Trying to get the line height right (as it's all wrong). 

I fixed it for Fontstruct with some tall characters (I think the unknown character, vertical bar and some floating accents did the trick in here) and for Photoshop I had to take off the .5 x .5 grid.  Then, it worked.  The leading in the sample text (not the font name, though) below is all auto leading...

So... you are all saying that a pixel font should be treated as a monospaced font with the same sized working character area for each and every character?

Jeepers.  

It is.  Every filter is set to 1.  The left line and the base are starting points and characters snap to them, though there are overshoots of 2 pixels on characters with curves and maybe pointy ends.  It is a 37 pixel high font, otherwise.

You know, @77, there are optical illusions in there.  I know a little bit about anti-alaising and used it at times, from a human perception perspective.  But hey, I started out as a pixel artist.  At 640x480 you learn how to take advantage of pixels to faux in a look.  There should be lots of gray spots when rendered at the correct size because of how we perceive stuff.  And the font will look widely different at different (non-optimal) sizes.  At multiples of 37 it will just look pixelated, though, unless you throw in a little magic and upset the math.  Which can have good or bad consequences, depending on how it is used. 

Wait.  I responded once before this last one above, and then I edited it twice.  Where is it?

Fine.  I'll stop correcting my typos and just let everything fly from now on.  The only reason I do it is because of spelling naggers.  I am happy to do it so that I can communicate better with everyone, and seem more intelligent, but if my posts are going to be blasted away into oblivion, I could care less. 

I was telling 77 that the letters all snap to the left line and the baseline.  That there are overshoots under the baseline for curves and pointy things.  The letters and characters are the width they are, not some specific width.  Aside from overshoots and high hanging accents and marks (or the low line, the cedilia and descender tailed letters), the letters are all 37 pixels talls.  The exception being the vertical bar and the unknown character glyphs (3 of them), which were created (along with the accents) specifically to correct the issue where Fonstruct would overlap the letters in preview (quite dramatically). 

The skinniest glyph may be the vertical bar which is extraordinarily tall and deep for increasing line height, but is only 10 pixels wide. 11 if you count the extra pixel of cushion.  The gap between letters is 2.75 globally (I think I remember that right -- I hope so, but I will check and if not I will make another post instead of correcting this one). 

Maybe the 2.75 global spacing gap is the issue that @77 wants resolved?  Is that a measure of pixels?

OK, Global Spacing Gap set to 3.  I guess that makes sense. 

Hi, @Aeolien!  ;)   Lately, I have been trying to come up with font names that no one else would want.  This was probably one of the first of those.  I was going to change it, no one will ever be able to remember it, or much less spell it.  But, who would really want it?  I guess the name grew on me, too.  Anyways, I never did change it, so I guess I thought it fits.  I'm glad you like it. 

Now to decide where to take it from here.  Hah!

Lol, the Space is finally been addressed (18 pixels wide, now).  Not used to moving around that width bar on space.  Thanks, @JingYo & @Cookielord.  Photoshop must've over-wrote the few pixels it was at, because in my sample text images it was fine.  That's crazy.

@77... The right bearing of the lowercase j?  What is the right bearing?  The width?  I looked at it.  There was an extra pixel of space between the left border line and the j, so I moved it over 1 pixel.  The width bar didn't move, so maybe that's what you are talking about, but I hit the x on that line so that it would snap to it's default.  I also thought the bottom of the j was a bit flat so added a single row of pixels at the bottom to round it out.  Thanks for the catch on the strangeness of that character, I hope I addressed what you were talking about.  I think I might have nudged the width line somehow by accident, the whole font was supposed to use the default character width. 

Hmmm... It seems the i and 4 are also 1 pixel off...  I am going through all the characters now.  The 4 width snapped correctly, but I had to make the i width snap to the default setting.  You sure are thorough in your critiques, thanks!  ;) 

It looks like the Q is an exception to the default width scenario because of the under baseline tail.

I moved the t over a couple of pixels, too.  Added a small pixel line to help round out the top of the f and s.