• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

applique software suggestions

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
Well it all depends on what your abilities are determines what level/cost of software looking at.

If you can do it the manual way (you know how to lay your placement, tackdown and/or coverstitch (depending on what one is doing, may or may not want a coverstitch etc) manually with stop and offset codes) can get away with using just about any software as long as they give you access to inserting functions. If your wanting automated all the way, (and if it's mainly lettering/numbers), looking at Wilcom in terms of ease of use and ESA digitized fonts and with a decent selection of pre-digitized Applique fonts (and with ESA lettering, is a good chance of getting custom ESA applique fonts via 3rd party*). There are others that may do well with lettering quality, but not so much with options/tweaks that you may have or vice versa.

The downside to the more automated way is that you are beholding to the capabilities of the stitch engine. Wilcom has been the best so far if need more of that auto generation. Others have their moments. Lettering is one of those things that I would actually suggest not depending too much on software (even for regular embroidery), but sometimes time dictates otherwise.

*Fonts in general is a nuanced "beast" within embroidery. When I say fonts, think more in terms of TTF/OTF except already geared for embroidery (be it for regular embroidery or for applique) and thus with embroidery limitations. If you see the term "Alphabets", that typically means embroidery patterns that happen to look like lettering, tracking, kerning, leading will all have to be done by you and resizing is even more limited with these files compared to the actually digitized fonts. A lot of places use Alphabets and Fonts interchangeably. They are not.
 
Top