Layout changes in 4.5 when opening scores made in 4.4
I just updated to 4.5 but... Every score I previously made looks different now. It looks like 4.5 is using a different spacing ratio or generally some different spacing algorithm, which completely mess up any layout which wasn't fixed (and of course I don't add a system break after every system).
Here attached are some examples, but I repeat that EVERY file I made looks now different.
You can find the MuseScore file made in 4.4 and the PDF I created then in 4.4; when you open the MuseScore file in 4.5, you'll see the layout is changed.
Please help. Thanks!
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Wolf-Ferrari - String Quartet E minor.mscz | 435.4 KB |
| Wolf-Ferrari - String Quartet E minor.pdf | 996.03 KB |
| Witt Sinfonia Alla Turca.mscz | 831.13 KB |
| Witt Sinfonia Alla Turca.pdf | 1.53 MB |
| Wolf-Ferrari - Organ Concerto.mscz | 627.32 KB |
| Wolf-Ferrari - Organ Concerto.pdf | 862.14 KB |
Comments
Due to the layout improvements in 4.5 vs. 4.4.thos suppose to happen, to a certain extent.
And as always: the more you tweaked the layout in an older release the more this bites back in newer releases .
I can currently check these scores though, so can't verify whether that's the case here too
In reply to Die to the layout… by Jojo-Schmitz
Yes, I'm totally aware that improvements can change layout of older score, but of ALL scores, made just with 4.4 (not MS3 or 2)?
Also, I don't see where is the "improvement", since now everything looks incredibly cluttered... :/
In reply to Yes, I'm totally aware that… by stepaparozzi
It doesn't look cluttered too me - it"s pretty clearly an improvement - but if you prefer taking more space uneccesarily, just add more breaks, or increase the minimum note distance and/or spacing ratio.
I've not seen any such difference in my own scores except in a very few corner cases, but my guess is that the relevant changes in your scores were mostly do to the improvements in https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/25099. The previous algorithm - while infinitely better than MU3 - had a few small flaws that would cause some notes to take more space than they should have, and this now corrected. Not sure why you'd have been running into that bug in 4.4.4 more than me or other people who don't see as much improvement as you're saying, but anyhow, that's my best guess.
Fun thing I can add: in the opening screen, I see the scores thumbnails with the old layout, which is different when opened...
In reply to Fun thing I can add: in the… by stepaparozzi
This is the mini image saved with the score so is expected
"I don't add a system break after every system"
I'm afraid this is the thing to do to ensure the same number of measures by line will be preserved from version to version (or even the new fixed feature since 4.5).
Have you tried to increase stretch just a bit in 4.5 to check if that "solves" your current issue?
In reply to "I don't add a system break… by frfancha
In order to reach the original layout, I have to stretch the bars up to 1.4...
Also, changing the note spacing ratio in Style>Bars doesn't change almost anything even whe set to the maximum 2.
In reply to In order to reach the… by stepaparozzi
So adding system break seems all you need
Seems the new layout allows for denser scores, which is good. At least much better than the other way round
In reply to So adding system break seems… by Jojo-Schmitz
It's not good. The new "denser" (=cluttered) layout is very bad looking, I can't understand how that can be seen as an engraving improvement...
In reply to It's not good. The new … by stepaparozzi
Add system breaks and all will be good for your scores.
Allowing for denser scores is good. Making scores wider is easy (as simple as adding a system break), but making denser is not.
In reply to Add system breaks and all… by Jojo-Schmitz
Denser scores are surely better than wide empty pages, but there's a limit beyond which a score is not "dense", it's just horribly cluttered. This limit has been largely surpassed by the new settings.
This is objectively bad engraving, I don't understand this regression of graphic quality in MS. :(
In reply to Denser scores are surely… by stepaparozzi
There's no regression. 4.5 just allows for denser scores and it is dead easy to have them as wide as before, by just adding system breaks. Which are good to add in any case, if you care for layout.
In reply to Denser scores are surely… by stepaparozzi
I disagree strongly. It looks better to my eyes, and apparently to everyone else here. I think you are just used to what your scores looked like before. But if despite what others are saying they see, you think most of the people reading your scores will have preferences more like yours than like ours, then by all means, add breaks where desired - always good practice anyhow to make your own choices regarding system layout rather than relying on defaults always. And 4.5 now makes it easy to loick in that layout.
In reply to Denser scores are surely… by stepaparozzi
I prefer denser scores overall, so I'm fine with an increase in density from changes in how spacing works, cause I often go for higher density anyway. My scores are in general more even in terms of systems per page when I decrease the staff size a bit, which also increases the density. Density is not an issue for me at all. And your 4.5 score image doesn't look too dense to my eyes at all. I've worked with Beethoven sonata scores that are denser than your score and it's not an issue, I can still clearly see which note is which in a dense score. 2 images of a Beethoven sonata I've done in MuseScore vs Breitkopf edition so that you can see what I mean by me working with high density without any issues.
I don't have a 4.5 image to compare to these 2, as I haven't updated to 4.5 yet (waiting for MuseScore to pick up that there's an update first before doing so), but yeah, high density isn't an issue for me.
In reply to I prefer denser scores… by Caters
The point is not what you prefer or what I prefer regarding density (everyone does what they want in relation to their needs). The issue concerns the fact that opening a score made with a previous version the formatting is 'heavily' modified, forcing the user to do the same operation twice. It is acceptable that small changes can be introduced that can be corrected in a short time, but here the changes are macroscopic.
In reply to I prefer denser scores… by Caters
Current 4.5 layout is a lot denser than these, though.
I'll wait when you install it and try to re-open you scores, then. :)
In reply to Current 4.5 layout is a lot… by stepaparozzi
MS 4.4 vs 4.5 with the same Beethoven sonata. Triplet measures look about the same density in both, measures with only quarter notes is where the difference lies. And honestly, I don't mind that, it aligns with what Breitkopf und Härtel editions like their Ludwig van Beethovens Werke edition that I took that other screenshot from, do in terms of spacing of quarter notes vs triplets and I'm absolutely fine with that. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be using Breitkopf und Härtel as my go to edition, now would I? But I do, because I like the aesthetic of their editions. And as a pianist, I like Breitkopf und Härtel because of the lack of fingerings, I really feel like I can figure out the fingerings that best suit my smaller hands when I don't have a bunch of fingerings marked in the score, but that's besides the point. Point is that I don't mind the change.
In reply to MS 4.4 vs 4.5 with the same… by Caters
As you can see in the few measures without tuplets, the spacing is incredibly tighter, surely something you can't just "not mind". Maybe try a different piece which doesn't have continuous tuplets widening the measures.
