Note spacing in MuseScore3 is worse than MuseScore2.
I have a opinion.
I think MuseScore3 beta is more terribble to do music engraving than MuseScore2.
In MuseScore2, I can reduce gaps between notes almost unlimitedly by using "trailing space" of segment in Inspector.
But in MuseScore3, "trailing space" is deleted and there is only "leading space" in Inspector. I can't reduce less gaps than MuseScore2. I feel the limitations.
MuseScore2 has much flexibility to adjust note spacing, but MuseScore3 doesn't. If this goes on, I'll not use MuseScore3 in future.
Comments
MuseScore 3 doesn't allow you to overlap the note with the previous one, something I personally think is an improvement by default. Although I can see that for some experimental notation allowing to override even this could be desired.
The reason your last picture doesn't compress as much as in MS2 is that in the current beta versions of MS3 invisible elements still affect the layout; there is an increasing call for this to not be true and have invisible elements ignored by the automatic layout engine. If that becomes the truth then your second scenario will still be possible equally in MS3 as currently in MS2.
For the second example, there's a much better way to achieve what you want—select the beams and check the "Local relayout" box in the Inspector.
Of course, you should not normally need to reduce note spacing to nothing, that's hardly a real world example. But if you want to, then instead of using the "trailing space" adjustment, simply reduce "Minimum note spacing" in Format / Style / Measure. And as mentioned, the "Local relayout" feature is a much better way of achieving the second example. No need to rely on the hack of invisible rests!
Still, it's definitely worth continuing this discussion. If you find other examples of real-world things you want to do that you are having trouble with, go ahead and post and we'll see if there is an easy way. And if not, we'll look at addressing it!
In reply to Of course, you should not… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for reply.
In this example, Minimum note distance in Style doesn't make much differences in MuseScore3 beta.
I also turned off Automatic Placement of all elements, but there is no improved.
I don't like Local layout because it only works on beam.
![Spacing_of_MuseScore2_3.png]( "Spacing_of_MuseScore2_3.png")
So I never use Local layout in this case bacause I can't make space equal by using it.
And this is not acceptable for me.
In reply to Thanks for reply. In this… by HashibosoP
I'm understanding you have highly specialized requirements, but hopefully there is a way to improve things.
Instead of focusing on the particular tricks you are using (invisible rests, reduced leading space adjustments, etc) to achieve your goals (more even spacing with mixed rhythms), let's focus more on the goals themselves. So, one goal is to have a way of forcing equal spacing with triplets against sixteenths. Let's pretend there was one magic command that would just make that happen without all these convoluted workarounds. Somehow, I'm doubting that's the only thing you are using workarounds like this for. So, how about you describe some of the other situations you are trying to handle in terms of the end results, and we can also brainstorm what sort of new facilities would allow you to achieve those results with less effort!