-year hiatus, as at this point I believe my mental health and schedule finally permit me to return to fontmaking.  I do apologize that I sort of left without much warning, and I further regret to admit that I can't quite confirm I'll be as active as I once was.  I hope I can be, but I don't want to make any promises.

However, for now, I present GS Unicode 3.0!  This font series will utilize composite bricks provided by djnippa with this font, although I'll be sticking to 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 2:3, and possibly 1:4 slopes to keep things more organized and less laggy, especially as I approach the 65535-character mark.  This will otherwise largely be a continuation of GS Unicode 2.0, meaning it will keep the same width:height ratio, general shapes, and overall "feel" (hopefully).  The decision to make an entirely new font, as opposed to continuing work on the former, was one I'd been wrestling over for the past few months as I contemplated my return.  Ultimately, two major factors influenced my decision.

Firstly, for reasons I won't go into, I wanted a fresh start to my life, and GS Unicode 2.0 was unfortunately a casualty of a past that I otherwise don't want to remember.

Secondly, and more significantly, I wasn't overall happy with the development path that GS Unicode 2.0 was taking.  As the character count mounted, I discovered that the list of things I wanted to change was increasing too, and it was becoming extremely difficult to change a glyph without it affecting others whose geometries were based on it.  I've also wanted to restructure the extremely bloated and largely disorganized Private Use Area for quite a while, which was a similarly daunting task.  Please know that this is not a criticism of the recommendations y'all have given me.  I thoroughly enjoyed all of your creative and imaginative suggestions, and it was actually one of the things I enjoyed most about fontmaking!  However, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that there doesn't need to be a 4096-character space filled with just precomposed Latin-diacritic combinations (there's a reason Unicode stopped doing this after U3.0).

If you made a PUA recommendation on GS Unicode 2.0, I'll get to it here in due time, once I'm more organized and this font is more stable.  You don't need to re-recommend anything here, as I still have access to the GS Unicode 2.0 page and most of the code charts that I've been sent.

Even though, like its predecessors, GS Unicode 3.0 is meant to be a pan-Unicode font, I've only published it with Basic Latin to see what y'all think of it first.  I'm not super happy with some of the curves and angles, especially on 6, 7, 9, &, #, `, and W, so nothing is set in stone yet.

In the meantime though, I'm happy to be back!

Seems odd that Unicode would randomly add characters in Plane 9.  Are you sure it's not a fan extension or something?  I can't seem to find any info...

I actually did notice that (especially the curves on bdpq)!  Totally wasn't intentional though lol

I agree.  I've so far been unable to find an adequate simple slope without changing the width:height ratio (the closest I've been able to find mathematically is 16:23, which incidentally is the ratio of an A4 sheet of paper).  I'm not really fond of either using such a complicated slope or changing the width:height ratio, as I still (for now) want to keep GSU 3 compatible with GSU2.  But I'll keep looking, as the / shape is a pretty critical slope.  The other concern is that I'd have to find a way to fix / without damaging any of the other slopes....

NZz07/#\% have been fixed.  W<>^ have also been altered.  Q&~*` are next on the list, as well as perhaps touching up some of the nudged bricks, because I'm not sure I've done them as efficiently as I could've.  Thank you Peter (Petruuccio) and erictom333 for the advice though!  They definitely look a lot cleaner now.

@BWM I may end up having to go that route, though I'm not sure yet.  Is there one in particular you'd recommend?

@ctcg_ I will add Latin-1 Supplement, as I plan to make this a pan-Unicode font, but I'd like to make sure I'm happy with all of the basic Latin glyphs before I move onto anything more complicated.

I fear the nudging technique is lost on me.  I'm not sure if it's something I'm missing, but it seems to be difficult/impossible to stack nudged bricks.  For example, Ø, which would normally be constructed with O and /, does not seem to want to cooperate.  I may find a way to fix this, but in the meantime I'm writing off the imperfections in the /-like slopes as a style quirk (and at least they're symmetrical).

I will see what I can do then… may require more math than I'm usually capable of though lol

In an attempt to replicate the nudged bricks for the main diagonal slope I have come across two solutions (fig. 1).  The smoother approach (and the one I'd prefer) would be more like the composite in fig. 3 (which would be created by fig. 1B), although I am unsure how to actually do this considering that I can't make a composite brick out of already-composite bricks, nor can I make a composite out of more than 16 bricks.  fig. 1A, which uses bricks that are able to be made composite and creates fig. 2, is the current nonpreferred solution.  Though the jaggedness may not be visible for usual typing sizes, I'd still want to perfect this slope as much as I can given how essential it is.

So my question is: are the 2x3 slopes in the 4x4 composite space, as shown in figs. 1B and 3, possible to create, considering the constraint of a maximum of 16 bricks per composite, and if so, how?  If they aren't, would it be better to try to combine nudged bricks in cases like Ø or to try to redo the aspect ratio and/or try using 2x2 filters?

I apologize for the continued questioning, as I feel like this is something basic I should know by now, but I do want to get this right.

Also, @erictom333, is there a way to contact you on Miraheze?  I'm regrettably mostly unfamiliar with creating and maintaining wikis.

I believe I have fixed it, at least for the most part, so thank you so much!  More minor edits coming soon.

Yes I will eventually