As you can see in the examples from my scores, we are not dealing with a minor change that can easily been ignored. :)
In reply to As you can see in the few… by stepaparozzi
Hard to say without the actual score, but the 4.5 spacing looks correct to me on the Beethoven. The quarter notes are given about 1.5 times as much space as the eighths, and the eights appear to be at the minimum spacing which is normally 0.5sp. I think this is likely an example of the issues that was fixed where too much space was given in previous releases. Again, though, hard to say for sure without examining the score itself.
I have to agree with the OP on this one. "Allowing" for a denser score is not the same as "forcing" a denser score. No need for this.
In reply to I have to agree with the OP… by bobjp
No one is forcing a thing. Previous versions had a bug that defaulted to an unnecessarily spread-out score. That bug is fixed, so scores are now spaced more properly. But if you prefer things spread out more, just add the breaks as explained - and as also mentioned, the process of locking your layout in is now also much simpler. It’s a huge win all around.
In reply to No one is forcing a thing. … by Marc Sabatella
Sorry Marc. The OP didn't use the default layout. He had it set up just the way he wanted. If he had wanted it packed together, he would have set it up that way. 4.5 had no business changing his layout. None. He shouldn't have to add anything to fix it. There are people with hundreds of scores that now might have to spend a lot of time fixing them. In what possible way is this better? We've never had to lock the layout. And now it's too late. Of all the many things that need to be fixed, this is perhaps the most pointless one for the developers to worry about. So yes, let's clutter up the scores and clutter up the Instruments ( sorry, Layout ) Palette. I spend a lot of time on the forums and I recall anyone asking for either of these things.
I have liked many of the changes MU4 has introduced. I use it every day. But today...I've had to spend so much time figuring out what the heck is going on. Never had that problem with any other version of MU4.
In reply to Sorry Marc. The OP didn't… by bobjp
Fixing bugs is always the business of program updates. So is improving the default layout. Virtually every single release of MuseScore has made improvement to the layout. And yes, virtually every single release of MuseScore has therefore triggered changes in the layout of some existing scores. Whether you personally experienced it or, it is an absolutely unavoid fact of life. Improved defaults means scores that use those defaults are improved - that's a good thing.
So again, if you don't want to merely accept the default layout and whatever changes might come in the future, then it is up to you to take steps to lock in your preferred layout. This has been true every since the very first 1.1 update. Not sure where you got the idea that this was never needed before - it has always been the only way to ensure that your score is not affected by future improvements. And this isn't some unique quirk of MuseScore - it is true of virtually every update to virtually every music notation program ever.
Of course, most scores don't end up being noticeably affected by most updates, so you can write a lot of scores and do a lot of updates without ever being affected. but it has absolutely always been a thing, always will be a thing if you don't lock your layout.
Well, after sleeping over it (it was like midnight here when I posted), I thank you all for you replies.
I still think that the new spacing algorithm is too cluttered, and anyone I showed it too agrees with me. I'm also aware that I can't do anything to convince MuseScore of the opposite, if they're used to deal with "denser" scores.
I hope that in future updates they'll riconsider spacings, talking about that with users and confronting their opinions, and will bring back the previous algorithm which allowed to create professional looking scores without tweaking every system. In the meanwhile, just stretching measure to 1.4 allow me to create better scores, and adding breaks and/or locks will prevent any future change.
Thank you again.
In reply to Well, after sleeping over it… by stepaparozzi
If you add locks then changing the stretch shouldn't be necessary?
In reply to If you add locks then… by frfancha
Uhm, nope? I should open the file in 4.4 and lock system there (with the old "Keep bars in the same system").
Without having to install two different version, when in 4.5, just setting the bars stretch to 1.4/1.5 allows me to have essentially the same layout of 4.4. Then, from here I can lock the system to avoid problems if the change their mind again about spacing in 4.6 or 5.
In reply to Uhm, nope? I should open the… by stepaparozzi
I'm just trying to avoid you having to perform stretch change in all your scores, that's all.
I still don't get why you need that if you use the lock system but it doesn't really matter.
In reply to I'm just trying to avoid you… by frfancha
In 4.5 how do I lock systems if I don't stretch them before locking?
I should open the scores in 4.4 and "lock" (keep bars in the same system) there first.
In reply to In 4.5 how do I lock systems… by stepaparozzi
You shouldn’t be resorting to stretch for things like this - not in any version of MuseScore. If you want generally looser spacing but don’t care exactly which measures are in which systems, simply increasse the minimum note distance and/or spacing ratio in Format / Style / Measure. If on the other hand you care about the engraving of your score, you shouldn’t be just accepting the breaks as they fall - again, regardless of version of MuseScore of setting. You should be thinking through the layout and optimizing your breaks for readability, placement of page turns, balance of systems between pages, etc. That’s always a normal part of the engraving process.
What 4.5 does is simplify that to the Nth degree. Select as measure and press Alt+Up/Down to move it to the system above/below. That moves the measaure and locks the layout for the system, all in one step.
In reply to You shouldn’t be resorting… by Marc Sabatella
Changing the spacing ratio doesn't help in any way; on the other side, the minimum distance between notes seems to work pretty well. I'll be glad to experiment with that too in order to fix the new spacing mess, thanks. :)
In reply to Changing the spacing ratio… by stepaparozzi
Changing spacing ratio most definitely changes spacing, and can dramatically affect the number of measures that fit on a system. That doesn’t mean every change to the ratio- affects every system of every score. best to reads the formatting chapter of the handbook to learn more about how these parameters work so you can give yourself the best starting point you can to achieve the particular look you personally believe your readers will favor, if you have reason to believe they will favor something other than the standard default.
In reply to Changing spacing ratio most… by Marc Sabatella
I tried on multiple scores, changing the notes ratio affects the layout in a way that can't definitely be called "dramatic". :D
Just tried also on a big ongoing project, it just shift 1-2 bars in the next systems each page... Nothing compared to what increasing the minimum note distance or the bars stretch can do.
For now I'll stick to this method to make good looking scores with the new spacing.
In reply to I tried on multiple scores,… by stepaparozzi
it’s dramatic if you know what to look for - the spacing of the individual notes within the measure. 1.0 produces a result with all notes getting the same amount of space - a whole note the same as a sixteenth. 2.0 produces direct proportional spacing - whole note takes sixteen times as much space. This is absolutely “dramatic”! But you won’t see the difference in measures are already filled with sixteenths.
