Further development of album feature

• May 14, 2018 - 22:09

I am working on a large score, a Latin mass for symphonic orchestra. Editing the entire Mass in a single MuseScore file does not work today. The performance gets already bad with some bigger parts. So I put every movement (Kyrie, Gloria, etc.) in a single file. But a lot of work must be done several times, e.g. all the formatting configuration needs to be copied to all files.

Today there is the Album Feature to combine several files for certain functions. In my opinion, however, this does not meet all the "necessary" requirements for such a large score. I would therefore like to encourage the further development of the album feature. I would like to see the following functions:
1) I open the entire score from a single file (maybe a new file type). The individual movements defined by the user should be saved as separate files.
2) The main file defines all properties that apply to the entire score: Title, composer, instruments, copyright, etc. fonts, spacing, sizes, page format, etc.
3) The subfiles (a subset of the current file format) no longer contain the above properties, only the notes, etc.
4) To optimize the display performance, I suggest that the entire score is not displayed in the application at once. The movements could be shown in additional tabs, as is already done with the "parts" today. (From my point of view 2 levels of tabs would not be a problem. Or maybe there is a much better display format.)
5) All actions that refer to a single MuseScore file today should refer to the complete score (the new album), including, for example, the "parts" that also could optionally be saved in separate files.
6) I think it would be important to develop this feature in consideration of collaboration functions. Large works are certainly more likely to be developed in a team than by one person alone. The basic requirement would be a mergeable file format, i.e. XML rather than a binary format.

Lets take this as my initial post. I am willing to work constructively on this idea and, if necessary, on its implementation. Now I am looking forward to your opinions and of course also your assessment regarding the probability that such a thing would be implemented at all and in the foreseeable future.


Comments

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Sounds great!
What a pity that this could not be read from the roadmap. I consulted her specifically before I wrote the full article. Or did I miss it?
I "master score" already implemented in development version or partially or just planned? I could not find any related in the recent nighly build.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I think, you are very busy with implementing new features for Version 3. That is great, really! This is why your answer are very, very short. But I need to ask for more details:
1. Is somewhere a definition of the feature "master score" and an overview for the current state?
2. Is somewhere a roadmap/timeline for release of 3.0?

The feature (set) I mentioned is a very desired feature, at least for ... ;)

Thanks!

In reply to by lg-dd

In general, no, there is no published documentation of unreleased features, no published roadmaps or timelines - things just aren't done that formally. At least, things haven't been done that way in the past; it's possible with the new people involved, that might change over time.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I did not ask for a documentation, I wrote "definition". I think, there are more developers working on such a (big?) feature than a single one. So I guess, you will have some notes on the scope and requirements around the feature "master score", like a design or specification.

Why I'm asking again, and once again? I would like to check if the "requirements" I described initially would be covered by the feature you have already "designed" and (partially?) implemented. I also would like to test it before you are getting closer to the release. Is it possible to test the current state? Please, help me to help.

When I'm asking for "release date" I do not want to blame you a few days after "the date". Today I just want to plan my work the Mass I mentioned above. Would it be possible to use this feature this year?

Finally, just a statement on the release schedule at all. I feel, you have defined a "Version 3" with many, many new features including internal refactorings. Did you have checked to switch to a schedule with more releases with less features each?

In reply to by lg-dd

I think maybe you overestimate the size of project :-). Most features are indeed implemented by a single person, and normally, there isn't anything written about except what you see in the code.

You can certainly check out the current state of development - see the Downloads menu above, and search for a nightly build of the "master" branch.

As to whether 3.0 will come out this year or not, there isn't even that level of information available. Based on previous history and where development is right now, though, I'd personally bet against it.

There have indeed been smaller releases as well, see 2.2 which just happened, and 2.3 that is planned for the near future (search these forums for discussions of that). In general, though, "big" features that create incompatibility (scores created in one version won't load correctly in an older one that lacks the feature) only happen for "major" releases like 3.0.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.