That sounds like a product for someone else to do. A significant number of libraries with greater user circulation suit our existing architecture and we will focus on those.
SE1 has a high circulation so the engine benefits many users. It’s also a standard library in terms of features and was straightforward to support. It did require creating a convolution reverb engine for NPPE but many libraries benefit from that.
Hi Arne,
Thank you for your reply! 
Actually, since NotePerformer is a notation apps oriented, then this is a product exactly for you to make. You may ask me why?!
Because:
Arne, you could really fill the gap between the notation software and the virtual instruments, even if that means you should hire someone else to help you with the codding process.
Currently you are the only one on the market who could make this serious step.
After MuseScore 4 introduces their Expression Maps system… well, I suppose a competitive, to NP, products will appear. The first to fill the gap will win. So, worth to think about.
Best regards,
Thurisaz
Really @Thurisaz - I can see that Arne has made more than enough responses to your requests/insistent pleading and persuasion on the matter. You seem determined to not believe what he writes, as his truth.! So much so, this is now bordering on plain ‘bullying’ of someone in order to get them to accept YOUR way of seeing things.
Please, time to just stop brow-beating the man will you.! Goodness grief.
Change YOUR plans/course of productivity - you’re not going to get what you want to see happen from NP, any time soon (or probably, in any far future).
Hi @Puma0382,
How giving improvement suggestions and arguments about them can considered “bullying” of someone?! Haha 
NP as product is pretty amazing and it serves me well, but unfortunately NPPE is completely useless for me, since I can’t achieve a so common and simple thing as divisi
Since NP and NPPE are notation app oriented software, then it’s more than logical by the time to be improved in order to provide playback for all common and most of the aleatoric and modernist orchestral possibilities.
NP with it’s basic library does it’s job as expected, but it’s not a product for End Products, like song mixes, low budget film music (where a real orchestra can’t be involved). NPPE is different story, since it works with Hi-End libraries… it is supposed to provide audio output which can be used for End Product, not only higher quality playback.
Many people in the Dorico forum are not directly involved in the whole process from the scoring, all the way to the post-production, and for them having a higher quality playback might be enough, but not for me. I need something that can be exported and used further in final products.
So, as NP user I have the right to ask for improvements, especially when there are good enough arguments for them.
I can’t force Arne to realize them, of course. But still since he is the only one, currently, who is making a software that is specifically notation app oriented, I can try to explain him the future importance of what I’m asking for.
After all the AI could reduce the “engineering” process at significant degree.
Greetings
I think I know what you mean. I also am a Fan of NP and was hoping (long before NPPE) for an Implementation of performance based Libraries like Sample Modeling, Infinite Winds or V-Horns, since it seemed a logical evolution of the original approach.
And now I see your desire. And it’s logical, too. And I think there are plenty of more arguments for even more ways to go. Like Jazz and Bigband Support. And so I start to realise and accept, that Arne has chosen his way and does it right. I still have use cases for NPPE with my HOOPUS.
But I strongly hope for Dorico 5.1 to implement more phrasing capabilities in the playback engine (basics an extension Pitch contour emphasis for longer notes). I made expression maps for my desired libraries and apart from the long notes they work great. And I can export the MIDI to Cubase and finish the production there. It works great. Dorico is a Beast and the community very alive. So I think you might geht what you want in any way
your obsession with divisi is getting really tiresome – if you understood anything about how the NP technology works, you’d realise that Dimension Strings is not something which could realistically be supported in its present format. There are things I myself wish that were supported with NotePerformer and occasionally bring them up but I at least have some comprehension of the path Arne has chosen and realise that not everything is realistically possible.
As Arne has himself made perfectly clear, if you want the ultimate control over a library, you should programme it yourself – which is what I do with my own Dimension Strings set. NPPE is designed to give musically involving results with the minimum of effort and those of us which use it would generally conclude he has succeeded admirably.
Hi @dko22,
I like the musical playback of the NP at all, and I don’t need full control over the library. Just small amount in order to put my own small fingerprint. This is it.
Actually I would like to reduce the need of tweaking the libraries.
I’m not obsessed by the divisi… haha Just they appear in almost every romantic symphonic work. And I use divisi when needed, so I would like them to be supported by NPPE, otherwise I don’t find reason to invest in any NPPE preset. I can just stick to VE Pro. Just I would like to take advantage of the NP AI technology.
@Major81 got my point very well!
Greetings
yes of course divisi strings are common in symphonic works – no argument there! The thing is that NP has only one general purpose Expression Map and to me it’s something of a wonder how things can work at all when most of us who have created EM’s have several for just one library alone. For this reason – apart from anything else, NPPE is designed to work with fairly standard libraries without a lot of specialist programming. Now I’d actually agree that better divisi support among a greater number of libraries would be nice (it’s something you have said over and over again and I don’t disagree with you ) but we do need to be realistic about what NPPE’s aims actually are. There’s only one Arne and there is only so much he can do – and to be frank, it’s extraordinary what he has achieved already.