In reply to it’s dramatic if you know… by Marc Sabatella
Glad to see that you just opened an issue on github because you realized that spacing ratio isn't working dramatically in 4.5. :D
In reply to Glad to see that you just… by stepaparozzi
Indeed, I wasn’t at my computer when I wrote the previous comment and was just going by how I know it has always worked. But then I checked, and indeed, something broke that affected large values of spacing ratio. And it is indeed quite possible it had a subtle effect on the layout for scores using the default ratio, so thanks for raising this!
In reply to Indeed, I wasn’t at my… by Marc Sabatella
Which, as far as a can tell, is not the issue you're having, or is it?
In reply to Which, as far as a can tell,… by Jojo-Schmitz
I would say it's extremely likely that the same change causing the odd behavior at ratio 2.0 is also having an effect at ratio 1.5. Whether it's always resulting in less space or not, and which is the "correct" interpretation given how the algorithm was designed to work, I cannot say - but I'm sure Michele will get to the bottom of it soon enough.
In reply to Glad to see that you just… by stepaparozzi
You mean: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/27133
EDIT: Apart from this problem, I just find this new feature completely bluffing in its efficiency and speed. There will be a “before” layout function and an “after”, starting with version 4.5.
In reply to . by cadiz1
Apparently
In reply to Apparently by Jojo-Schmitz
Not apparently, surely... I was replying to Marc.
In reply to Apparently by Jojo-Schmitz
No, of course it's not the same problem I initially raised. It was one of the proposed solution, which, as I said, wasn't working.
Thus said, even without being the same issue, the two things are likely to be very very strictly related, since they're apparently both affected by the new MS manage spacing.
In reply to No, of course it's not the… by stepaparozzi
"the two things are likely to be very very strictly related"
I guess too. We'll see...
In reply to Well, after sleeping over it… by stepaparozzi
I almost finished a piece in 4.4.x including formatting of the parts. For the latter, mostly stretch and and a few breaks. Published them to pdf and printed everything for our conductor for cross reading.
In the end, a few corrections and improvements but in the meantime I updated to 4.5.
Loading the 4.4.x file on 4.5 revealed quite some differences in the format. No major problem for just one piece but I had to reformat everything.
In reply to Well, after sleeping over it… by stepaparozzi
I think you are misunderstanding here. There was no large change to the basic algorithm for 4.5 - just a tweak in the implementation of it to that fixed a couple of issues along the way but more importantly opened the door to some other improvements, like allowing lyrics under barlines. For the vast majority of scores without lyrics, there should be no visible change at all.
So it’s not clear to me what about your handful of scores specifically would be triggering changes as often of they are. Maybe it’s some particular notation or adjustment you are using a lot that happens to have more accurate spacing calculation now - some elements have traditionally overestimated their space requirements to avoid collisions but this also gets smarter with each update. Definitely could be worth further investigation.
But my comments here are more general - as a rule, it is to be expected that layout will continually be improved from release to release, and that this means means existing scores will automatically benefit from those improvements if they hadn’t locked in their layout previously. So the mere fact that some of your scores happen to sometimes fit an extra measure on a system here or there is not a problem in itself - it’s how progress works. My assumption is that these occasional changes in some systems of your scores here is the result of the improvements I linked to, but it’s certainly possible there is something else going on, and even possible that it truly is a bug where some calculation is now underestimating the amount of space required by some element. Jury is still out on that, but nothing about the the new layout looks out of keeping with your current minimum note distance or spacing ratio settings, so I’m inclined to suspect it was just an improvement in the calculation.
As for checking with users about changes, that’s what the months and months of nightly builds and the last several weeks of beta testing were for. That’s how people who want to help guide the development can controbiute best. Again, are for every version of MuseScore.
In reply to Well, after sleeping over it… by stepaparozzi
Try increasing the minimum bar width under syle/measure.
It's not just a matter of density, the unit of measurement of almost all parameters in the 'Format -> Style' window has changed (from 'sp' to 'sp2', whatever that means). When loading a score made with the old versions into Musescore 4.5, the values (in sp) are simply read and assigned (without adaptations) to the score in sp2. This changes the 'density' of the score, because sp2 is much smaller than sp. Probably this change is linked to a greater precision in the placement of the various elements of the score. but it will certainly create many problems for many users...
In reply to It's not just a matter of… by ILPEPITO
? I don’t understand what you are talking about. I’m not aware of any new “sp2” unit. Are you perhaps using a translated version of the interface? Maybe someone doing the translation had a slip of the finger and added a 2 after the sp - so just as typo in the display within the dialog in your language. Or is there some specific parameter you believe actuaslly changed?
In reply to ? I don’t understand what… by Marc Sabatella
You're right, sp2 doesn't appear in the English version (you can only see sp)... and this probably misled me. The fact remains that without the insertion of staff breaks, the formatting is much tighter: I tried out of curiosity to open a score made with 4.4, and to get the same spacing I have to double both 'Minimun measure width' and 'Minimun note distance'. So, my explanation is wrong, but the difference is remarkable... I stand by my view that this will create a lot of problems.
In reply to You're right, sp2 doesn't… by ILPEPITO
sp2 you can see it in the Italian version...
In reply to sp2 you can see it in the… by ILPEPITO
I've just fixed that. Update your Italian translation in some 15 minutes
In reply to I've just fixed that. Update… by Jojo-Schmitz
Now that's efficiency! Thank you, I will do it as soon as I can.
Whether the new system is better or worse isn't the point. The point is that now 4..5 without any warning, changes the layout. What about all the scores that people spent a lot of time on setting up 4 measures per line. That is something I see on the forums all the time. Maybe they didn't do it with a system break. They had no idea that they had to lock the scores because they never had to before. 4.5 changes things and now they have to go back through all their scores and fix them the way they want.
4.5 knows in what version of MuseScore a file was last used. It gives us a warning that a score was created in MU3. Perhaps a layout change warning with the option to not change the layout would be in order here. And a reminder to lock the score.
Yes, 4.5 went through months of beta testing. Most users either aren't interested in it or don't know what it is. I suspect most don't even know about it at all. They just want to use MuseScore.
In reply to Whether the new system is… by bobjp
Again, you are just completely and totally off base here. Every single update comes with some possibility of some scores having layout changes due to improvements. If you are unwilling to accept improvement, just keep using the version you started with when working on that score. This is not new and has been the case with every release ever and will continue to be the case with every release ever. If 4.5 were to give a warning that maybe something changed, so would every single release ever. It’s not realistic. People are supposed to accept that change is part of an update. The only reason 4.0 had a wanring is because the improvements were enormous, way more than just the occasional subtle shifts between 4.4 and 4.5.
