Alternate tuplets entry
I found it difficult to enter tuplets consecutively, since each time I press ctrl+3 the tuplet duration decreases by half (a tuplet of eighths becomes a tuplet of sixteenths and so on).
In my opinion if a quarter is selected while you press ctrl+3 you should have a tuple in a duration of a half (3 "quarters"), so you don't have to switch the duration each time you enter a tuple.
Thanks, Ophir.
Comments
With my support.
Yeah, totally agree with this feature request.
I find the current method intuitive enough. Press 5 (for quarter note duration) then [Ctrl]-3 means place 3 notes in that duration. Repeat for next triplet if necessary. Press 4 (for half-note duration) then [Ctrl]-3 means place 3 notes (crotchets) in that duration. Create a dotted quarter-note rest (say, in 6/8 time), click on it and press [Ctrl]-2 and you have a doublet.
Sometimes you have several measures of triplets (e.g. 4 x 3, repeated). In this instance start by creating rests, convert them into triplets and then go back and add the note pitches. For instance, press 5 and then press and hold down the 0 key to fill several measures with quarter-note rests. Then select them all and press [Ctrl]-3 and they all get converted to triplets. Now just go back and enter the notes.
Basically, I think it's easier to start with a duration and split it into pieces than have MuseScore work out how long the resulting segment is going to be. And, it's already engrained into the fabric of 1.x an into 2.x so I would vote for not changing it but I can see how an alternative - in addition - might appeal to some.
In reply to I find the current method by underquark
I have rather come to like selecting the overall duration first. It's more reliable - consider, what about cases where you have basically quarter note triplets, but the first quarter happens to be split into two eighths. An exception, sure, but it highlights how nice and simple the current method is in general.
But it does have the flaw described - it's hard to enter long runs of tuplets. To me, that's solveable *other* ways. For instance, there could be a new "repeat last tuplet". Or the duration could be made "sticky" so that once you were done entering one tuplet, entering another note automatically created the corresponding tuplet unless you explicitly change durations. Etc. But I suppose, a new "construct tuplet bottom-up from selected duration" command is as good a solution as either of those, if you don't mind the caveat that it doens't handle some situations well.
In any case, I definitely agree with underquark that whatever change might be made, it shoudl require user to do something different from what he does not - and alternative to, not replacement for, the current mechanism.