condenses to:
How do I get - in one system - 1. stems up, 2.3. stems down? A pattern used before for the same players - why not here?
(The snippet stands anlone, is not part of a longer phrase.)
How do I get - in one system - 1. stems up, 2.3. stems down? A pattern used before for the same players - why not here?
Have you tried a condensing change > manual condensing?
Ok the how-to-question was a bit unfair, as of course there is manual condensing.
I just wanted to post this things, as maybe they should be handled different by the default algorithm.
It looks bad when the unisono notes are not condensed in this case to a “2.3” voice, but addet to a 1.2.3 condensing with additional oblique stems and additional accidentals, which confuses the eye. Maybe the programmers would like to change something to deal better with this case.
So I have more of this:
condensed (default 3 → 1) to:
(Please don’t say you wouldn’t expect the stuff condensed into one system … By the way, bracketing is done as expected here…)
I simply do not understand why here condensing decides to leave here the up to this point used one system (1.2.3) and open up two systems - I cannot see any reason why the notes are not put into a 1.2.3 system in one voice and one stem. Empty bars left and right. I would like to know if this can happen normally, of if this points to some strange condition in my score. I had a lot of problems with the flow the example is taken out, it stems from a very early xml-import from sibelius, and was plagued with explicit rests I could not see with the active option not to show identical rests for different voices, which were prevented proper condensing and which I had to find and remove. Then Daniel helped me to throw out hidden instrument key signatures that hindered condensign I could not see. Maybe there is more hidden stuff like this left …
If the examples show an unusual, not normal default condensing behavior, this could give a hint.
Screenshots that show only a couple of bars don’t allow us to say whether or not the condensing you’re getting is as you would expect, because at an absolute minimum condensing has to consider the whole system, and very often will also consider material beyond the extent of that system, too. If you would like some intelligent feedback on why condensing isn’t producing the results you expect, you know what to do.