I get that not everyone feels like participating in testing. But then, if you aren’t participating, don’t complain that no one solicited opinions. They did, you just chose not to give yours.
In reply to Again, you are just compel… by Marc Sabatella
"They did, you just chose not to give yours"
Sorry Marc. That is a totally False statement. No one asked me anything. There was no choice available on my part. You are always twisting around the words of anyone who disagrees with you.
OK, please pay attention. I never said that the 4.5 score spacing was bad. I never said it wasn't better in any way. I never said I disliked it. Or that I wouldn't use 4.5. I don't really care that much what the score looks like. I use MU4 for playback.
In an early post you said that no one but the OP seemed to care about spacing. Way to be helpful. Again now the OP has to open each score and take a lot of time to reset them the way he wants. That's all I have been pointing out. And the reasoning seems to be "Well, that's updates for you. That's the way it goes. It's OK."
MuseScore has made a lot of improvements, to be sure. I suspect we will see many complaints about this. But, that's updates for you.
In reply to "They did, you just chose… by bobjp
The call for participation in the beta was made in the Announcements forum several weeks ago. And nightly builds are available always and are also mentioned periodically in the Announcements forum, as they were in the "near term plans" announcement back in December.
So again, it fine if you choose not to participate. But don't accuse the development team of not seeking input. That's just a lie.
It's also false to claim I said "no one but the OP seemed to care about spacing". That's another lie.
The OP doesn't have to open older scores where he was already happy with the layout - he can continue using the existing PDF. Or open them in 4.4.4 for further editing if he wants to save the trouble of adjusting the layout if he decides he likes the old layout better. Or go ahead and do the locks. Or wait to see if the GitHub issue I opened ends up resulting in further tweaking that produces results he likes better. Tons of options here that I am pointing out. I'm here providing free assistance and insights and went to the trouble of opening the GitHub issue. Most people consider that a good thing.
In reply to The call for participation… by Marc Sabatella
Yes I know about the nightly builds. Makes no difference, because I already said I'm not that concerned about spacing. I don't really have much use for the Announcements forum. If I had participated, I wouldn't have noticed anything about spacing. And you might want to be more diplomatic about calling someone a liar.
The OP had no idea what was going to happen. Now he has three choices.
He can continue with 4.5 and take the needed time to fix his scores.
He can delete 4.5 and go back to 4.4 and lock all his scores. then delete 4.4 and install 4.5..
He can wait to see if the issue you opened fixes anything.
"It looks better to my eyes, and apparently to everyone else here." The inference being everyone but the OP.
In reply to Yes I know about the nightly… by bobjp
The reason I explained about the beta and nightly builds was in response to the statement "I hope that in future updates they'll riconsider spacings, talking about that with users and confronting their opinions". Yes, in future updates they will solicit opinions, just as they have for every single release ever.
Yes, I pointed out that others find the slight spacing change in 4.5 to be an improvement overall. That is not the same "you said that no one but the OP seemed to care about spacing". We all care about spacing - we just mostly think the changes are an improvement. And you accuse me of twisting words? I am responding directly to direct statements.
In reply to The reason I explained about… by Marc Sabatella
It seems to me that the vast majority of users know nothing about the nightly builds. Or betas. They just want to use the program. They only come to the forums when they need help. I doubt that they would see anything asking for opinions. And it is hard to say if the person you were responding to saw your answer, since you didn't point them out.
Yes. My statement did not say what I wanted. That is why I added the quote at the end of my last post.
"It looks better to my eyes, and apparently to everyone else here." The inference being everyone but the OP.
I don't know if you meant everyone else (but the OP) in the thread or everyone else in general. The feeling I was getting was that the problem the OP was having was not that big of a deal and that the fix was easy. All I ever meant was that to those users who spent a lot of time setting up their score a certain way, this is a big deal.
In reply to It seems to me that the vast… by bobjp
It's true the vast majority of users know nothing about the nightly builds. It is also true the vast majority of users don't erroneously claim that the developers don't seek input. And the vast majority of users most certainly do not argue with the volunteers who are trying to point out that yes, the developers do seek input.
But yes, it is also true that I am suggesting the difference in default is not a big deal (it's not a huge difference in the defaukt, and no one who cares even the slightest bit about layout should ever be just accepting the default anyhow). And it is also true that I pointing out that the "fix" ("change" is more accurate) is easy and should have been done already but it's even easier to do now: if you care where the breaks happen (and you absolutely should), then add them. This is how you should be doing it it always, for any score, any version of MuseScore.
The point here is that this difference in default layout only affects those who did not in fact spend any time setting up their score. So in other words, it only affects those who don't care enough about layout to take even the basic first step of adding breaks in appropriate places. Had the score in question had even that barest minimum of work done on the layout, there would have been no difference whatsoever.
In reply to It's true the vast majority… by Marc Sabatella
Reading the above discussion - I am now a bit worried about updating to 4.5. If I do so and something happens to a load of scores and I don't have time to quickly correct them, is it easy to return to 4.4?
In reply to Reading the above discussion… by Ali Wood
@Ali Wood Do not worry too much, you can always reinstall 4.4 if the spacing issue is affecting your scores. Or you can add breaks at every system now at 4.4 and only then go to 4.5.
Or, even easier, just setting in 4.5 the minimum distance between notes at 1sp instead of the default 0.5sp will bring you almost the same layout of 4.4 (a setting that can be exported as style).
The problem has easy workarounds anyway, don't worry. :)
In reply to @Ali Wood Do not worry too… by stepaparozzi
Hello again.
I am hopeless with technology:
IF I install 4.5 (as I am prompted to do every time I go into MS) and find that I mess up the corrections that you have suggested, is there a simple link to re-install 4.4? And will my computer then forget 4.5? And if I decide to retry 4.5, I presume I'll get the same prompt that I've been getting to install 4.5? I am working on a reasonably large score (yes, 30 pages).
In reply to Hello again. I am hopeless… by Ali Wood
If you want you install an older version, simplest on Windows is to download and install the Portable application build. That way you can simply choose which to run for which project. Use the Portable 4.4.4 for 20-=page projects where you already worked on the layout in 4.4.4 and want to keep editing without getting the improvements of 4.5, and use 4.5 for everything else.
In reply to It's true the vast majority… by Marc Sabatella
Marc, I think to say that users who don't add system breaks actually "don't care", is a bit harsh. A lot of the time, particularly when developing a score, I let MS do its own system breaks as it pleases. Only in the final preparation of a score getting ready for sharing, do I add system breaks, and only where needed.
