Attached image illustrates my issue:
Attached image illustrates my issue:
How would you expect this to be different?
does this look like a top shelf notation program output?
How about this?
You can hide the ‘gliss.’ text by setting the glissando text property to none.
So, it’s not a bug? this is so by design? Ok. Good to know.
Would have been nice if I could actually control the placement of the text instead of just removing it all together.
Totally agree. There are many scenarios where this is necessary.
Another related issue.
Here’s another photo to add context to issue no. 2:
You misunderstood my question, or perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.
What would you expect software to do automatically in the case you’ve posted? Hiding the text might help, as would the possibility to put the text underneath, as would the possibility of being able to ghost part of the time signature.
What would YOU expect to happen by default? I can’t think of any real-world situations where I’ve seen this problem printed (or elegantly solved), though there must be examples out there.
About a year ago someone posted an example here that would require the text to me moved away from the line itself. Personally, I could live without any new default behavior, but it would be nice to see property opions for moving the text freely relative to the gliss line, and for ghosting objects underneath (both the text and the line itself)
The OP’s 2nd problem, the incorrectly angled line stubs, reminds me of Finale behavior and should of course be fixed as soon as possible…
I could be wrong, but the gliss. line taking the wrong direction at the system break looks as though it’s a spacing bug rather than the line’s intrinsic direction being incorrect. Dorico isn’t yet able to allocate additional space for things that have crossed a system break at the start of the following system. Therefore in this case, I expect the line is actually drawing backwards because there’s no space for it, which is why it appears to be going to wrong way. If that’s the case, you should be able to work around the problem by going into Engrave mode and applying an offset for the spacing column that coincides with the first note(s) of the system.
Truth be told, I don’t work with Dorico in a meaningful capacity yet. It’s too under-cooked for my contemporary composers needs. But I do practice it.
Therefore, I don’t care much about the different “hacks” to solve the current issues, as much as I want to bring the existing issues to the attention of the developers.
Hopefully, in 2.0, I wouldn’t need to know any hacks for everything to work smoothly
To bring us back to the original question, and my slightly aggressive response: what would you expect a “top shelf notation program” to do in this instance? As far as I can tell, Finale 25’s default is a mess, and so’s Sibelius’s (I’m running 8.5.1 here - I realise they’ve improved glissandi in the last year, which I haven’t paid for, but it’s certainly been a mess for the previous TWENTY-FOUR years)
Multiple suggestions have been made above by me and others, I invite you to read. The basic request is to be able to edit the position of the text on the line.
And that request (Michael’s) could have been made without the attitude.
I’m sorry I still seem to be rubbing people up the wrong way - I guess I was a little outraged by the idea that the default behaviour was a bug.
Of course I don’t think that the example the OP gave was professional-looking, but I don’t expect professional-looking glissandi from Finale or Sibelius without any tweaking whatsoever, and I’d go as far as to suggest that it was Dorico’s pretty-good glissandi that forced Sibelius to up their game after so many years.
If you want an easy-ish workaround, the text can of course be hidden and added wherever you want with regular shift-x text, though of course you lose the slant.
It’s all good.
Part of the thing is that in Sibelius and Finale the tweaking IS possible. In Dorico, they made it such that 99% looks perfect out of the box, but then the 1% you can’t do much about. You have to live with it.
So it makes 99% of the job quicker, but at the end, your scores don’t look professional, because some stuff you can’t do anything about. It’s a problem.
Understood, and for what it’s worth, I agree with you. There is at least now the possibility to adjust glisses in the scenario you found yourself in in post #8, which wasn’t the case until very recently.