@dko22,
I completely agree with you about Arne and his amazing job. I’m pretty thankful to him about NP. This small piece of software assisted me amazingly in the past 7 months when I was extremely busy preparing a concert for symphonic orchestra and folk band, especially when I had to travel and continue working on a laptop. I’m very thankful to Arne for the NP!
…and because I’m very thankful to him, I gave my improvement suggestions about NPPE, before a competitive product to appear.
I’m aware that he is the only programmer at Wallander. The support for Dimension Strings won’t be an easy task, or the integration of ability for the users to create custom string ensembles/sections out of the solo instrument patches and group them for divisions. Most probably he will need another programmers to help him?!
Currently Dorico is the only serious player in it’s category, but as I already mentioned above, once MuseScore has Expression Maps… this will make the market place, where Arne is positioned, far more attractive. MuseScore has a serious user base, no matter that it is a free product, there will be people who are going to purchase libraries. A competitive products to NP+NPPE will start to gradually appear. The one who is able to provide the things I’m asking for, will be the one to lead this market space.
Actually NP + NPPE already has “competitive” products - Staffpad Sounds and MuseSounds, currently they are not in a direct competition, but still the times are changing, at some point there will be a direct competitor, that’s for sure. It’s a matter of time.
Steinberg released Iconica Sketch… currently it is just a library that works inside Halion, but who knows how this library will evolve in the future?!
Greetings
BTW: I today started a thread about Divisi capabilities in Dorico for custom build libraries… 
@Major81,
I’ve found that thread.
Actually to make a pseudo-divisi is easy. You can do in Dorico with every string library.
You can do pseudo-divisi in NPPE, too, I think…
The problems are:
Greetings
Thurisaz
That wouldn’t be a Problem in my Setup, since I use Audio Modeling and Sample Modeling, which can each be reduced to 4 Players. So 3 Violin Divisi would be a full 1. Violin Section. But I don’t want three staves for every Violin section, when most of the time they play unison.
well I’ll let Arne comment on plans to support MuseScore in the future, if any. MuseScore has of course discussed before on this forum and there’s no doubt it’s turning into a serious product. I’d say competition is good for Dorico!
My understanding was that NPPE already deals with divisi. I certainly don’t notice a doubling in volume when a string section plays 2 notes simultaneously. In fact I would love if there could be a non-divisi command (CC maybe) .
As previously stated, MuseScore support is unlikely because it lacks software liability—a minimum requirement for us. No one is formally responsible for patent and copyright infringement of the source code, technical support, document corruption, system failures, or privacy violations. We can be sued for indirect liability if we monetize it with a paid extension.
Suppose MuseScore.com wants into the professional audio space. In that case, it’s straightforward to upgrade the MuseScore.com community to support MusicXML uploads alongside a custom audio file from Dorico, Sibelius, and Finale rather than enforcing their open-source notation program. The score can be mapped to video by beat-detecting the audio file. Nothing stops them from adding a “Download for Dorico” button with a Dorico-adapted MusicXML score. Selling subscriptions to Dorico users would be cheaper and more effective than infusing tens of millions trying to outcompete Dorico by financial doping.
I appreciate the passion for some libraries, but expert libraries may sell up to a few thousand units and primarily to DAW users. Our notation extension is cheap and for a fraction of those users. The business economy for targeted C++ development is limited. We don’t count every hour. Still, we can’t dedicate a year of C++ coding for a week of business revenue.
As Adrian said, NPPE always managed divisi within a MIDI channel. Of course, it doesn’t sound precisely like authentic divisi. Still, it does the job and works for any library.
Regarding doing divisi differently, we can’t use the plug-in’s divisi because NPPE isn’t compatible with polyphonic output. We isolate all voices for critical monophonic operations such as pitch and envelope corrections. That’s why we have a dozen instances for each instrument. We appreciate that users are passionate about ideas, but suggestions that involve polyphony from the plug-in will never materialize.
Dear Arne, from my own experience with MS, I can only confirm what you write, these were some reasons for me to leave MS. Now I’m happy to have discovered Dorico 5 Pro and Noteperformer 4, which offers remarkable sound at a more than fair price even without the external libraries.
Thank you!
Is this an issue in the way of creating NPPEs for all the other Synchronized libraries too?
It’s not. This is a problem only with section-building libraries where users may want a different impulse for every violinist.
Thanks Arnie!
not difficult – the Vienna choir is something of an embarrassment to the company I (and quite a few others) would say. Having said that, the solo voices are indeed in some cases surprisingly good though I’m reluctant to buy any library that doesn’t sing text. I wonder what NPPE could really bring to the table in this case, though?