In reply to Marc, I think to say that… by Ali Wood
I didn't say what you are suggesting. I made a statement about cases where someone doesn't care enough to do that basic first step - that these are the only scores affected. And yes, of course, one shouldn't take even that first step until you're done with the basic entry of notes and markings. So yes, of course, scores that are still in preliminary stages are more likely to see these types of changes - and that's perfect tly normal and fine.
It's still the case that once you are done and ready to print or otherwise share a score, that's the time to start considering where breaks fall, and 4.5 makes that far easier than ever before. It's just a huge win all around.
In reply to It's true the vast majority… by Marc Sabatella
The fact that adding breaks avery system is "the basic first step" is something real only in your mind. No one add breaks every system, in any notation software, especially not because the developer could dramatically change the spacing behaviour between two versions.
If you do that, this is good for you and also explains very well why you keep underestimating the complaints about this topic; but, again, people out there (amateurs and professional, sloppy or accurate) do not add system breaks after every system. Never. It was never a need in any notation software.
[Someone also pointed out the bad word choice here, which could be probably sound offensive to people who spent a lot of time on scores, a time spent in things surely more important than adding system breaks every system :) ]
In reply to The fact that adding breaks… by stepaparozzi
No, adding breaks to optimize system layout is absolutely a basic first step -it's kind of Music Engraving 101. Even people who don't care for any other details of music engraving whatsoever often spend time doing that, because they recognize that default layout is seldom optimum for readability or for efficient use of space on the page. That's why a huge number of the questions we get here on the forums are about how to go about doing these sorts of things, and why the new system lock lock feature was the #1 request from people coming over from Finale.
But even for people who don't spend a little time doing this, it's just equally false to assume everyone likes having their scores take more pages than n necessary. We get far more questions about how to compress scores onto fewer pages than how to spread them out onto more.
In reply to No, adding breaks to… by Marc Sabatella
I couldn't disagree more. Adding breaks is a secondary step. Concentrate on the music first - only add breaks when circumstances dictate. For example, when you add a break manually, you often find that it is not needed. Bars change. Bars get added. Bars get deleted. Bars get more notes thrust into them. Bars get notes taken out.
In reply to I couldn't disagree more… by Ali Wood
You aren't disagreeeing at all. Of course the music comes first. I said so as well, in almost exactly those words. Worry about layout after you're done with the music.
In reply to You aren't disagreeeing at… by Marc Sabatella
But you said it was a first step!?
In reply to But you said it was a first… by Ali Wood
A first step In layout, which is something you shouldn't start worrying about after you're done worrying about the music. Once you're done with music, you can start thinking about layout. And the first step in layout is deciding where your breaks should fall.
In reply to A first step In layout,… by Marc Sabatella
Marc wrote > A first step In layout, which is something you shouldn't start worrying about after you're done worrying about the music. Once you're done with music, you can start thinking about layout.
Such platitudes ...
In reply to Marc wrote > A first step In… by scorster
Yes, like observing 2 + 2 = 4.
In reply to The fact that adding breaks… by stepaparozzi
Well, everyone caring for the layout of his/her scores does add system breaks.
Whether you believe or accept it or not.
In reply to Well, everyone caring for… by Jojo-Schmitz
I'm not sure who you're addressing, Jojo.
If its me, then of course I accept the need for system breaks, only I prefer to leave it until after I've sorted the music out.
If its not me, then ? Our posts were almost simultaneous ;)
In reply to It's true the vast majority… by Marc Sabatella
As i said in a previous posting, I also had to reformat most of the parts. Only one piece so no problem. The problem were mainly page turns in my case (when necessary, there must be a number of rests at the end of a page to allow time for the mucisian to turn the page).
This was in quite off in some parts. Not the page breake itself but how the overall formatting looked like. "Spill over" to the next page which only had 2-3 measures, too widely spaced last staves at the bottom of a page etc. In the end, I decided to reset all parts and start over again.
Overall, it seems that overall spacing is more dence now which is ok for me. In 4.4.x i had to increase stretch to fit the music on more pages and at the same time ensuring page breaks where I had suitable number of rests. Now, I've i can fit the music on fewer pages and have more options to select place for proper page breaks.
I've, however, a problem with the keyboard shortcuts to increase/decrease the layout stretch. This doesn't work reliable anymore and in most cases I've to use the menue/mouse which is time consuming. This could be linked to my relatively new mouse/keyboard combination (I've had it for a few months now). It works as expected for all other applications I've installed on my W11 computer). This could, after a more thorough investigation, be subject of a dedicated posting.
In reply to As i said in a previous… by strandtts
In 4.4.x i had to increase stretch to fit the music on more pages and at the same time ensuring page breaks where I had suitable number of rests
No!! Not at all!
Just adding system- and page breaks would have done the job and have looked the same in 4.5!!
In reply to In 4.4.x i had to increase… by Jojo-Schmitz
As I said, the page and section breaks worked, but in some cases (because of the slightly denser engraving), I had cases where I then suddenly only had one measure in the last stave instead of previously 3. There we're also cases where measures with rehearsal marks "moved" to the very first or last measure in a stave. This is not always desirable plus a few more "imperfections".
Also, I've no experience with any version of MS before 4.0 whatsoever so I've no comparison.
However, accordin to a German saying "Das ist Schnee von gestern". It's some work but doable.
In reply to As I said, the page and… by strandtts
That's yet another reason to always add system and page breaks: you immediately spot layout changes towards wider, by seeing those single measure systems. And as mentioned you'd never see layout changes towards narrower.
"Zwei Fliegen mit einer Klappe"... (Almost "Two birds with one stone")
Believe Marc and me, being here since the 0.9x days 😉
In reply to As I said, the page and… by strandtts
That happens only because you weren't consistent about where you used those breaks. Indeed, if you only place a break on some systems but not others, then change in other systems might make the breaks you place not work. You should treat this more as all or nothing. For longer scores, you are almost always best off not using any breaks at all and just allowing MuseScore to be as efficient with spacing as it can be. But for parts, or other cases where you want to optimize the layout for best readability, then you should deciding for each and every system where the breaks are best placed. Again, that's just standard engraving practice.
In reply to That happens only because… by Marc Sabatella
March 17th: "Adding breaks to optimize system layout is absolutely a basic first step -it's kind of Music Engraving 101. Even people who don't care for any other details of music engraving whatsoever often spend time doing that"
March 28th: "For longer scores, you are almost always best off not using any breaks at all and just allowing MuseScore to be as efficient with spacing as it can be."
