Planning for a MuseScore 2.3 release
On April 3rd we released MuseScore 2.2.1. As stated in the announcement, the next major version of MuseScore, version 3.0, is still in the works. It’s big endeavor to make MuseScore smarter, faster and easier to use.
In the meantime, we are continuing to further develop the new MuseScore_General SoundFont and quality of playback based on the input and insights of the community.
One area of playback where there has been considerable feedback has been percussion (especially marching percussion). Thanks to the support of Ultimate Guitar and in particular Chris Collins and Daniel Ray we have the opportunity to significantly improve playback capabilities for percussion, based on a new library of percussion samples recorded exclusively for MuseScore.
This new sample library allows us to improve the quality of sound in percussion playback. Taking advantage of the capabilities of Zerberus, we introduce articulations and expressions not previously available. This new development creates a unique opportunity to focus on improving and expanding percussion notation capabilities to support a wider-range of percussion instruments, articulations, and techniques. A number of new noteheads and mappings will be introduced to better align MuseScore with the industry standards (including VDL) while improving the overall workflow for composing for percussion instruments.
We have created a 2.3 branch and going to make a public release within few months. As we move forward with 2.3 we will also keep on working on master/3.0, cherry-picking bug fixes and new features in 2.3 branch to make sure 2.3 becomes our most stable release ever.
Comments
Without having really skills in coding, how realistic an easy would it be to use another Qt version beyond 5.4.x for the portable version/AppImages inside the next releases before 3.x? Especially for the AppImage there are known bugs with 5.4 (input by using the numpad, maybe resolution problems with HiDpi monitors too...)
In reply to Without having really skills… by kuwitt
As far as I'm aware we are stuck with Qt 5-4 for Windows/mingw, due to the lack of webview, needed for the start center. but it is only this platform and toolchain having this problem, the only reason to stay on the same Qt version for Mac and Linux is consistency, so we could move to a newer Qt for the AppImages.
In reply to As far as I'm aware we are… by Jojo-Schmitz
What is the obstacle of building MuseScore with MSVC?
In reply to What is the obstacle of… by marczellm
Getting it to work...
Try it, get it to work, share (description in developers' handbook, possible also a PR for some needed code or build changes) and become famous ;-)
On top of enabling us to move to a newer Qt version, we than also could put out fully supported 64-bit version of MuseScore for Windows
In reply to Getting it to work... by Jojo-Schmitz
The dev handbook says that the current dev version uses Qt 5.9. I guess the WebView requirement was removed in 3.0? So getting 2.x to build with MSVC would only be a temporary solution to this particular problem which only exists in 2.x?
In reply to The dev handbook says that… by marczellm
But a permanent solution for being able to provide 64-bit builds, and also might offer the ability to get the start center's online part back. It has been disabled temporarily (?) die to the lack of webview conflicting with the need for a newer Qt
In reply to But a permanent solution for… by Jojo-Schmitz
There’s minGW64 though…
In reply to There’s minGW64 though… by mirabilos
This is what ABL uses to provide the unsupported 64-bit version (IIRC he compiles the whole thing himself!), and AFAIK also is without webview.
It is not part of the Qt installer and a major task to get (to work)!
Thanks for taking the time to improve percussion in Musescore! Will pitched percussion (specifically marimbas and vibraphones, etc.) also be updated in 2.3?
In reply to Thanks for taking the time… by nicolyon1005
The current focus is updating unpitched percussion, but it could be great to focus on pitched percussion once unpitched is complete.
There are some great new samples made available by Sam Gossner under a CC0 license, making them compatible with MuseScore licenses that could help accelerate the effort.
In reply to The current focus is… by Daniel
Thanks, I actually wasn’t aware of these samples. Perhaps they could go in the Musescore_General font eventually?
In reply to Thanks, I actually wasn’t… by nicolyon1005
Also, I had noticed that there are samples for hard and soft mallets for vibraphone/marimba. A solution to this could use the staff text to specify the different types of mallets, similar to how string instruments handle pizzicato or tremolo.
In reply to Thanks, I actually wasn’t… by nicolyon1005
That’s the plan ;)
In reply to That’s the plan ;) by mirabilos
Ayy esketit
In reply to Ayy esketit by nicolyon1005
Sorry, I don’t understand. Ich verstehe nicht. No entiendo. Non comprehendo. Ik snap het niet.
Very cool. I like that you'd rather take the time to do it right to release a thoroughly complete version rather than you throwing together a rushed version that's half assed done with bugs (coughs Windows 10). You guys have done an awesome job considering how much you can do with Musescore with very few bugs/problems that need to be fixed. Thanks for the great thorough work you've done : )
In reply to Very cool. I like that you'd… by Adria Sorensen
As if we ever had throwing together a rushed version that's half assed done with bugs ...
Hmm, I once read somewhere on these forums that every 2.x release means that 3.0 is pushed back a bit, so I'm rather conflicted about news of a 2.3 release. 3.0 was first announced back in May 2016 and promised great features which the good developers have been working on ever since.
3.0's smart layout is a necessity for me as having to make manual adjustments is really irritating. I was hoping the developers would focus solely on 3.0 since before news of 2.2, but I guess I just don't understand how software development works. 2.2 also fixed some of 2.1's regressions, which I guess was important.
Sorry for being a bit negative, and feel free to prove me wrong. In the meantime, I guess I'll take to playing around with the master branch and reporting any bugs I find, if I stumble across any. I hope this message isn't rude.
