Looking really fine, so far! Me thinks that the diagonals in the extra bold weight in letters such as w and y are too light.

This is quite polished! Good job. It's reminiscent of a few things (like Beorcana) but I think it has enough individuality to survive.

My main gripe -as before*- is the vertical proportions: you're clearly vying for text setting, and when the descenders are too long compared to the ascenders (yours seem to be exactly equal**) you're basically wasting "space potential" because in Latin-using languages ascenders are much more common. Although the descenders, being more complex, need more room to elaborate themselves, they still can't be given all that room to waste. The reference point I've personally arrived at is this: the "g" must look slightly cramped.

* http://typophile.com/node/85355#comment-502929

** Gerrit Noordzij's Ruse does this, and that's its biggest flaw.

One other thing: with six weights (BTW, I personally like seeing a large number) you have to think clearly about what you want their relationships to be, and then do a good deal of testing at various sizes (and non-ideal printing conditions) while intermixing the weights, inline. Every type design class should have a full lesson on squinting! :-)

Oh, and that "Q"... it's trying too hard. It's the only glyph that I think needs to be re-thought.

hhp

I think the swash alternates are the weakest part, and I would even consider dropping the roman swashes. They seem forced.

Did you try non-horizontal tops to the bolder roman /M/ (given the angled terminals of letters like /V/v/)?

FWIW I think the extender lengths seem fine, but I do agree about checking weights of letters like /w/ (and not only in the extra bold).

Craig, can you point out text fonts that have their descenders as long as their ascenders?

hhp

@hrant: I don't want my g to look cramped. Sensato is not made for space efficiency. Making the descenders appear as long as the ascenders gives the most 'natural' look, imo.
@J Weltin: I'll have a look at those :-)
@Craig: I don't mind them looking a bit forced, if that's what it takes to draw the attention. The /M/ actually has slightly angled terminals on the top. If I make it more angled it looks forced, which, in this case, is not desirable.

Just remember, the formal beauty that a single person might seek is not necessarily what the reader needs.

hhp

I like it, although some glyphs appear to have more contrast than others. Maybe try making the tail of the lowercase 'a' raise up a little less.

@Brian: Could you be a bit more specific on which glyphs appear to have more/less contrast than others? I thought I had that figured out -.-

This is very nice. I'm with Craig on the swashes - I think it's the stencil look of them that doesn't fit so much. But swashes are discretionary so leaving them in isn't going to stop anyone buying it! But making them better could persuade someone to...
The S and s in the romans look slightly falling forward to me.

I think you are very close. My concern is mainly with some of the rounded letters: O Q C G S, and lc like o and c. I think, comparing especially the O to the E, you'll find that E appears to be have a little more contrast, where O seems to feel nearly monoline. Looking again, it may not be as much of a problem as I imagined. It's all evened out in heavier weights.

T: I thought there were just screen rendering issues, but the top is actually quite wobbly. I imagine this either must be a glitch or an accident. :) This seems to only be plaguing the small cap T in the regular weight.

Anyway, lovely family you got going there. ;)