In reply to March 17th: "Adding breaks… by stepaparozzi
Indeed, these two statements are both true.
For longer scores, you should normally just accept the defaults. In such cases, you don't care normally care where the breaks fall - you just want to optimize the number of pages. Let the breaks fall where they may - but then, you are indeed best off locking in that layout (which 4.5 makes dead simple, a single command to lock all systems). The advantage of locking is, it guarantees any other manual adjustments you make to positions of individual elements continue to make sense across future layout changes.
But for parts or lead sheets as well as other scores where you have some special reason to care about the number of measures on systems, then step one in achieving a reasonable layout is setting up your breaks. Because the default will virtually never be optimal from the perspective of practical readability.
Either way, the first step is establishing your breaks. Some scores you don't need to take even that step, but for any score where you are working on layout, step on is establishing the breaks.
None of this is even remotely controversial - it's all common knowledge, not just for MsueScore but among anyone who prepares music for performance.
In reply to Indeed, these two statements… by Marc Sabatella
You weren't talking about parts then (after all, I never posted parts). I appreciate you changed your mind about people not adding breaks on scores, though. :)
You'll probably now understand why I (and other people), after accepting the defaults in 4.4, felt quite puzzled by seeing them radically changed in 4.5.
Again, nothing as much dramatic as I initially thought, as I later realized. :)
In reply to As i said in a previous… by strandtts
Issues with the "{" and "}" keys can exist on certain keyboards due to the fact that different keyboard layouts can report keys differently. If your keyboard is one of those that reports these keys in a way MuseScore doesn't recognize, then you can customize those shortcuts in Preferences / Shortcuts.
In reply to It seems to me that the vast… by bobjp
It seems clear to me that this discussion will lead nowhere, because the guidelines of the "new" Musescore have been decided. I will limit myself to quoting an Italian proverb that I do not know if it also exists in English: 'There is no one so deaf as he who does not want to hear'. And that concludes my speeches here. I'm almost tempted to go back to the old 3.6.2...
In reply to It seems clear to me that… by ILPEPITO
Good one indeed
In reply to It seems clear to me that… by ILPEPITO
It is not true at all that the discussion will lead nowhere. it has already led somewhere:
1) an issue has been submitted showing how changes to the handling of the spacing ratio can lead to surprising results in certain case
2) a solution to that particular case has been proposed and the issue is listed for consideration in 4.5.1
3) we've discussed how to protect oneself from future layout changes and explained why these are good basic steps in all cases where you care about layout
4) we've also made it more clear how to make one's feedback about future updates known in the future before release
So, I would say it's been a hugely productive discussion!
Meanwhile, if you don't care about seeing layout improvements at all, then indeed, going back to 3.6.2 is a surefire way to make your default layout far worse than 4.5, 4.4, or any other release in the past couple of years! :-)
In reply to It is not true at all that… by Marc Sabatella
@ Ali Wood.
I think part of the problem is the insistence that a more compressed score is what everyone wants and that 4.4 is far worse. That kind of thing is in the eye of the beholder. Each individual gets to decide that. And it isn't true that anyone who wants the choice up front to not like what 4.5 does, wants a far worse looking score. The order we do things in as far as layout goes, should be up to the user. And it will vary depending on the given situation.
In reply to @ Ali Wood. I think part of… by bobjp
No one said 4.4 is far worse. It's absolutely in the eye of the beholder. And it's not even a huge difference to begin with - on the order of 5-10% less space required at most maybe (rough estimate) in 4.5, meaning some systems can fit one extra measure and others can't.
But neither version produces anything even remotely resembling a professionally-engraved scores out of the box - that always and without exception in any version of MuseScore requires some attention to where your breaks fall. The defaults in 4.5 combined with the new lock facility dlo make it easier to achieve a truly professional result, and I do think most think the overall default density is likely more to most people's liking in 4.5, but again, that's subjective.
In reply to No one said 4.4 is far worse… by Marc Sabatella
I was responding to Ali.
Sorry, I meant 3.6, not 4.4.
Consider the OP's first score and PDF. When I look at the 4.5 version, You are right. It looks OK. What's the big deal? But then I look at the PDF. 4.5 in the effort to look more professional, crammed more measures per line and shaved 4 pages off. And in that effort, while trying to honor the OP's system breaks, towards the end has one staff that is one measure instead of the usual 7. The OP put breaks in where 4.4 needed them to get the look he wanted. But more professional 4.5 did its own thing. The problem isn't that 4.5 may or may not be better. The problem is that a lot of people are going to have to spend a lot of time redoing their scores.
In reply to I was responding to Ali. … by bobjp
No one has to spend even one second redoing scores. if you like how your PDF looked in 4.4.4 better than how it looks in 4.5, just use your existing PDF sand don't worry about it. In most cases your score will look better if it's different at all. But if for some reason you are especially attached to how it looked before, but don't feel like simply using your existing PDF, then sure, you might need to spend a few seconds adding breaks and locking systems. Again just as has been the case with every single release ever.
In reply to No one has to spend even one… by Marc Sabatella
A few seconds in a 40 or 50 page score? Really? No we can't just use the PDF for some things we might want to do. What if we want to print part of it or make some kind of change.
You know what? Never mind. Forget I ever said anything. It isn't about what I want. I don't care that much about layout. I was only thinking about the OP and what they may or may not have to go through. Which I guess isn't very important.
In reply to A few seconds in a 40 or 50… by bobjp
How many 40-50 page scores do you have, and how many of them are exhibiting some sort of issue where you are anticipating needing to add breaks? And how many of those scores had you not already take the basic step of adding breaks already?
You are worrying excessively about a mostly non-existent case. But sure, OK, for your hypothetical 40-50 page score, it might take as long as a couple of minutes to add those breaks. Which after investing the dozens of hours already spent (probably over the course of months) creating the score would be a) insignificant, and b) as mentioned necessary anyhow because you absolutely would need to be very concerned about the breaks in a score that long.
So yes, a change that benefits millions but very occasionally encourages someone to take a score they worked on on for months and spend a couple of extra minutse doing the most basic layout they had neglected to do already but should have - that's still a huge win for mankind.
In reply to How many 40-50 page scores… by Marc Sabatella
???
I never said MuseScore shouldn't have made this change. For the hundredth time it isn't about me. it's about the OP. Had you bothered to actually open their first score and PDF, you would see that there are many breaks. And that is a 46 page score. Again, a 46 page score. Why would you insinuate that I used a hypothetical with out any reason. And it makes no difference if it was hypothetical or not. None. Stop it.
