Mscore crashes when toggling visibility instruments in "edit", combined with hiding empty staves.

Thanks for looking at the score.

After getting rid of the corruptions you've pointed out (is there a way to track those?) copy-pasted all staves to a new sheet just to be sure. The problem remains. It seems that toggling the visibility of staffs/instruments only and only then causes a crash when creating multimeasure rests.
Or, to be more specific: when using multimeasure rests (style/score), hiding instruments (edit/instruments) AND (not or) hiding empty staves (style/score) causes Mscore to shut down.

After some trial and error:

Exporting it to .xml and opening it again seems to solve all problems without too much loss. Only the visivility of all elements are set to "on" again.

Yep, that's exactly what I have been doing.

I just opened the file you sent me, thanks.

Interesting enough, Mscore does not shut down immediately*, as it did before, but when hiding staves, it is using a lot of processing capacity (14% instead of the usual 0,5%). If I unable "hide empty staves", everything is back to normal.

1) I download file and open it
2) Press "I" to display instruments dialogue
3) Uncheck "visible" from top staff (the only one which seems to cause problems)
4) Task manager indicates MS using 0,0-0,4% processor capacity, which is normal

1) Download & opening file
2) Style/ enable hiding empty staves
3) Taskmanager indicates MS using a continious 14,5% processor capacity.
4) causing the program to slow down a lot
5) Style / disable (or is it unable) "hiding empty staves"
6) Taskmanager indicates MS is back to 0,0-0,4% processor capacity.

1) Download & opening file
2) Style/ enable hiding empty staves
3) Taskmanager indicates MS using a continious 14,5% processor capacity.
4) causing the program to slow down a lot
5) Press "I" to display instruments dialogue
6) Uncheck "visible" from top staff (the only one which seems to cause problems)
7) Taskmanager indicates MS is back to 0,0-0,4% processor capacity.

So, still something is wrong here, and my guess would be the problem is somewhere hidden in the staff of the first instrument, and then, ONLY if it is displayed on screen, because if I delete the "solo", I don't see any above average use of the processor, whatever commands I use.

When I use your sequence everything seems to be OK, by the way:

1) Press "M" to enable multimeasure rests
2) Style / General
3) Enable "Hide empty staves"
4) OK
5) Press "I" to display Instruments dialog
6) Uncheck "Visible" for top staff
7) OK

I suggest I let it go for now, since after using the xml work around my score seems to be OK, but if on other scores the problem recurs, I would be grateful to be able to contact you again.

Thanks for helping,

regards

* it did in the end, though, but after a lot of doing and undoing "I", "M" and "style/score/hiding empty staves".

** update: if, using the score you send me, without using any further commands, but just enabling "small staff" in the piano staff1 "staff properties", task manager indicates normal processor activity. But if I also put staff2 to "small", task manager indicatues very high processor activity, not going back to normal. If i put the top stave to "small" (so only the 4 choirstaves are normal) the processor activity goes back to normal again. Shoot me ;-)

***update 2:
looks like "layout/pagesettings" has got some influence here. For most of my scores (and in this one) I use l/r/t/d = 7/7/10/10, to get the max out of a sheet. If, using your score, I put it back to default 10/10/10/20, whatever I try, everything seems to go normal, without any higher processor activity. Which brought me to try "continious mode" WITHOUT resetting page margins to default 10/10/10/20, and then, as expected, also functions normally. So I guess Musescore might have some problems in figuring out how to fit the staves on the pages. And in some cases, the program slows down and sometimes (when processor activity exceeds ca 15%) shuts down. I think this, more then any of the above, may be a valuable clue to solving the riddle.

It has been fixed 2 years ago?
Thanks anyway :)