I know I have started some threads on players and flows in the past, but here is another idea.
I am working on a project with 23 flows and 20 players. During the compositional phase it was OK for all players to exist in all flows to have all possibilities open. But now that I want to “clean up” I would like to get rid of non-active players from flows.
What if there was this kind of function - Uncheck passive players in flows - or something like it, that would take care of all flows at once? Then I would not have to go through flow by flow and manually uncheck.
(As a side remark, one unchecking of a player takes something like 20 seconds on my system, a Thinkpad 440s with 12GB RAM and an i7-4600u. Yes I know, it is not new…)
I agree. Something like a matrix that would not react in real time but only once Apply would be pressed could help. You check everything and when you feel it’s time to take a break, let the computer do its job !
Yes, that’s also a good idea, but the way I figured it was just for the routine to do the whole thing automatically. All of the unactive players are unchecked in all of the flows with just one keypress.
Great idea. You can start with a main orchestral template for the whole file, then write each flow using whatever instruments you want, all the while retaining access to the full template. Then, when you’re done, push the “Hide Inactive Parts In Flows” button, and Presto! You’ve eliminated much tedious work.
The idea of matrix is very good.
Sometimes, in orchestral piece, I want to create flow for the solo instrument and it takes a lot of time for the computer to uncheck all the orchestral instruments one after the other.
The same could be with instruments creator. First add all instruments (without react in real time) and then click “apply”.
Del_Gesu, are you aware that it is actually possible to click away on all the instruments you want to uncheck, without waiting? It is a bit counterintuitive but it does work. It seems that all the clicks you perform are stored in the buffer and will be realised one by one. After making all the clicks you have to wait though, it is not possible to go on working on the score until it’s done.
I’m not sure, if I understood You.
In my case when I try to fast uncheck many instruments, the computer respond very slow to this action. And e.g. when I fast uncheck 10 instruments, computer is slowly starting to unchek one ofter another and finaly stops not after tenth, but e.g. after third. And I have to start it again from fourth. Sometimes happened something strange, like some instruments are swapping; the order of some instruments is changing.
It’s good to have at least possibility to choose the range of instruments and click „uncheck” only one time.
But the best option would be some kind of „matrix”, in which I can fast „check/uncheck” the instrument in flow, change the order of many instruments and fast change the name of players and instruments. And add new ansambles.
And then click „apply”.
What he meant, Del_Gesu, and what is not clear you have tried, is that you can actually batch-select many Players and remove them from a Flow in one go.
When, in Setup mode, you have one Flow selected, checkmarks should appear on all Players and Layouts. It seems to me this is what you’re doing: checking off Players one at at time. You can, however, select many players, by shift-clicking. Checkmarks will now appear by the Flows. The difference is subtle, but crucial.
Oh, now it’s clear for me. I’ve never think in that way. When I was setting the players to the flows, I’ve always choosing flow and then „checking/unchecking” players. I didn’t know, that I can do opposite: chose players and „check/uncheck” flow. This is smart, thank you.
Anyway the idea of „matrix” still will be very handy to manage many parameters of ensemble, like I’ve written.
I’ve experienced the successive clicks being dropped, though I’m not sure if that’s a Dorico-specific behavior. Who hasn’t seen even keyboard strokes being dropped, for example while entering an URL into a tab-heavy instance of Chrome, for example? However, while not being Dorico-specific, the problem is there and there might be something clever the team can do in the future.
