Wouldn’t a fresh start, unencumbered by any legacy code, be a dream come true for most developers? Cubase is thirty years old; WaveLab (which of course had its origins outside Steinberg) has been around since 1995. Why would one want to be fettered with code from that long ago?
Why would one choose to use anything other than contemporary frameworks and libraries? Incredibly, it took just one week to get Dorico working on iOS (see How Dorico came to the iPad: the behind the scenes story – Dorico) and I imagine a Linux port wouldn’t be completely out of the question.
Incidentally, Dorico isn’t slow for my purposes, and there are periodic announcements of performance gains so perhaps things will improve for you.
While there’s collaboration within Steinberg – Dorico of course shares an audio engine with Cubase (I imagine it’s been rewritten several times over the years) – and I suppose there’ll be further integration of Dorico and Cubase in the future, the Dorico team seems to have been allowed real ambition, and there has apparently had to be little compromise. This is surely a matter for rejoicing.
I think Steinberg have got the balance about right. Through Dorico they may have managed to attract some newcomers to Cubase but users of other software are in no way at a disadvantage.
This is an approach that I would expect to work in scripting (once that’s more fully implemented) but who can know what would be happening behind the scenes? Perhaps the implementation would be straightforward (I’m guessing it would given some of the existing functions). Without disputing that being able to divide the notes (why stop at cutting them in two?) might be useful for some people sometimes, I’m surprised that you think this is such a critical failing in Dorico.
Thank you, @k_b , your knowledge about Google translator is almost perfect!
I know the history of Steinberg like I would have wrote it I think I tried my first Cubase in 1998 and it was 3.5 or 3.6 or both.
And this is the case why I allow myself to write what I write. Some don’t like it.
In my youth I created my own Windows system in Assembler For what? Just for fun.
Now many programmers know that Microsoft libraries are 80% of trash that lowers overall performance. For what? Just to have the computer market on the line. You will buy new computer just to have good performance in every next upgrade on which they said that system requirements are the same as before (identical situation in most Steinberg’s marketing activities).
(Dorico team, do you remember my post about this? Nop! It is past and thus not true )
do {
while (!tired) {
write("Against overall laziness.");
}
take("a deep breath!");
} while (!satisfied);
Thanks! I’ve watched your little video several times and I can’t reproduce it; I don’t know exactly what you are doing to get the results you’ve gotten. Could you provide the keystrokes necessary? I see you’ve hit the chords button, but i don’t see what that has to do with the duplication. When I hit the chords input button there’s no effect; also, how do you leave all the 16ths selected? It would be nice to have a select by rhythmic position, maybe in the filters submenu; (unless I’ve missed something somewhere).
Is there a way to select a tuplet for the resolution? Say I wanted to subdivide a half into 6 eights (a sextuplet of 8ths in the space of a half). I haven’t found this. Thanks
Ok. Try to divide the content of 1st bar to get a look like it is in 2nd bar with one command!
It means divide every note whatever length it has.
It means divide not according to selected length (in left side), but according to every selected note.
Dorico still cannot divide selected notes in 2023!
I can halve selected notes, then select each note and press R. After hundreds of keypresses I will get whole staff as needed. That’s all. Don’t you (anyone) be able to use paper and pencil to achieve this more faster? For what we need computer?
So again - what is not clear at first glance in following code? Ask your programmers!
for (n = 0; n < selected_notes.count; n++ ) {
selected_notes[n].length = selected_notes[n].length / 2; // can be optional divider
new_note = new Note;
new_note.start_pos = selected_notes[n].start_pos + selected_notes[n].length;
new_note.length = selected_notes[n].length;
}
But why would you want to do that? I have never seen anyone but you ask for this particular capability. What is much more common (and musically sensible) is to split a melody of various note values into all the same subdivision.
Mark, that is different question - why one want to do that?
If we talk about perfect software that kicks any other software in the same industry, we could have hundreds of features we don’t want yet, but probably will need at the time when all programmers will be tired to do anything.
While you all oppose it, your opponents are already putting this feature on their to-do list. And probably just because you’re against it.
But I’m glad that I’m at least the one who needs this feature. Since this one year old original post I did this by hand some five times. Therefore no one can say that no one needs this feature. Right?
I won’t leave Dorico because I like it very much So everything is okay. I compose in Dorico as I would never compose in Cubase. It’s amazing like a parallel world.
I’d like someone to make my coffee in the morning, but I don’t expect Dorico to do it. I have to get out of my chair and do it myself. Some parts of notation are enough of a niche that one will simply have to do them by hand at least until the team has added more often used features.
No one ever said that creation didn’t involve work, even some grunt work that one wishes were handled automatically.
I hope some day Dorico will grant your request, but I don’t see it happening any time soon, and I can live with that along with the lack of some niche features I’d like to see far down the line.
Edit: I added some lines for dynamics and playing techniques, you’ll be able to figure out the other problematic things that may be occuring, it always has something to do with selecting/deselecting it. Also two dashes is a comment in Lua, which might be useful for debugging.
Yes! It works as needed. But, there is one condition - it works only if we have clean notes without any dynamics and probably other attributes. Once I put dynamics, let say pp < mf > pp on whole selected bar, then there is a little mismatch between voices. Did you record script and doing all steps from menu or did you write .LUA by hand?
Do you see, Dorico team? Without any arrogance. If someone is capable to help, he will help despite of someone’s state of mind and angriness. Patience, love and peace! That’s enough to make someone’s smile shining again I’m sure Dorico team should have such supporting people
So, if LUA scripting is powerfull enough to do things that developers didn’t predict to hardcode, then probably there is a place to make Dorico Script Library that could extend Dorico functionality.
I was waiting for this solution for 379 days. The original post was created in January 16, 2022.
So I will celebrate January 31 as “Help in the jungle of arrogance” day.
Now the best would be to finish this to mark as successful solution.
Arthur, I (and many others) posted FRs, which are much older than yours. I know that the development team for Dorico is very small, therefore I am patient.
Unfair comparison. Make it look as nice as Dorico, with straight staff lines, correct beam angles and the corresponding part and score. And don’t forget to change the note spacing after inserting new notes. I wouldn’t play a single note off that paper.
Exactly this, that I didn’t understand your point. Your whole argument was that it’s so fast to do on paper. My argument was, that the comparison is fraud.
My English might not be sufficient to bring across my point, but let me try:
You crossing some lines on paper is equivalent to just imagining halfed Note values in my head. Neither produces readable notation nor valuable playback.
So what is your goal? and in summary, what is actually faster for that goal? Paper or Software?
Do I agree that halfing note values should be easier in Dorico? Sure, more power to you!
Do I think your comparison is fraud and on the border of mocking everyone who is trying to engage in a serious conversation about it, bc it’s just not comparable? Yes, and I don’t appreciate that attitude at all.
I think I tried my first Cubase in 1998 and it was 3.5 or 3.6 or both.
)
