AICS3, How to curve a block of text

Question

I'm still using AICS3, but I hope someone can help me anyway. I'm creating a file that will eventually go to a sign shop to have vinyl letters cut. These letters are being adhered to the surface of a cone (I work in a museum: I'm always doing stuff like this.) My problem is that the entire paragraph of text, about 12 lines, needs to be curved. That way it will conform to the cone surface. I could do a series of concentric arcs, but AI does not draw arcs (by the way, an arc is defined as a set of points equidistant from a reference point arrayed in a measure of arc degrees or some other fraction of a circle circumference. It is not a curved line defined by an x,y box, which is what AICS3 misnames an "arc." So please don't tell me to use the "arc" tool. There isn't one. Sorry for the digression, but this needs to be pointed out so I don't get crazy answers.) I tried using the Envelope tool, but it is really unworkable. The text cannot be selected, the arc cannot be controlled, etc. Would it be better to do this in InDesign CS3? I'm willing to use either ID or AI if I can get it done. Thanks in advance for any help!
MGuilfoile

Answer 1

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Not being able to, at a minimum, draw an arc or circle by radius is absurd and there can be no debate on this.
Well, here's the debate that "cannot be":
This ideal arc tool you envision; tell me, which radius would you expect it to prompt you for when you need to draw a non-circular arc?
Do you think that just because a software asks you to specify a circle in terms of center coordinates and radius that what it renders is therefore actually a circle, when otherwise it is not? Again, that's nonsense.
In about 30 minutes, I could create for you a Javascript-based tool that runs in Illustrator and that prompts you for center coordinates and a radius and then draws a circle. Would you then consider the circles it draws to be more "correct" or "accurate"? In fact, for my own purposes, I have a very simple Javascript that lets me define an ellipse in terms of diameter and "angle" (tilt relative to the picture plane), just as ellipses are defined on industry-standard drafting templates.
Similarly, a plug-in programmer could code an actual real-time interactive tool with which you would mousedown where you want the center of a circle to be, and then drag so as to define the radius. The interface of such a tool could even require you to drag the end of the displayed "radius" in order to change the size of the circle, and display no Bezier control points unless "converted" from a "circle" to a Bezier path. Wanna see one? Canvas. But do you think it doesn't actually draw a Bezier curve?
Regardless, if either those tools exist in Illustrator (and just about any other program of the same type and purpose) the actual math defining the resulting path would still be cubic Bezier equations, whether you ever saw path handles and height/width values or not. If that bothers you, and you actually think it matters, you just have to use something else. And good luck efficiently doing general-purpose commercial illustration with a CAD program. Bezier math is the curve-rendering math basis of PostScript, and therefore of Illustrator. It is not "sub-standard" or "inferior" to other curve rendering equations. In fact, it is arguably superior.
Again, if all you're saying is that Illusrtrator's Ellipse interface is sub-standard, I'd be the last to disagree. FreeHand's Elipse tool, for example, allows you to define any circular or eliptical arc or circle or ellipse with the one tool. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual math being used to plot the curve is still the same cubic Bezier equation as used in Illustrator. And you seem to think that a Bezier-described arc is not a "real" arc to any extent that matters one whit to anything.
We've had this discussion here before. No software on the planet actually "draws a circle." Strictly speaking, you've never even seen an "actual" circle. The only "circle" (or triangle, or any other geometric primitive) you've ever actually seen is a mere physical approximation of an ideal concept. The physical result of all curve-drawing algorithms is a mere approximation, limited by the physical realities of the rendering mechanism. So if you are going to persist in this utter nonsense of making the most extremely huge mountain out of a literally microscopic molehill, you are eventually going to have to speak to the actual degree of inaccuracy that causes you such angst.
Give me an example of a software that you think draws a "real" circle. A CAD program? How does that work? Do you know? Do you think it actually starts by shining the emitter of a CRT at the point on the screen you specify as the center, moves horizontally the distance you specify as the radius, and then scribes a circular path around the center as if being swung on a string? If that "circle" is exported as a DXF file and is then used to drive to an NC plotter, do you think the path in the DXF file is actually a circle, and not a series of straight-path facets that merely approximate a circle?
When that DXF drawing is plotted to a pen plotter, do you think the instructions to the plotter actually say "spin the pen around this point at this distance"? No, it says "step the roller motor at these increments (move Y), while stepping the pen holder at these increments (move X)." In fact, it really usually says, "go to this XY coordinate. Then go to this XY coordinate. Then go to this XY coordinate....", in other words, drawing straight-line facets. Does that sound more like "radius and center" or " X and Y" to you?
So do you consider a set of XY coordinate pairs that merely describe the corners of a multi-sided polygon to be a "truer" circle than that generated by automatically plotting a curve at the highest physical resolution of a marking device according to the resolution independent nature of a cubic Bezier equation?
Have you ever run a CAD program in which you had to "regenerate the buffer" (i.e.; re-rasterize the screen image) after zooming in on the path that you naively think is being described as an "actual" circle? Have you never zoomed into a 3D model in an interactive video game and seen painfully ugly faceting?
Now, an NC device (say, a cylinder boring machine) may actually receive commands to "set the cutter arm to this distance, then begin spinning the spindle motor at this RPM while tracking the depth at this rate." But I wouldn't recommend using that NC device or its instructions to render curves to your computer monitor or to a printing press. But if all you want to do is draw circles with a boring bar....
JET