And now it isn't a question of adding more breaks, but also deleting some of the original. It's now about going through the entire score.
What takes a few seconds ( which seems to have become a few minutes) for you, might take 20 for someone else. The OP didn't neglect to set up their layout. Please stop saying that. This isn't the OP's fault. He did the work. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the OP isn't interested in MuseScore being a huge win for mankind. He just wants to use the software.
In reply to ??? I never said MuseScore… by bobjp
@bobjp Thank you for you support, but there's no need to worry about my issue a lot, since - as I said - I found out it's easily solved by tweaking the note distance. I'd like to show you my gratitude by suggesting to not wasting your time further with collateral discussions which keep wander around the same (likely wrong) ideas about engraving, and are not giving any interesting info to anyone anymore. :)
In reply to @bobjp Thank you for you… by stepaparozzi
@stepaparozzi. You are correct This has been a waste of time. Marc could have left this thread long ago and gotten back to helping people. I could have and should have also. What bothers me is that Marc always has to have the last word. I bet he can't resist responding to this post.
In reply to @stepaparozzi. You are… by bobjp
You can't resist either.
In reply to You can't resist either. by Jojo-Schmitz
+1... It is the one who says ("to have the last word") who is... :)
In reply to Indeed, it is the one who… by cadiz1
Indeed 😉
In reply to You can't resist either. by Jojo-Schmitz
You're right. I admit it. I can't. Partially because I would never claim that spacing in notation software is a huge win for mankind. Wow! Pretty ridiculous.
In reply to You're right. I admit it. I… by bobjp
I told Marc about a million times not to exaggerate 😉
In reply to I told Marc about a million… by Jojo-Schmitz
Well, we all like, use, and care about MuseScore. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.
In reply to I told Marc about a million… by Jojo-Schmitz
> "I told Marc about a million times not to exaggerate." <
LOL!!
Gotta love the underlying paradoxical humor there... ;-)
In reply to > "I told Marc about a… by Jm6stringer
Which was fully intentional 😉
In reply to Which was fully intentional 😉 by Jojo-Schmitz
Of course, and I'm going to use it myself in the future if/when a suitable context presents itself.
Thanks... :-)
In reply to Which was fully intentional 😉 by Jojo-Schmitz
Your emoji was so small that I didn't catch that you were making fun of me. Way to go. I kept posting because I couldn't believe some of the claims he was making. The odd conclusions he was coming to. Blaming me for taking him away from helping people. He did the same to me. Was I wrong? Probably. I wouldn't be surprised. But that doesn't make him right. Again, he could have ignored me for the idiot I clearly am, and left the thread long ago.
In reply to Your emoji was so small that… by bobjp
For the record, I don't like to leave misinformation out there, as people coming to this thread later will see it and not realize that statements made are inaccurate and will then draw incorrect conclusions. That is why I do continue to respond to inaccurate statements. It's not abut "having the last word" or "being right" - it's about helping as many people as possible now and into the future by making sure the correct information is out there.
In reply to For the record, I don't like… by Marc Sabatella
For the record, I don't like misinformation, also. I'm not arguing, I'm trying to not leave misinformation.
You came to some unfounded and bazar conclusion that we were in agreement. I realize the us being in agreement is not at all important. Accept that it is typical of some of the strange answers you have given in this thread.
Yes, opening a 50 page score and deleting breaks is trivial. But that down-plays all the other things that may or may not be needed. People set up their scores just the way they want that worked for them in 4.4. They set up parts just the way they want. This is not trivial to those that now may have to go through the task of redoing everything. And saying that they should have done it differently to begin with, doesn't help anyone. And it can be hard to get good help (are you out there in the forums?). The manual isn't even well updated for 4.4 much less 4.5. I suspect most don't know they need to read the release notes.
In reply to For the record, I don't like… by bobjp
Again, you seem to be completely misunderstanding the technical issue here. It’s not the people who spend time working out the details of their layout whose scores will be affected - it’s those who didn’t spend that time. It’s the score relying primarily on defaults that will be improved the most, and the people who didn’t spend that time who will therefore benefit the most.
But also, for that small percentage of people who like their scores to take more rather than fewer pages but also did not spend time ensuring this, they are the ones who might have to spend a couple of minutes if they have 40 page score they don’t want to see reduced to only 34 or whatever. Since most people don’t have 40 pages scores that they don’t want to see reduced to 34, the change is a net positive by a huge margin, and only a miniscule cost to the few people for whom it is a regression.
Your statement here is thus exactly the sort of misinformation I am referring to that compels me to correct. There is an awful lot of misinformation out there that harms the community by making them afraid to update because they are being misled by people. This is not good for the community, so yes, I fight it every chance I can.
The thing we are on agreement on is your statement “I never said MuseScore shouldn’t have made this change”. Great, then there is nothing more to say on the topic.
In reply to Again, you seem to be… by Marc Sabatella
And there you go again. You accuse me of stating misinformation and then declare the topic closed. Did I say people shouldn't upgrade? I have upgraded, and always do. Please quote something I said that is misinformation. Don't paraphrase it. Quote it.
If you are so concerned then I would think you wouldn't be on this thread. Since you've declared it closed. I would think you would be out in the forums trying to help the many who are having problems.
In reply to And there you go again. You… by bobjp
Since you asked:
In https://musescore.org/en/node/376147#comment-1284442 you wrote, "The problem isn't that 4.5 may or may not be better. The problem is that a lot of people are going to have to spend a lot of time redoing their scores". There are quite a few other similar statements, like "There are people with hundreds of scores that now might have to spend a lot of time fixing them" or "We've never had to lock the layout. And now it's too late" or "to those users who spent a lot of time setting up their score a certain way, this is a big deal".
These are all objectively false statements that completely misrepresent the situation, presumably due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual technical issues involved (e.g., which scores are going to be affected and which way, why what those changes mean, whether anything should be done about it for any given score, and what can be done about it). Statements like the ones quoted above do nothing but scare people away from taking advantage of all the amazing improvements in 4.5.
In reply to Since you asked: In https:/… by Marc Sabatella
Thank you for responding.
My comments are based on my own experience or derived from posts on the forum. By your own admission the spacing issue was a problem introduced when 4.0 first came out. And is now corrected in 4.5. So people set up their scores a certain way and may or may not have had any idea how they were supposed to do it.
Again these statements are based on what I have seen in the forums. There are plenty of complaints about 4.5 on the forums that might scare others away.
All of which means nothing because consider why people come to the forums. They have already updated and they have some kind of issue that they need help with. I can't imagine anyone going to the forum first to see if they should update.
