Ben --

Every time you update your initial post, it goes back into the spam moderation queue, for some reason. And then it disappears from the boards until an Admin can approve it again.

If you have further additions, please add them in the comments, not the original post.

Personally I think that, if you use crude geometric forms, you should stick to them, and see how to get the forms more refined. You have used ovals as well, and I think this does not give a good effect, it looks somehow "amateurish" in letters like [m] or [n].
I also think such strongly "constructed" alphabets, if accompanied by a "cursive" variant should have it built with a different logic, not by slanting the upright original alphabet.

kentlew –– Sorry, this is my first ever post on Typophile, I have tried, several times, to get my uploaded attachments listed, with no success. So I've been typing the links in the post's description as I'd like them to be visible as early in the post as possible. Sorry if this caused any trouble.

picic -- I think I understand what you mean (that the curves of those particular letters should start immediately from the baseline, rather going straight up then curving around) is that right? If this is the case you're making, firstly it's an interesting idea, except I can't see how I could go about doing that without either making them shorter than the x-height or having them go up to x-height but made a lot wider. For instance the 'n' would just be the top half of the 'O', whereas the 'm' would be two top halves of the 'O' joined together, thereby creating two obscenely wide lowercase letters. I could imagine the same thing happening with the 'h', 'U', 'u' and 'y'. And if you were to put those next to a much narrower letter, I can't imagine it looking anything but bizarre.

If I get right what you are saying: it all depends on how much circles of different diameter you are prone to use.

Even if you wish to keep it monotonal in line weight, I would suggest adding some modulation, in some way.

I found the lack of modulation too restrictive, it’s more or less the same questions which are posed every time, since Renner tried to keep Futura as monolinear as possible.

I'll have to think about doing that, as it certainly sounds interesting, but the initial inspiration for this typeface was for it to kept as simple as possible without compromising on legibility, as the simpler designs are often the most beautiful. Either way, if I don't incorporate this little bit of advice of yours into this design, I'll definitely consider it for future typefaces.