Handling a large MuseScore file
Hello,
For the first time I have made a 15 pages score 106k size.
Now I am facing great difficulty when manipulating for instance the length of a stem. Is there a practical limit to the file size of a score in MuseScore?
I am using Windows 7 64 bit with 16GB RAM.
Joe.
Comments
AFAIK, for pages, instruments etc..
Try to save and reload
What so you mean "great difficulty"? MuseScore does slow down the longer a score gets - a slight or perhaps not-so-slight lag between when you click something and when it takes effect. But 15 pages isn't really so long that you should be experiencing any sort of difficulty. So maybe post the score and describe *exactly* - step by step - what you are trying to do, what you expect to see happen, and what happens instead.
O.K. Marc.
I have uploaded two files, the first is a small sized one and the second is the one with 15 pages.
Now try to alter for instance the stem height of the second triple
in the first bar (double clicking, selecting the left handle and moving in upwards) of the small sized file and do this also in the large sized one.
On my computer I am experiencing then an annoying delay when doing this.
Hope this make things clear.
Joe
In reply to O.K. Marc. I have uploaded by JoeAlders
Wow, there's a remarkable improvement from 1.3 (slow) to 2.0 (no slowdown). My tests are on a Dell i7 quad @3.4Ghz, 8Gb RAM and a dedicated video card.
In reply to O.K. Marc. I have uploaded by JoeAlders
I notice slowness in starting, then reaches the position.
The same using the arrow keys.
(Maybe it's the graphics card?)
In reply to O.K. Marc. I have uploaded by JoeAlders
Yeah, definitely seems to be something about adjusting beam height in particular that is flaky with this score in 1.3. I tried some other larger scores and they are similar, maybe not quite as bad. Maybe it's a function of how many beams there are in the whole score? Anyhow, as observed, it does seem to much better in 2.0.
I tried a few other operations on the score in 1.3, and really, beam height adjustment is the only thing that seems inordinately slow. Everything else is just "slightly" sluggish, to the degree I'd expect in a score of this size.
The problem seems in part due to the fingerings. Remove those and things get better, but beam adjustment is still less responsive than one would like.
Thanks guys for all your comments!
So it seems that it is not all to blame on me.
But reducing the fingering (Marc's comment) is for me
not an option due to the fact that this is a vital part of
the (classical Guitar)score.
Have to wait till version 2 is coming I guess.......
Joe.
In reply to Thanks guys for all your by JoeAlders
Well, in a sense we're all waiting for 2.0, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways of getting the job done with 1.3. For one thing, I'd start by questioning why you need to edit beams more than rarely. When I reset the beams in your example, I see that you've adjusted many of them to be flatter. There is no need to do that one by one, though. Just go to Style / Edit General Style / Beams and play with the maximum slope setting. I don't normally need to edit more than about 1 beam in 100, so slow beam editing shouldn't be a deal breaker.
Also, while I agree you don't want to give up fingerings, consider, now that you know what's what, why not edit any beams you might need to edit first, *then* add fingerings?
Marc, thank you very much for your advices.
But I do not quite understand what you mean by flattening the beams. On the contrary, I mostly want them just having more slope because when (for instance those triples in the first bar of variation-I) I have entered them into the score, they appear to me too flat for my taste. So I often start to alter them to get a more 'lively' looking score.
I was not aware of setting the beam slope by default in the 'Edit General Style' so I will do some experimenting with it to get a result according to what I like.
Joe.