In reply to Thank you for responding. My… by bobjp
There are indeed posts here suggesting that some users experienced problems with some scores. P}roblems that are trivially easy to correct. The vast majority of users will see nothing but improvement. Absolutely nothing posted here contradicts that in any way whatsoever except your complete misrepresentation of the situation. So please, just stop. Your misinformation is causing harm to the community, and I know you don't want that any more than I do.
And yes, for the record, people absolutely consider what they've seen posted in deciding whether or not to update. Your statements are harmful. Just stop.
In reply to There are indeed posts here… by Marc Sabatella
Fact remains, MS should have ensured that updating to 4.5 did not result in the user opening a previous score to find that the automatic layout (breaks) had changed in any way whatsoever.
In reply to Fact remains, MS should have… by woodah@btinter…
Fact remains that exactly this happens with every new version and did happen ever since, to a greater or lesser esses extent.
Greatly reduced by carefully placed system breaks and subsequently reducing stretch by a notch or two.
In reply to Fact remains, MS should have… by woodah@btinter…
That is not viable. No release of MuseScore has ever guaranteed that the automatic breaks would always fall in the same places. If you accept automatic layout, accept that future versions will likely contain improvements, and 4.5 is no exception. If you wish to lock in a specific layout, 4.5 for the first time make that super simple.
So for the best default layout of any release of MuseScore ever, and also the simplest way to lock in your preferred layout (whether the default or one you customize), 4.5 is the best release of MuseScore that has ever existed, bar none.
In reply to There are indeed posts here… by Marc Sabatella
Quote from Marc: "Your statements are harmful. Just stop."
Sigh...I understand you so much. This guy is really just a pain... If he'd just shut up, we'd have a vacation. He's not even a match for you as a musician, and he's so ignorant of your major contributions as a developer in versions 2 and 3 and helping on the forum that he should apologize profusely for giving you such a hard time...
In reply to Your statements are harmful… by cadiz1
@ cadiz1
I know exactly who Marc is. He's probably forgotten more about MuseScore than I will ever know. Not the point.
I'm just not wild about being called a liar. He continually make statements, that he thinks are fact, that he can't possibly back up.
And you know nothing about me.
In reply to There are indeed posts here… by Marc Sabatella
"And you know nothing about me."
So much the better... I already know enough about your unsympathetic boorishness not to want to know any more...
In reply to . by cadiz1
Wow. You can't think of anything intelligent to say so you resort to insults.
In reply to There are indeed posts here… by Marc Sabatella
Trivial to correct for you. If it was for them, they wouldn't be asking. You can't prove that anything I have said has caused harm to the community. Mighty bold accusation. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so.
"The vast majority of users will see nothing but improvement". You can't prove that statement. I know you believe it. How can you possibly know what the vast majority of users will see?
I never said the new layout was worse. I only said that there are users that will have problems with it. Is that a lie?
In reply to Trivial to correct for you… by bobjp
Trivial for anyone to correct. if they need help, the forum is here.
Your statements are clearly designed to do absolutely nothing but be argumentative, spread FUD, and make people reluctant to take advantage of the absolutely incredible improvements that are constantly being made to MuseScore. This is harmful, plain and simple. But whatever, stay here and cause more harm all you like. It's unfortunately, because I truly would have thought you cared about the MsueScore community. I am disappointed to find out you would rather sit here lighting fires, discouraging users, and arguing with the people who have done so much for the MuseScore the community over the years. It's too sad to see, so I'm out of here. Feel free to spread what ever misinformation you like without fear of correction from me. If harming the community is your goal, I unfortunately cannot stop you.
In reply to Trivial for anyone to… by Marc Sabatella
@ the forum,
I'm not interested in harming the community. I just don't like being called a liar. Those claims are unsubstantiated. Marc uses every trick in the book to deflect away from himself and make everything my fault. It is OK for him the make wild claims about users. I never said people shouldn't update. I never disparaged MuseScore. The things I pointed out were quickly labeled as trivial and unimportant. I was told that observations I had made based on forum posts, were lies. That was the word used.
I'm surprised He lasted this long. Normally when someone disagrees with him, he finds a way to discredit them and leave much sooner. And I'm not saying I'm right and he is wrong. Nobody likes to be incorrectly labeled a liar.
In reply to There are indeed posts here… by Marc Sabatella
I'm back here because you asked.
You said I made several false statements. False because you say so?
I have a score created in 3.6.2. I just so happens that it is three measures per line, for the most part. it is just the way I want it. It has been used for printing as needed. I didn't use breaks because I didn't need them for anything I did with it. You can say all you want that I should have used them but it doesn't change the fact that I didn't need them. So you stop. I open this same score in 4.4, which thanks to a mysterious bug, honors the setup from 3.6.2.
Along comes 4.5. Mysterious bug fixed. Without warning, my setup is discarded. Now my score is 4 measures per line and system breaks are added at the end of each line. I didn't ask for any of that. I don't need any of that. Why am I not given the option. MuseScore knows if you open a score from V3 in V4 and asks you about text style. Why can't it ask about layout? Oh that's right. It was a bug. it is decided that the new layout is superior. So that's it. The official line is that everyone needs their scores to take up less space. Less paper, though paper is used less and less. Also that the changes are trivial to fix. They shouldn't have to be fixed at all. And that had I just put in breaks, I wouldn't be having a problem now. This is a way of blaming the user for the problem. They may have not needed the breaks before.
These are actual events. Not lies. Please stop.
I am in no way saying people shouldn't upgrade. They should. Some important thigs have been fixed.
In reply to ??? I never said MuseScore… by bobjp
I never said it was "about" you. I'm responding to you because you are the one arguing with me when all I am trying to do is help people.
Deleting breaks is as easy as adding them - even easier since you can do them all at once. I did open the original score, and I can delete all breaks in seconds. if anyone needs help with that, just ask.
What's hypothetical isn't the mere existence of a 46 page score - it's the entire scenario I described. But I also explained even in that hypothetical scenario, the solution is trivial and its something you absolutely should do before printing anyhow. Again, if anyone needs help with that, just ask.
Since you are not saying the change shouldn't have been, then we are all in agreement. So you can stop arguing with me now and just allow me to get back to helping people.
In reply to How many 40-50 page scores… by Marc Sabatella
One small step for man,..... eh? 😉
When it comes down to it, the individual musician, don't really care about if a pixel spacing is off as long as the music is clear. For centuries people have used pen and paper to write out music. It is easy to adjust spacing to match.