In reply to Hmm, I once read somewhere… by FugalOmen
These releases might mean they come because 3.0 is pushed a bit back (it’s a massive task, after all, and still very buggy), not causing it to be pushed back.
MuseScore releases are rare enough… I’d prefer getting small bugfix-only releases like 2.2.1 every now and then, but the big ones like 2.1, 2.2 (currently about once a year) merging most fixes and a number of stable-enough features are useful to the average person trying to get MuseScore, and Free Software in music, and Free Music, more accepted.
Gradual changes also help both packagers and users to adjust better.
In reply to These releases might mean… by mirabilos
Thank you for clarifying this, this is very insightful information. Wish you well!
In reply to Hmm, I once read somewhere… by FugalOmen
I'd say it is unavoidably true that any 2.x release will take resources away from 3.0 and thus potentially delay it (or cause it to be released with fewer features, or other compromise it). Thus, interim releases are not undertaken lightly. But indeed, the reality is that, based on the current state of things, a 3.0 release is still a long ways off, and it can still be the right decision to get some improvements out there before 3.0 is ready even if that does push 3.0 out a bit. It's a delicate balance to be sure.
You are developers, so you just do what developers do, that is -- you develop pieces of software. That's good.
I would like to offer you my two cents, though: I have been using 2.1 for a long while, and I loved it all the time; I'm now using 2.2.1, and I love it as well. What I mean, is that when a piece of software is as good as MuseScore has been since a few years ago, it really doesn't matter if it is updated or not. What it really matters is that it remains a good piece of software. Oh, and (very important) that each new version maintains backward compatibility with not-so-new systems (how many people are still using XP these days, or have to rely on not-so-fast machines to achieve their tasks?).
In reply to You are developers, so you… by Aldo
If a future version of MuseScore is released that will not work on xp (that I believe Microsoft even stopped supporting) the version you are using will continue to work, but there will be features you will not be able to upgrade to and bugs that will never go away. You will have to decide if this is acceptable or if it's time to upgrade your system. This is true of all software.
In reply to If a future version of… by mike320
Microsoft stopped supporting Windows XP 4 years ago already (almost exactly; 8th April 2014), for Windows 8 2 years ago (12th Januray 2016), for Windows Vista one years ago (11th April 2017), Windows 7 (and 8.1) support is planed to end in 2 years (14th January 2020).
Please add a capability for Gregorian Chant notation. If that is not possible, consider allowing music to be input without measures, as chant is free flowing rather than rhythmic-metered, and allow square as well as round notes.
In reply to Please add a capability for… by DavidJustinLynch
In reply to Use a large time signature … by jeetee
Jeetee, your answer is so cool, that I think we need to organize special Hackathon and solve non-trivial tasks in MuseScore with existing toolset :)
In reply to Jeetee, your answer is so… by Anatoly-os
It actually happens quite frequently that users ask for a feature which is either implemented already, or quite simple to get to using and combining existing features :-)
See also https://musescore.org/en/handbook/early-music-features#unbarred-notation and https://musescore.org/en/handbook/measure-operations#split-join and https://musescore.org/en/node/24449
In reply to It actually happens quite… by Jojo-Schmitz
Hi Jojo,
<< implemented already, or quite simple >>
but:
<< The feature is still in development and may contain bugs >>
In reply to Hi Jojo,… by frfancha
Well, yes. And to my knowledge nobody is really working on it currently.
In reply to Use a large time signature … by jeetee
Just curious if GSoC 2018 is still going to happen and if the project to allow work areas for measures is still expected to happen? This will make the unmeasured measures much easier if implemented correctly.
In reply to Just curious if GSoC 2018 is… by mike320
GSoC 2018 of course is going to happen. And MuseScore will be part of it. But no more details to share just yet.
In reply to Please add a capability for… by DavidJustinLynch
@ DavidJustinLynch, for some ideas...
HTH
In reply to @ DavidJustinLynch, for some… by Shoichi
Please detail the exact steps you used to create these scores.
In reply to Please detail the exact… by DavidJustinLynch
Probably better to start a new thread to discuss that topic. First, though, you might want to check out the existing information already provided above in the links, and then if you have specific questions, ask away in that new thread!
In reply to Please add a capability for… by DavidJustinLynch
Here is a cool video with a side by side comparison of creating Gregorian chant in MuseScore vs. Finale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufnFnlLAnHY
Since posting about the future of series 2 I encountered some crashes in the recent version (not sure if one of those is filed), so I certainly welcome more releases; perhaps even quarterly ones?
Will seperate right and left hand samples be created for each instrument?
In reply to Will seperate right and left… by nicolyon1005
Yep. And also supports multiple samples for each with alternations (round robin).
For example, a single snare hit previously had one sample, but now has 4 samples - 2 L and 2 R.
If there is a series of say 4 sixteenth note hits, rather than triggering a single sample for each, it would alternate between 4 samples.
It is important to note that this doesn't mean that sticking will trigger sticking specific samples.
Will there be improvements in the display of video scores on YouTube? I often see octave signs and symbols that get misaligned during the scrolling video. The notes play in correct octave range but get distorted during video playback. Also, any options for color display and the title, composer part of the score to display?
In reply to Will there be improvements… by Timothy Stapay
If you have a specific problem with a specific score regarding octave markings, best to start a new thread in the Support forum. Attach the score and tell us the precise steps to reproduce the problem.
But FWIW, this thread is about a planned update to the MuseScore notation software itself, not about anything having to do with websites (MuseScore's or YouTube's).