Cross-staff beam-corner awkwardness with 16th-8th-16th

Although development diary part 10 discussed correctly tucking beam corners on beamed cross-staff note groups, Dorico nonetheless seems to produce awkward results with partial beams that are not connected to a stem on one side - such as a 16th-8th-16th note pattern:
Screen Shot 2017-03-06 at 9.38.22 AM.png
It would be nice if the secondary “beamlet” would behave as a regular beam in this respect, and get tucked on the appropriate side of the principal beam, so as not to create unsightly hanging beam corners.

Thanks for reporting this: I’ll log this and we’ll try to take care of it soon.

I reported this on Feb 18th.

The problem you reported was different, Nicholas, but it is also logged and will be taken care of in due course.

Perhaps this bug is farther down the list than some more critical bug fixes and features, but just letting you know that I noticed it still persists in the latest version: In certain rhythmic groups there is still a stray beamlet that is not tucked on the correct side in beamed cross-staff note groups.
Screen Shot 2018-03-30 at 1.31.34 PM.png

We haven’t yet had a chance to fix this, I’m afraid. It remains on our list of things to address.

Beam corners are still happening, I’m afraid. Correctly avoided on the left, perpetrated twice—in a simpler context!—on the right.
Beam corners.png

Dear Kim,
For what it’s worth, I do not recall reading in the version history that this bug has been solved… So still waiting for it :slight_smile:

‘Issues resolved’ for Dorico 2.1 does say this behaviour has been improved, but indeed does not claim a complete fix. Still, I was surprised to find it happening in such a simple case.

I’m a little surprised to see this myself, but we’ll take another look as soon as we can. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks Daniel. I can send the file if it would help, though it looks like a fairly simple context to reproduce.

No need to send the file, thanks.

To come back to this topic, James has been looking into this one and it turns out that the behaviour is in fact deliberate. It’s based on Gould’s recommendations on pages 316 to 317 in “Behind Bars”. She writes:

When the outer notes of a subdivision have opposite stem direction, place an additional beam so as not to create any unnecessary beam comers. If the sub- division is at the beginning of the main beam, place an additional beam on the opposite side to the first note…

If the subdivided group occurs at the end of main beam, place an additional beam on the side of the first note…

When groups combine both of the above, > it is best to keep all additional beams on the same side of the main beam (it is distracting if the secondary beam moves position - it can look like another additional beam).

(Emphasis mine.)

So we will think about adding an option for this behaviour.

Thanks Daniel for looking into this. I think either a general option or the ability to ‘flip’ a secondary beam to the other side of the primary would be valuable.