Is this a bug?
First of al congratulations with your great work. I'm very greatful that now I can enter an E sharp.. but I noticed another problem, I am working on a score with 3 flats at the key signature and I would like to enter an G sharp but when I type G and then Arrow up I get an A.
Comments
If you enter a G in a keysig with 3 sharps, that G is a G# already (unless prefixed with a natural).
Just look at the status bar, it tells you which note it is (amongst other things). The next pitch above is A, so that is what arrow up gives you. It not a bug, but a feature ;-)
In reply to If you enter a G in a keysig by Jojo-Schmitz
I am not working with 3 sharps, but with 3 flats, it is a feature that the next pitch above is A, (flatend by the key signature) but I would like it marked as G sharp. I remember that in 1.3 it worked that way
In reply to I am not working with 3 by Trucker
Oops, I misread apparently.
Enter the G, Arrow Up, gets you an Ab, then Ctrl+J to use the enharmonic spelling G#
In reply to Oops, I misread by Jojo-Schmitz
Actually, use "J" rather than "Ctrl+J" unless you only want to affect the spelling the current concert pitch mode (on or off).
Or enter the G# directly by typing G then adding a sharp using the toolbar, palette, or keyboard shortcut if you have defined one.
The algorithm for up/down arrows was indeed changed in response to numerous requests that we favor diatonic spellings.
In reply to Actually, use "J" rather than by Marc Sabatella
Thank you for your quick responce, this works
In reply to Actually, use "J" rather than by Marc Sabatella
Might be something to add to https://musescore.org/en/node/51666 ?
In reply to Might be something to add to by Jojo-Schmitz
Isn't that page for changes, not new features? Neither J nor Ctrl+J was in 1.3.
Oh, maybe you mean the change in the algorithm for default spelling? I guess it could be. I doubt the original was documented anywhere. It either did what you wanted by default or you needed to override it, and that hasn't changed. I think the specifics of the algorithm currently used are not really worth documenting, as I could easily imagine them being tweaked in the future.
In reply to Isn't that page for changes, by Marc Sabatella
Yes, I meant that different in behavour.