Obviously there’s a lot to digest in Dorico 6 but unless I’m mistaken, two of the basics haven’t been dealt with:
Ties etc. into second-time bars etc.
The distance between arpeggio signs and accidentals
‘perfect scores, faster…’
In a recent thread, the former seemed to be requested perhaps more frequently than anything else. I suspect a large number of people are affected every day. It seems unlikely that the requests are simply being ignored so there is apparently something worryingly intractable about the problem. I’m guessing a solution is still a version or two away: hundreds more days of fiddling manually with what should be automatic.
The latter has been acknowledged as an omission but seems to be considered very low priority even though it’s a matter of legibility. There was a promise of revisiting some of the basics some time ago and I really hope there’ll be some of this within the Dorico 6.x cycle.
Yes and if I’m not mistaken the age old conundrum of choral condensing versus divisi hasn’t been solved either, which is a pain in the bum as far as I’m concerned.
Still - these are 3 of hundreds of things users request over and over again. Fingers crossed next time. Well - not next time, that will be playback focussed. Maybe next next time.
I may be way off base here… Its possible, it’s possible that the person(s) best suited to tackle this area of (specialist) code, has been busy elsewhere for the past year or two helping build the new Score Editor for Cubase…
Seeing the progress made over there, maybe we’re not too far off a stage where said developer(s) is able to be brought back into the Dorico team full-time…
There are only so many hours in the day for people to work on things.
Cutaway scores was a huge thing for many people previously who wanted to move to Dorico and many who recently moved. Doing cutaway scores in Dorico was not fun at all, requiring a crazy amount of work. It was the one big thing that was just so much work in Dorico it was impractical. When people would ask me what could you not do in Dorico, my answer was always that there were reasonable ways of doing almost everything with workarounds except cutaway scores.
Meanwhile there are some other features like aleatoric boxes and extension lines etc that we don’t have yet, but there are good workarounds that don’t require a huge amount of extra work. I would say the “second endings” thing falls into that category.
My sense is that the focus this time was more on features where people specifically said “I really can’t move from Finale until feature X is there so I have a huge problem because Finale is ending and I am stuck there”.
Yes always, it is how we should all treat each other, Tristis.
If I pay for a service it is the equivalent for showing gratitude for what I get served.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed that ties into second endings will appear in Dorico at some point
I am happy to wait for the perfect solution (not trying to put pressure onto the devs…).
What do you expect to achieve by the complaints? These are well known to the dev team. You’re making some sizable assumptions assuming that the improvements would have been present had it not been for the Cubase work.
The product is what it is, and with the release notes, nothing is hidden. If the price doesn’t meet someone’s personal sense of fair value, then they shouldn’t buy it.
My risk assessment, patience, and tolerance as a purchaser is beside my earlier point about the categorical error of deriding and dismissing simple explanations (speculative on the part of us users, at that) for “excuses,” with all of the baggage that loaded term carries.
Since you asked, however, I’ll say that my position is contextually determined. When some product is static and/or its producer clearly thoroughly disengaged in accepting feedback or offering support, I move on. In a case like Dorico, the evidence that the product evolves richly (even if I don’t always “get what I want”) and the dev team is incredibly engaged is so obviously true that I (happily) stay.
I realize, though, that each of us assesses risk in investment differently. Fortunately, as a purchaser of anything one has a choice.
Using software is much more like signing up for a service rather than buying a product. If you paid for a service and then found half the employees were actually labouring for someone else, would you not feel aggrieved? Would you not feel particularly frustrated if there were specific things you knew needed to be done urgently (perhaps things that might affect you every day)?
I have the utmost admiration for what has been achieved with Dorico; I just wish there weren’t the sense that the team is being held back.
Respectfully, @Tristis, how confident are you that this is exactly what was happening for a prologued period; and that the paragraph which you link to actually says that; and that the test there specifically asserts that resources were removed from development of Dorico itself?
The thing is you’re not paying them for their labour - they are not there to build your conservatory. You are buying a product of the team, not the services of their employees.
Look - the free market exists right? If you’re so aggrieved by this, vote with your feet and leave.
Certainly, additional things would have been coded, but we can’t say with any certainty they would have been the particular issues you mentioned at the top. My point remains, if you don’t feel the contents of the update justify the price you don’t need to purchase it.
It’s an odd line of thinking to me, as you could continue the logic saying 7 is behind where it could have been because 6 only had 50% (or whatever the actual percentage was), and then 8 and so forth. Where does the line get drawn?
Except Dorico is specifically not software as a service, certainly not like Sibelius. You paid for 5, and you got 5. You can use 5 forever for no additional cost. If you want 6, you pay for 6. But you don’t have to want 6. Note, that’s a different thing than what you want 6 to be.
