Just type W (shortcut for Window > Counterpart Layout, a concept from Sibelius)
It will if you have “Set local properties: Globally” on! (right side of Properties panel)
No, it won’t.
Thanks, Leo; my bad. I misread that as flipping a stem.
On that subject, IME scores should always match parts, including enharmonics. What is the use case for such a change?
Transposing instruments and concert pitch scores are the obvious ones, I guess.
1 Like
Nope, W will switch to the score layout, but most of the time the selected note will not be in view. Furthermore, when I press W to switch back to the part it won’t be in view either. I end up pressing P to start playback and correctly orient the screen.
Okay, learned my lesson. Won’t try to post hints for the first year.
LOL, it’s all good! I learn stuff here everyday. (I did have to go figure out what you were even responding to since the post was from last May.) This particular screen jumping issue has been around a long time. I’m not sure if it will be completely fixed, but I narrowed down one particular type of jumping bug a while back that I believe Daniel said would be corrected in the next release. The ability to switch between parts and score and not have to hunt for the selected item would be a huge timesaver for me anyway.
1 Like
I think I recall Leo making the suggestion to press P (for Play) and then immediately press it again to stop. That seems to bring the active note/screen into view.
2 Likes
I missed this thread before and have to admit that I did not go through this quite impressive list to check which of these requests (all of which concern the playback) have already been posted before, but maybe there are still some that were not mentioned, yet 
:
feature requests:
- when the note length is used as a condition it should hold for a characteristic tempo (e.g. 120bpm) and these conditions should be automatically appropriately adapted by Dorico when the tempo is changed, so that effectively the actual time a note is played is used as a criterium instead of merely the length of the notated note in Dorico, because that’s what is actually relevant for the playback using a a sample library
- more than 5 different steps for note-length (and other) conditions would be really great (ideally at least 10 so that developers can improve the automatic playback)
- it would be great if there would be other conditions to allow Expression Map developers to improve the automatic playback in Dorico. Examples of parameters that would be very useful to have in conditions are:
- the number of consecutive repetitions a given note is part of (so that dedicated repetition samples can be used)
- the interval in half tones between two consecutive notes (so that e.g. legato can be chosen for intervals over which it is actually sampled and other alternatives otherwise)
- the current number of simultaneously played notes in a stave, i.e. the current polyphony (so that full auto-divisi would be possible)
- a way to specify a dedicated playback for grace notes
- Dorico-generated playback of other ornaments aside from trills (mordents, …) would be awesome
bugs to fix:
- measured tremolos don’t work correctly so far when an Expression Map with note-length conditions is used, since the length of the entire note representing the measured tremolo is used instead of that of the individual generated notes
- probably I am just missing something, but no matter what I tried I could not get Dorico generated arpeggios to work, so there might still be a bug?
2 Likes
1 and 2 I already requested quite a while ago, although I cannot think of a situation where 10 steps would be necessary if 1 is implemented – no library has that many appropriate patches surely? My calculation with VSL (one of the most articulation-rich of all) is that 7 should cover all reasonable eventualities but it could be I’m lacking imagination! I use all five with VSL but I don’t know anyone else who does (speak up… 
)
I think we have been promised some kind of dynamics automation in the future. We’ll just have to wait and see when that and the others reach the requisite stage in the priorities list.
I’m not entirely sure how an algorithmic decision could be made on the number of repetitions as to make musical sense as that might be rather complex. Of course you can just assign to “rep” when required and hide in the score.
I agree that if you only think about sampled playing techniques, like sustained or portato, then probably no sample library offers more than five of them. However our presets (as well as other sample players) allow the user to dial several sound parameters (e.g. the attack) continuously and more steps could therefore clearly results in a more detailed playback. Actually, I would say that 2 is important exactly because of 1: e.g. a double note at 120 has the same length as a whole note at 60 and in a slow movement a slower attack should result in a more realistic playback.
I don’t think it would be hard at all to implement this: Dorico knows the length of a given note precisely (e.g. 1, 3/4, 2/3, 1/2, 3/8, 1/3, 1/4, …) and giving us this parameter directly in the condition should actually be easier than to translate it artificially into 5 ranges (Very Short, Short, Medium, Long, Very Long). We definitely could and would use this to improve the playback .
Dynamics automation sounds very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit on that? Do you mean automatic changes during the course of a note even without dedicated dynamics symbols in the score (i.e. what most people do by hand to improve their playback)?
The decision when to use repetition samples should be rather easy: Whenever there are more repetitions than round robins in the standard patches (in case of the VSL typically 4), I would use dedicated repetition samples. This can surely already be done via control symbols, but inserting them takes a lot of time in a long score, while it would be completely automatic with the corresponding condition. Like the standard patches the repetition patches can also be controlled by the note length which results in a quite realistic playback. All we would need is the corresponding conditions. In case you want to do something even more fancy, that would then surely be possible as well.
to be honest, I’m not sure anyone so far ever went into detail – more the principle of it being possible and on the agenda. There was a little discussion around the time of 3.5 release but that was of course a while ago now.
a Jianpu or numbered notation features will be awesome, also ability to select same item on staff using right click just like musescore, and ability to customize staff properties with right click would be awesome
The ability to switch between parts and score and not have to hunt for the selected item would be a huge timesaver for me anyway.
This has probably come up before, but I could really do with a “Go to selection” feature, that way if I scroll away to have a look at something but know I still have something selected where I’m currently working, I can just hit the key command and go back to where I was.
1 Like
Have you tried pressing p and immidiately after stopping playback with space bar?
1 Like
I have now 
3 Likes
Or just P and P again, quick as you like. 
1 Like
Word processors usually have a navigation pane that is automatically populated with heading levels and other style changes. It would be nice for Dorico to have a navigator that could optionally be populated with flow names, then within flows: rehearsal marks, tempo marks, double bars, key changes, meter changes, segnos, coda jump points, coda sections, system text, comments, etc. Ideally the user could filter in/out any of those types of navigation points.
7 Likes
I just tried something today and was surprised it didn’t work:
I would love to be able to type into the time signature popover, “4/4, hidden” and have it insert but not show.
9 Likes
A wholehearted +1 for this!
2 Likes