disappearing measures,
I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures
APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure rest where
I later entered notes, and forgot to turn off the rest.
That
was a typo (although I have seen the measures
Jeremy,
Unless I've very much misunderstood your explanation, it sounds like
something a simple Update Layout will fix. You can even turn on
Automatic Update Layout, if you like.
(BTW, since there has been discussion of the sluggishness caused by
Automatic Update Layout, Automatic Word
On 3 Mar 2005 at 8:44, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I also think that staff optimization should not be something that
you have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or
insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide
previously populated
On 3 Mar 2005 at 11:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I am not against an automatic function with manual override, although
I don't think I'd need or use it (because undoubtedly it will again
slow down Finale, as most of these automatic update routines do).
What if there were an option to set it to
On 3 Mar 2005 at 7:06, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 2, 2005, at 10:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
disappearing measures,
I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen
measures APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually
Although I can see that it may be useful to some, it wouldn't be useful
to me, so I am not interested (but I don't object).
However, something I'd much rather see is automatic vertical staff
spacing. ;-)
Johannes
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 at 11:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I am not
On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the
score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the
optimization information is stored with the absolute system, and is in
fact manually accessable. I do not wish
On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:22, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the
score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the
optimization information is stored with the absolute system,
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves
from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization
turned on for the passage of music represented on a system
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves
from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization
turned on for the passage of music represented on a system
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting
On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:28, Mark D Lew wrote:
It's just that I would have worded it to say that removal of
empty staves is what needs to be separated from optimization.
The meaning of the word optimization would then be associated with
something that is not remotely related to the concept the
On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:28, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
[]
. . . I use this constantly, because the vertical height of a piano
accompaniment varies throughout the piece. A constant distance
from voice staff to piano-treble staff is unacceptable
On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:25 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The meaning of the word optimization would then be associated with
something that is not remotely related to the concept the word
represents.
You optimize in Finale in order to optimize the usage of space on
the page, by eliminating blank staves,
On 3 Mar 2005 at 18:51, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:25 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The meaning of the word optimization would then be associated with
something that is not remotely related to the concept the word
represents.
You optimize in Finale in order to optimize the
of the control of non-default behavior.
Thanks for spelling that out again. I agree that in order to keep
Finale in business it's important to clean up behavior which seems
obtuse to new users. But for me, it only matters so long as we
maintain all the fine controls. If Finale just turns
On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Removing blank staves returns a lot more usable space than vertically
adjusting spacing within a staff.
Taking up space is not the only criterion. An attractively spaced page
is more optimal than one in which every system is cramped.
To offer a
Greetings
all,
mailing list newbie
here. Glad to have found this.
The latest
version of Finale I am familiar with is 2002, having refused to upgrade beyond
that until they fixed some of the basic notational problems in Finale that
always seemed to get overlooked -- the eternal problems
bandwidth here! ;-)
I have no interest in S~ myself, exactly because of the you can't do
that in S~ responses I've seen in various forums over the years which I
have been able to do trivially in Finale, so I don't look often. In
response to a question about comparisons of Sibelius and Finale, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is somewhere on the internet where someone has actually
documented these things, that would certainly suffice.
Go to the Finale tips site, click on Other Texts. There you have
in-depth reviews of Finale 2002, Finale 2003, Finale 2004 Finale 2005.
Best
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings all,
mailing list newbie here. Glad to have found this.
The latest version of Finale I am familiar with is 2002, having refused
to upgrade beyond that until they fixed some of the basic notational
problems in Finale that always seemed to get overlooked --
An often-overlooked area of improvement in Finale versions is the
interface for plugins. Both Finale 2003 and Finale 2004 included
significant improvements that greatly expanded the power of plugins.
Finale 2003 allowed plugins to detect and operate on multiple open
documents. Finale 2004
On Mar 2, 2005, at 4:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings all,
mailing list newbie here. Glad to have found this.
The latest version of Finale I am familiar with is 2002, having refused to upgrade beyond that until they fixed some of the basic notational problems in Finale that always
On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
disappearing measures,
I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures
APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure
rest where I later entered notes, and forgot to turn off the rest.
Well, that
David W. Fenton wrote:
I also think that staff optimization should not be something that you
have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or
insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide
previously populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on,
it
101 - 124 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
