discovering version 2.0
Some days ago I started studying ver. 2. I suspect these remarks are in general because of my bad knowledge but maybe some are really bags? Some are about site's behavior. Some came from MS. Since I'm not sure those are bugs then I have not opened a separate thread for every question yet.
(OS: Win7 prof, browser: Mozilla ver. 25.0.1)
1. When one click "online handbook" in MS2.0 help menu then a native language handbook page is opened and you can download pdf file with help. But if you wish to download at the same time handbook on another language and set it in a drop-down list "Languages" then you are redirected to a unpredictable page (depends of a language). Of course, It's possible to click on Handbook but on today at 5 p.m. redirection was the right, and in the evening - wrong (under Win8, MSIE 9). It's strange :)
2. There is no comments on how SEARCH field of the site works. How 2 or 3 keywords are processed? Is it possible to use OR, AND, NOT logics?
3. As I understand there is no full handbook on MS ver. 2.0. So one have to ask here, sorry!
4. As I understand there is no text notation of a tempo (like "Adagio" etc. in ver. 1.3). Other remarks were put on thethread: http://musescore.org/en/node/32226
5. Sometimes while adding to a staff a 1/2 note using the "Note" mode a program automatically changes duration to a 1/4! To correct one should select the note again and again set the duration on a duration palette. If you'd like to get a right result just after the first click you should click, e.g., on a whole note and then on 1/2. Only after such a switching you get right duration on a staff after clicking (Win8, after a long-term staff editing). Under Win7 just after app's started there is no such an effect. Does MS 2.0 keep the history and predict duration?
6. I could not install plugin createchords by johnhenry. The zip-archive contains .ui and .js-extensions files while the installed MS2.0 plugin directory contains .qm and .qml files. Is there any means to convert the old plugin into a new format?
Comments
1 & 2 are more comments about the web site than about MuseScore 2.0 Beta; I let someone else answer those.
3) correct, handbook is not written yet
4) Yes, you can have any text you want in a tempo marking. Add the tempo marking normally (from palette or Alt+T) then double click it and enter any text you want, including "Adagio". The automatic facility to set the playback tempo from the text won't work, but you can set the playback tempo for the marking manually using the Inspector.
5) Can you post step by step instructions to reproduce what you are seeing? Only time note duration would automatically set to quarter note is when you first enter note input mode. That's not really different from 1.3.
6) 2.0 Beta has an entirely new plugin architecture; 1.3 plugins no longer work. New plugins are being written for 2.0. If you are at all handy with programming, see the Plugins forum here and make find a few pointers on how to adapt old plugins to the new architecture.
In reply to 1 & 2 are more comments about by Marc Sabatella
Dear Marc, thank you for "3" and "6"! It's clear.
As to "4" one would need to change a tempo "poco a poco". There was "rall" mark in ver. 1.3. I don't know how it worked but it seemed that tempo was changed. If to use the way you recommend, then I should put tempo marking EVERY 2 measures to make tempo slower during the next 4-6 measures to get the effect I need. IMHO it's not the right way of slowing the tempo.
As to "5" - I tried and sometimes I reproduce the behavior, sometimes I don't :( Hope I get the result and show it. Right now I can demonstrate a screenshot where there is a 1/2 note icon switched on on a palette and there is a 1/4 note template to be inserted onto a staff. How it was happen I couldn't reproduce yet.
(added a bit later) Really the screenshot looks like the webm-file posted in http://musescore.org/en/node/34576 by jpfleury. I have nothing to add.
In reply to #3 is clear by alexander.poro…
No, "rall." and similar markings had no effect in 1.3, nor do they in 1.3. If you wiush to hear playback of these, you will indeed have to manually set a tempo for them and insert a series of them (making all but the first invisible). Same as 1.3.
Regarding #5, indeed, the initial duration icon does lie if you don't start by clicking a note. If you start note entry by selecting a note, it seems to be good, otherwise not. Actually, the *behavior* is arguably right no matter what; it's the *feedback* in the toolbar that seems out of sync.
About the point 5, I suspect it's the bug described on these two reports:
#34576: no/wrong note value icon selected when entering note input mode without first selecting note/rest
#35191: Mismatch between the toolbar note icon and the real note added
There are two screencasts in the second report. It may help to identify the problem.
In reply to About the point 5, I suspect by jpfle
You are right, I mean the same, thanks for the link!
By default it's working like Google, implicitly using OR between all keywords.
You can use AND between your keywords to get the opposite behaviour.
You can also use - in front of a keyword to exclude it from the results.
In reply to 2. Search by Thomas
It would be very useful to make clear that Boolean operators work in Searching the site. I am sure many people have wondered the same thing as the original poster in this thread; I know I have.
In reply to 2. Search by Thomas
By default it's working like Google, implicitly using OR between all keywords.
Actually, I think it's the opposite: "If you want to search for pages that may have just one of several words, include OR (capitalized) between the words. Without the OR, your results would typically show only pages that match both terms."
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/136861
Personally, I think that by default, the operator "AND" should be implicitly used between keywords. I didn't know that we could use booleans in the MuseScore website search field (there's no mention of this possibility) and I was always wondering why there were so many results not really related to my search parameters.
Anyway, no matter what are the default settings, it may be a good idea to add explanation about use of booleans below the search field.
In reply to By default it's working like by jpfle
Really "it may be a good idea to add explanation". There are a lot of sites which have not such an explanation and forces users to waste time :(
Thank you for reporting the problem with the handbook. I have reproduced the problem. Will come back to you when it's fixed.
In reply to 1. handbook by Thomas
OK, Thomas, thanks!
In reply to ok! by alexander.poro…
The language switcher is working as expected now. Thanks again for reporting.
About the point 3 (handbook for the development version), is there some work in progress? If not, it may be a good idea to create a draft that we could use to update information while testing the development version.
Example: an administrator could make a copy of the current handbook (for version 1.3), for example in musescore.org/en/handbook-dev or musescore.org/en/handbook/v2. This handbook would not be linked in the website, so it would be known only by users involved in the development version of MuseScore.
We could use this "draft" to update information. When the new handbook would be ready and the next MuseScore version be released, the handbook would be moved to its official URL (if it's not already its final URL) and be linked in the website for all users.
In reply to About the point 3 (handbook by jpfle
About the handbook for the development version, see //musescore.org/en/node/36181
About the point 6 (plugins), each individual plugin page may contain a "Compatibility" section to explicitly list supported versions of MuseScore.
In reply to About the point 6 (plugins), by jpfle
only very few plugins have been ported, and those do mention it.
If it isn't mentioned, assume it is 1.x only.
In reply to only very few plugins have by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks about "assume it is 1.x only." It's a new lesson for future - search for notes about the version. Maybe it's worth to include ver. # into a total plugin's list?