User position for beam
Allow user position change to be entered with one click on either the x or y position instead of first checking the user position box and then a second click to change the position. The user position box can then be automatically checked after a position change.
Comments
The current method prevents inadvertently changing the position while scrolling through the inspector. I prefer the current method.
In reply to The current method prevents… by mike320
I'm not sure how just scrolling through the inspector would change the position unless you actually clicked on the position.
In reply to I'm not sure how just… by patspector
Uncheck user position, move your mouse over a number and scroll.
I'm kind of surprised to see anyone using those particular fields at all. I've never really sorted out how they are interpreted, and it's one of the places I find manual adjustments to perform directly in the score. Can you explain more what you are using this for? If there is a way to make the process easier, that seems like it would be a win.
In reply to I'm kind of surprised to see… by Marc Sabatella
See attached file.
Many of the default beam positions had to be adjusted to fit to avoid conflict with the adjacent staff. Also, some adjustments are made from the default to fit the fingering numbers.
I did not realize one could scroll the position window once the user position box was checked. But it is still a two step process where most of the other windows in the inspector allow a direct change without a check box.
In reply to See attached file. Many of… by patspector
Can you post the actual score? Automatic placement should be avoiding conflict with other staves, well, automatically. Similarly fingering numbers should be avoiding beams automatically as well. You can also set various defaults for system distance, stem length shortening for notes outside the staff, etc. So you shouldn't be needing to do manual adjustments to get results similar to your PDF.
In reply to Can you post the actual… by Marc Sabatella
Can I email the score? Not sure I want it posted.
In reply to Can I email the score? Not… by patspector
Not sure what problems you foresee, but being open source source, we do rely on openness. There have never been problems from this and I don't expect they would start today. But feel to just create an excerpt if something about sharing it makes you uncomfortable.
In reply to Not sure what problems you… by Marc Sabatella
Here's the score. You need to reset the beam positions. I do want to keep the score to one page.
In reply to Here's the score. You need… by patspector
When I load it into 3.0.5, select all bemas, and reset the "User position" in Inspector, I don't see any collisions between beams and staves, nor do I see any obvious problems with fingering. However, there is a collision with some text lines you added where automatic placement is disabled. If I select all of those and re-enable autoplace, it just barely doesn't fit one page again. So I do see some need to do some manual adjustment of some kind. Can you describe what your strategy was with the beams? Not sure I'd have started there, but assuming that's where you are finding the most value, I'm still wondering if there is a better way to actually achieve the result.
In reply to When I load it into 3.0.5,… by Marc Sabatella
Actually the problem is again an import from 2.3.2. To fit things on one page, like in my printed score from a publisher, I had to move things around a bit. I find often the automatic beam is either too tall or too short and that's where the manual adjustments have to take place. There are no collisions, but adjustments need to be made to fit it to the page.
In reply to Actually the problem is… by patspector
Got it. Could be interesting to compare with the published score, then. Was the page size the same? The staff size?
FWIW, if I wanted to fit this on one sheet of Letter size paper, I'd probably start with those particular resets I mentioned, then eyeball the places where it seems extra space was added and deal with those individually - like between the system 24-29 and 30-34. A small manual adjustment on the line in measure 31 fixes that. Then I'd reduce staff size just ever so slightly until it fits. Looks like going from 1.524 to 1.521 does the trick and is a lot less work then fiddling with individual beams :-)
If I did want to adjust beams though, I'd probably pick a couple that seemed unnecessarily long and were adding space and would adjust them by double click and adjusting the handles, though, as opposed to the Inspector. For instance, the one below the staff in bar 8, adjusting the left handle shortend the beam as a whole, so you don't need to adjust the two values independentl, ut the one in bar 21 I'd adjust the right handle only.
None of which is to say the Inspector controls can't be improved of course.
In reply to Got it. Could be… by Marc Sabatella
I can't post the published score because of copyright issues, but my transcribed version follows the score very closely with the same page and staff size. Adjusting beams by the handles seemed to me as much effort as by the inspector (same number of clicks) and was less precise if I wanted the same adjustment for several beams.
In reply to I can't post the published… by patspector
OK. For me as I said this is one area where direct adjustment seems easier, but indeed, it's really about the same either way. I was just trying to understand if there was some advantage I was missing. Applying the exact same adjustment to several beams at once is indeed one.
FWIW, if you wanted to post just a small excerpt - a measure or two across two adjacent systems, say - that would normally be considered "fair use", and could prove instructive. But I actually meant, it would be interesting for you to do that comparison yourself :-). Sounds like you already have.
In reply to OK. For me as I said this… by Marc Sabatella
Yes I have compared, and in fact used the printed score as a template for my adjustments.
I do have some thoughts on wish list items which you have seen on the score I posted:
1. A way to place a string number (circle frame with number) followed by a line and optional hook just like placing a barre. I had to create a workaround in the score.
2. A way to create a vertical bracket with changeable heights which is placed instead of a barre for just a couple of notes (see attached pix). Again, what you see is a workaround.
Thanks,
Pat
In reply to Yes I have compared, and in… by patspector
For 1), looks like all we're missing is the ability to specifiy a frame for the text in a textline, that's a good request, feel free to submit it to the issue tracker (see Support menu above).
For 2), see the bracket symbol in the Arpeggios & Glissandi palette, seems this does what you want?