So I have been using Dorico since 2018, and while reading my notes about it today, I realized that none of my requests were ever addressed by the dev team despite recognition of the usefulness of some of them (incomplete list below…)
It’s a fantastic software, no question about that, but I have to say that, apart from my own wishlist, and as a professional composer, I’m impatiently waiting for the tools to handle contemporary engraving issues properly (and so is my publisher !).
Also, after 8 years, shouldn’t the scripting API become a priority ?
Please team, could you put more effort on engraving and notation in general rather than playback and Daw like functionality ?
I already know the usual answers given to this kind of post, so could we for once, instead of giving the usual defensive justifications, acknowledge the needs of users like me and give them some hope ?
Thanks for listening…
Yan Maresz
Straight flag drawn from beam primitives instead of glyphs to easily allow any flat beam design (height, angle, length)
Option to include starting rest in beam group (without stemlets)
Add an arrow as a possible ending for a Pedal line
Automatic, dynamically updated and aligned “show/hide” instruments staves in facing pages (My absolute #1…)
Dynamics editor to create any combination of symbols
Courtesy accidental on tied note from previous system/page
Possibility to hide a group label bracket if there is only one player in the group and to change the text orientation
Bracketed rests (or whatever is selected for that matter…)
Cross staff between any type of staff
Allow midi import quantization up to 64th notes
Possibility to do a temporary 5 lines staff cues in any unpitched percussion staff
Revamp of the “manual show/hide staff” to have a more compact UI of the list anchored in the right pane instead of a modal window. Add a scope to this function, instead of the current reset system.
I dream of a complete revamp the horizontal spacing editor in Engrave mode to allow grab and move of items (or select opt/arrows) with the option the show/hide the underling current system of vertical blue lines. (I honestly get serious panic attacks when I open this editor in my dense orchestral scores, and I end up finding it unusable as it is…)
@maresz
I Think the Dorico Team puts already a lot of effort in every aspect of Dorico, and gives us regularly wonderful updates, to cover more and more the needs of all users.
@maresz , as a fellow forum member (and fellow professional composer, for whatever that designation matters in this context, which I would argue is not at all), I value the professional and simple common courtesy that is the norm here. I’m always pleased to know that I can expect to see legitimate critical feedback being offered in a positive manner (rendering “defensive justification” a needless — and, indeed, meaningless — response from the Dorico team).
I propose that none among us — “professional” or other — should use the space as a place to air grievances about perceived sleights, or to issue demands. It seems that those should be shared — if at all — via direct, private communication with the Dorico team.
I understand the frustration of having items in our wish lists postponed. These lists are useful, and are also worth revisiting. Nevertheless, the team does have a great deal to consider when allowing development time. Every update contains engraving improvements, and indeed some of my own pet peeves have been addressed recently (a cut-time as common-time toggle for example - I asked for that one 5 years ago). But of course some other items have yet to be addressed, such as your list and my own number 1 (position of clef, meter and key signatures changes before repeats).
What you describe as defensive justifications are in fact explanations on why things are as they are. Dorico development aims for the bell curve, and as such, must devote its time between creating a notation tool, and a piece of software that competes by not ignoring the new technologies that keep propping up. Fixing rest manipulation in kits was assigned to a single developer, and it took that individual eight months to crack that nut. While we would think that the solution would be immediately applicable to rest manipulation in condensed staves, we are still waiting because we can’t assume that these two instances are actually parallel. Resource allocation is a difficult problem to tackle.
There are many things in your list that mirror my own:
Dynamics editor to create any combination of symbols
Courtesy accidental on tied note from previous system/page
Possibility to hide a group label bracket if there is only one player in the group and to change the text orientation
Bracketed rests (or whatever is selected for that matter…)
Allow midi import quantization up to 64th notes
Possibility to do a temporary 5 lines staff cues in any unpitched percussion staff
Add a scope to the show-hide staff function, instead of the current reset system.
However, my list is still different from yours, which is also different from Billy’s, from Sue’s, from Bobby’s etc … I repost my wishes every now and then as it is good to know how other users feel about them. But labeling responses as “defensive justifications” is not going to make them appear any quicker or slower. They will read them all very carefully, you can be sure of that; but only the team will decide what can or cannot be done at any given time. It’s their tightrope act in their circus, and I remember how in days of 1.x, how many features that would benefit choral writing were postponed for a good three years despite the fact that Daniel is himself a choir director. As another user, I read your list with great interest, but the fact that items are not yet implemented is not a measure of disrespect or neglect. I certainly have never perceived it that way myself.
I do think it’s important sometimes to step back and reflect on the fact that there are many different types of users with different needs, and we all will have a tendency to assume our requests are obvious and must be widely requested by everyone else as well.
However it is not always the case. Most of the items on your wish list are of little interest or use to me personally, as I’m sure many items on my wish list may not be of use or interest to you on the flip side.
I am not saying that your requests are invalid whatsover, so please do not take offense to that. I’m sure many will agree and find use for these functions and I’m sure they would be great if done right. But I do appreciate the hard work that the (small!) Dorico team has been putting in to addressing the needs of many different kinds of users and the vagaries of various composer & engraver preferences - it can’t be an easy job and looking at this forum the list of requested features is a mile long on any given day.
Speed, speed, speed, speed…
This one I did not understand - you’re referring to program speed? To me that could be more down to a hardware/computer thing – I personally find Dorico to zip along even on big projects, with minimal issues compared to other software I’ve used over the years. Requests such as that would be more helpful to be more objectively clear exactly what you’re hoping to see.
Yes indeed,it does appear as a global setting, but unfortunately - unlike stemlets which can be invoked through the Properties Panel - it is VERY global.
Most of the time, this kind of notation is limited to rests at the beginning of tuplets, as in this Kapustin example:
Were I to use the global setting, the 8th note at the beginning of measure 3 would have an extended beam into the following rest. Since rests following non-tuplet notes make the majority or pretty much every score, we are faced with with single-beaming the majority of the score instead of extending beams in a few tuplet cases. So although the option is present, it is not practical for certain types of notation (I would say most examples of that notation, though I could be wrong about that)
Yes, thank you Lillie, and unfortunately that’s exactly the one I need…
I was making a revision of a large score for 12 percussions that involves such need and I had to stop and go back to original Finale file to do it (and I really didn’t want to do that !)
the possibility of changing the number of lines (and their vertical spacing) in a staff? Some users have already asked about this for a while and the instrument editor only partially covers somehow this function but its possibilities are still limited.
I’m not talking about rastral size, but about line spacing in an instrument staff. Suppose you want a musical staff of three lines but with the lines 2 spaces apart as you see in the picture.
If I am not mistaken, this is currently only possible using a customised percussion staff.
With a quick search I found this thread from last year, in which you already asked about this and seemed satisfied with the answer. I also found this thread from last month with a different solution.
Yes, but the point is that currently, it’s not possible to have a different line spacing like in the picture I posted. So, we have not yet a direct solution for that (except creating a percussion staff).
Thanks anyway
