In the attached example, I have noticed the following issue:
the dynamic markings in the upper staff are either colliding with the playing technique indications (icon-like images or text) in the lower staff, or positioned too close to them.
Hi @prko, your two values set to 30 are crazy hight, and as you see they are not intended to solve your spacing issue (one reason for this is that it doesn’t affect the casting off : )
Possibly you could try unchecking Automatically resolve collisions between adjacent staves and systems all together, and use only the gaps settings in the Minimum Gaps section.
And check the frame fullness, which is better to be always below 100%.
If you could upload a couple of pages that have the issue, we can experiment with optimal settings suggestions.
I used the two values of 30 merely to illustrate that it is not possible to set the gap appropriately by means of these values alone. (I use the default values.)
In this instance, the inter-system gaps setting does not seem to be particularly helpful:
At present, the most practical solution appears to be adjusting the spacing manually for each hand.
I still believe that the two options I mentioned could improve the automatic vertical spacing in cases such as the following:
collisions between tuplets in the upper staff and notes in the lower staff;
collisions, or excessively tight spacing, between dynamics in the upper staff and playing technique indications (icon-like images or text) in the lower staff.
In your screenshot you have manual adjustments on every system/staff (the red squares), so it is not a good example of what the Inter-system Gaps value does, since you have overridden the spacings.
(Again: seeing the actual Dorico file would be more efficient in giving suggestions)
Yes, exactly. My intention in starting this thread, and in sharing the example, is to highlight this limitation and to ask whether this would be an appropriate case for a feature request.
Here it is: test.dorico (3.5 MB)
The Dorico file is only a sketch, and the flute notation is not yet fully precise.
I have done a little more testing, and it seems that unchecking Automatically resolve collisions between adjacent staves and systems does not offer much of a clue as to how this issue might be resolved. In the following examples, this option is checked:
In both Cases 1 and 2, I only dragged the first staff while pressing the Alt key, yet Case 2 appears to work well. Perhaps the number of staves is also a factor? I am not sure. It may simply vary from case to case.
Hi @prko, and thank you for the file. I am sorry but there are better methods to obtain what you need in your layout. I would suggest using Flow Heading overrides, to create the space below the flow title (instead of using the Concertina dragging!).
Here some screenshots with the steps I made: basically what I did is remove page overrides, removing manual staff spacing overrides, editing the Flow Heading template, and applying a Flow Heading override, to increase the bottom margin of flow 2. I hope it ca be of some help:
(Click to expand)
Remove page override for page 5 (but I would remove all page overrides, and edit the page templates instead, if needed):
And here another possible result using the suggested method of deactivating the collision avoidance and using only the inter-system gaps (after polishing the layout as explained above), if you want a more homogeneous vertical spacing:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful suggestion — I truly appreciate the time and care you put into examining this issue.
Your solution is indeed practical and represents the most exemplary approach within Dorico’s current workflow.
I’m also glad to have learned the correct method through your explanation — it clarified something I hadn’t fully understood before.
However, it also shows that the feature request in this thread may still be necessary:
The gap between the last system and the one above becomes disproportionately large — an inter-system gap of 30 spaces is far beyond what would normally be considered a general-purpose value.
Adjusting the heading bottom margin for each flow introduces additional manual work.
Furthermore, if Vertical Spacing could also take the following situations into consideration, most of the remaining manual adjustments would no longer be necessary:
the spacing between upward slurs in the lower staff and dynamics in the upper staff;
the spacing between upward slurs in the topmost staff and the top page margin;
the spacing between downward slurs in the bottom staff and the bottom page margin.
Together with the two options I originally proposed, these considerations could significantly improve automatic vertical spacing in cases such as:
collisions between tuplets in the upper staff and notes in the lower staff;
collisions or overly tight spacing between dynamics in the upper staff and playing techniques (icons or text) in the lower staff.
Once again, thank you sincerely for your helpful suggestion. I truly appreciate your input, and I hope these ideas can contribute constructively to future improvements.
