Can you please attach the score and information here to keep everything focused in one place?
The circled numbers are not true fingerings; they are string number indications. So it is correct in general they would not be intermixed with fingerings. But if you attach your score and information here, we can discuss whether there is some special usage going on that might warrant different treatment.
Thanks Marc.
There are definitively ordinary fingering, the circle has been obtained by text properties (putting it in bold as well).
Here the content of the original post:
Before reset:
After reset:
2 problems:
Measure 2 and 6: fingering i with a circle is higher positioned, should be aligned with other fingering.
I suppose the auto position algorithm overvalues the necessary space for the circle.
Measure 1 and 5: why is the fingering i of the before last note so low? And why is the m of the last note so high?
When you select the circled i in the score the status bar reports it as "Fingering string number" this is true in both versions 2 & 3. It seems you have changed the text on a string to make the i rather than change the text properties of a finger to circle it.
Thanks for the info Mike, it means I was exploring a new way to circle some fingering at that time, usually I add all them "normally" then circle the important ones by text properties.
I have changed them in V2, and the problem is different, they are now positioned too low...
Problem of measure 1 and 5 is still the same.
If they are normal fingerings and not string numbers, you shouldn't be using the string number text style, but instead should simply add a circle manually via text properties in 2.0 or the Inspector in 3.0 (easier because you do several at once now). If you deliberately use the wrong text style, it shouldn't be surprising that the new 3.0 defaults don't work so well.
The note itself is lower, so no surprise the fingering is. But it would be better if it avoided the beam. That to me is the bug here. In general, the autoplace for fingering is rather limited, but this mc is supposed to work, at least according to the comment in the code. So I'm leaving this open separate from the more general suggestion to do additional collision avoidance for fingering.
Comments
Can you please attach the score and information here to keep everything focused in one place?
The circled numbers are not true fingerings; they are string number indications. So it is correct in general they would not be intermixed with fingerings. But if you attach your score and information here, we can discuss whether there is some special usage going on that might warrant different treatment.
Thanks Marc.
![beforeReset_2.PNG]( "beforeReset_2.PNG")
![afterReset_1.PNG]( "afterReset_1.PNG")
There are definitively ordinary fingering, the circle has been obtained by text properties (putting it in bold as well).
Here the content of the original post:
Before reset:
After reset:
2 problems:
Measure 2 and 6: fingering i with a circle is higher positioned, should be aligned with other fingering.
I suppose the auto position algorithm overvalues the necessary space for the circle.
Measure 1 and 5: why is the fingering i of the before last note so low? And why is the m of the last note so high?
In reply to Thanks Marc. There are… by frfancha
You attached the backup. Look for the score with no , at the end.
And no, they are not, they are meant for string numbers, hover over them in the palettes and see the tooltip
In reply to You attached the backup… by mike320
Sorry, Mike, here the score
In reply to And no, they are not, they… by Jojo-Schmitz
Hi Jojo, here the tooltip I got in the palette, it says RH Guitar fingering i.
![fing.png]( "fing.png")
Are they not fingerings?
In reply to Hi Jojo, here the tooltip I… by frfancha
Those are not circled
This is getting funny...you attached the wrong score.
In reply to Those are not circled by Jojo-Schmitz
Hi Jojo,
I know that they are not circled.
As I mentioned at the beginning, the circle is added by text properties.
In reply to This is getting funny...you… by mike320
Oops really sorry... score corrected now.
When you select the circled i in the score the status bar reports it as "Fingering string number" this is true in both versions 2 & 3. It seems you have changed the text on a string to make the i rather than change the text properties of a finger to circle it.
Thanks for the info Mike, it means I was exploring a new way to circle some fingering at that time, usually I add all them "normally" then circle the important ones by text properties.
![Capture.PNG]( "Capture.PNG")
I have changed them in V2, and the problem is different, they are now positioned too low...
Problem of measure 1 and 5 is still the same.
In reply to Thanks for the info Mike, it… by frfancha
I agree the i fingerings are lower than the rest. Someone who understands the code will have to take it from here.
In reply to Thanks for the info Mike, it… by frfancha
If they are normal fingerings and not string numbers, you shouldn't be using the string number text style, but instead should simply add a circle manually via text properties in 2.0 or the Inspector in 3.0 (easier because you do several at once now). If you deliberately use the wrong text style, it shouldn't be surprising that the new 3.0 defaults don't work so well.
The note itself is lower, so no surprise the fingering is. But it would be better if it avoided the beam. That to me is the bug here. In general, the autoplace for fingering is rather limited, but this mc is supposed to work, at least according to the comment in the code. So I'm leaving this open separate from the more general suggestion to do additional collision avoidance for fingering.
Attached is a simple example.
In reply to The note itself is lower, so… by Marc Sabatella
When autoplacement places fingering above the beam, it should align with the beam, not the note head.
This should be addressed by https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/4591
See https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/4591
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.