User position for beam

• Mar 13, 2019 - 15:58

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.


The current method prevents inadvertently changing the position while scrolling through the inspector. I prefer the current method.

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 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.

Attachment Size
Sor - Étude Op.31 #19 [S10].pdf 85.73 KB

In reply to 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.


Attachment Size
bracket barre.png 4.1 KB

In reply to 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?

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