Any ideas of what font this is?
It is similar (aren't they all) to a font called China, which I only know in digital form as the FontBank font called Chimes. You use the U to make the N, or an alternate A, and you can recreate 70% of these bleeping 'Tech' fonts. Square off a corner here or there; take a notch out here or there, who could tell? Use Eurostile for the rest. Aarghh, I'll be glad when this look finally goes out of style! (Sorry for the outburst, I'll be better in a while.)
> It is similar (aren't they all) to a font called China,
> which I only know in digital form as the FontBank
> font called Chimes
Mike, Mark Simonson has recently released a multi-weight family based on China called Changling.
With apologies to Mike. :-)
No, Mark, the apologies should be mine -- I should have recommended Changeling, and would have, if I had known about it. You have several of the alternate letterforms already made, and the variety of weights certainly makes it more versatile.
That geometric style fits well with much of your retro repertoire, and in fact I group the square tech look in with the Bauhaus-style geometric fonts in my Bauhaus-style Font ID Guide. The simplicity of the tech look seems in keeping (to me) with the Bauhaus principles of reducing type to simpler forms. I just get ill over the clich� that has equated square fonts with high technology. It might have been you who pointed out the ironic connection between the square fonts and the simple, and relatively unsophisticated LCD-style letterforms. Lo-Tech surely, by today's standards.
Don't mind me, I rant sometimes.
Mike, I understand where you're coming from. I, too, get tired of some of these typographical clich�s.
In fact, when I did Changeling, it was as much in the spirit of a parody as it was a tribute to that style. What I tried to do was to take China, with it's very limited range of characters, fix the problem characters (at least in my opinion), and then push it over the top. Whether people get it or not, I don't really care. But it was fun to do.
(I suppose if I want to go all the way, I should really do a swash version. :-)
Captured from web.archive.org on 16 May 2005. view this capture