Is there an easy of achieving verse numbers all vertically aligned? (I say "easy" because I'm loathe to go to the trouble of putting a hidden note ahead of the start of the melody in order to align the verse numbers with that!)
What I usually do is insert a short duration grace rest where I want the verse number to appear. Then I set the properties of the grace rest to Lyric Syllable: Always and Visibility: None. Then, I put the "1." as a separate syllable in the lyrics. and everything lines up nicely. Plus, it doesn't alter the playback noticeably.
There's also a button for that. It's got a lower-case " i " on it. By default, it's next to the upper-case " L " in the "file" button bar. If you hover the mouse cursor over it, you'll get a tool tip that calls it "authoring info." The title can be changed there, along with the composer and the lyricist.
Ha - I never noticed that before. All these years, I've been going to the menu when I want to view or change that information. You learn something new every day.
I know that the shortcut for bringing up a selector can be customized in the selector file via "Title(&s)" in File info.
But how can I assign shortcuts to the individual items in a selector?
Go to the Staff Properties for a particular item, and go to the General tab. The shortcut is specified in the Staff Label. As for your example, it will use the character after the & if one is present, otherwise it will use the first character. Look at the Bar selector for examples of this.
Mike
PS - I've noticed your signature before, here's my reply:
I think this may have been discussed in a previous thread, but here is something that might help.
The selector for dynamics has a keyboard shortcut of "d". Typing this key brings up the graphical menu, at which point you can use the arrow keys to highlight a particular dynamic, and press "Enter" to insert it. This means that if you are using a program or keyboard driver that supports user-defined macros (such as IntelliType or AutoHotKey), you could create your own macros for each dynamic, and assign to the hot key of your choosing. For example, "d <down> <down> <down> <Enter>" would insert a "p".
While a selector can have a master keyboard shortcut, the individual selections within it can also have a keyboard shortcut assigned, although that would be a second key following the selector shortcut. Not all selectors have these secondary shortcuts; the dynamics selector does not. However, the barline selector does have them, so pressing "b s" will enter a single bar line, "b d" enters a double bar line, "b 1" enters a 1st ending, etc. It's been previously documented that the selectors can be customized by the user, so it would not be difficult to add custom shortcut keys to the dynamics selector.
Also, the "Insert > Dynamic" menu selection has a keyboard shortcut of "D" (shift-d). This brings up the older dialog, where there is a drop-down menu to choose the dynamic type. Of special note is that this dialog will "remember" the last dialog that was inserted, so if you want to insert a bunch of "p"s at various spots in your score, you can insert the first one via shift-D, making the selection, and then insert additional dynamics of the same type by typing shift-D <Enter>.
Per Francis' comment about "tearing off" toolbars, NWC toolbars allow this (assuming we are talking about the same thing). You can create also create custom toolbars and assign commands or selectors to them.
Now, all of the above assumes that the user is okay with inserting objects using keyboard shortcuts. I try to do this when possible since it's usually faster for me than moving the mouse for every operation.
Quite correct. I've had considerable trouble from Korean sites who just steal all of the content and then put it up as their site. They do not obey any site etiquette with respect to items that they can and can't take.
The only option was only to allow access to the files if the referring URL was the Scriptorium itself. Trying to use HTTPS does not work either (before you ask).
The best option is to reference the main HTML page and say to people to search for the relevant document within that page.
Is it difficult to white-list specific domains? I.e. if you allowed links from www.noteworthysoftware.com, people could post messages in the forum with links to those pages. (And I'm not suggesting that you need to do that, just asking whether that might be a possibility.)
Rich, the link to the scripto in Opagust's post leads to "Forbidden File Access". Reaching it from within the scripto works fine.
It appears that the Scriptorium is set to prevent 3rd party linking to that document (and probably others). As you've noticed, searching for the document within the Scriptorium, or copying/pasting the URL into a new browser window, will allow the page to be viewed.
Isn't this sort of thing being addressed in the new release? Or was that just a "test"?
The latest beta preview does include a "test.slur" user object, where the endpoints and curve shape can be directly manipulated. There is also an experimental "marker" object that can be used to "nudge" a normal slur's endpoints up or down. Besides being purely experimental at the moment, each of these methods has limitations: the lines drawn by the test.slur object are of a uniform thickness, and thus don't look like regular slurs. (On the other hand, it does implement dotted or dashed lines as an option, but that is a different issue.) The marker object will give normal looking slurs, but only the vertical positions of the endpoints can be changed, so they will often touch the note stems unless other measures are taken. Right now, Rick's approach (in an earlier post on this thread) gives the best-looking slurs using the official release version of NWC. However, there will likely be additional changes in the beta previews, so keep posted.
Thanks for the reply - but I'm looking for a solution when the slur must be downward for an alto line or upward for a tenor line - in other words, extending into the lyric space.
Hi,
This is in fact a common situation with vocal scores. The normal solution for this is to create an additional staff that is layered with the staff where you want to change the slur location. You would create measures with invisible full rests for all the measures in that staff except for the ones where you want to change the slurs. In those specific measures, copy the notes to the layered staff, and change the stem heights to 0 or 1. Then, remove the slur from the notes in the original staff. The effect will be that in the new layered staff, the slur will be closer to the note heads.
If that explanation sounds a bit complicated, I could post an example for you, if you can post a sample clip showing the notes whose slurs you are trying to fix.
Can the size of the toolbars be adjusted to help us old folks?
Hover your mouse over the "handle" on a particular toolbar, and right click. You'll see a menu that has an entry for each toolbar, with a checkbox next to it. There will also be a submenu named "Button Heights", where you can pick a height between 12 and 60 pixels for that toolbar. (I think the default is 18 pixels.) Each toolbar (except for the Piano) can be separately sized.
Enjoy!
Mike
P.S. It is generally considered rude to discuss the size of your toolbar in public.
My computer does not seem to recognize midi input from my computer. When I play a note from my Yamaha Keyboard, and then Import recording I get the message there is nothing to import or nothing in the buffer. I select open in a new window and I get nothing. I used to be able to enter notes in a step method, however not I cannot. I have checked other forums, but have not received a fix. There are others that have had this same problem. Windows does know that the usb interface is connected. I am using Edirol UM-2ex windows 7 64 bit version drivers. Windows says the UM2 is ready for use. Is there anyone that can help with this problem.
When you go to Tools > Options and go to the Record tab, is there a device chosen for Input Device? If not, when you click the drop-down arrow, does it let you choose your UM-2?
Disclaimer: I haven't used MIDI input in a very long time, but this is how I remember setting it up. This was "back in the day" when I was using a Gravis MIDI adapter that was plugged into my computer's 15 pin game port (okay, I'm done with nostalgia mode now.)
Hi guys, I've been having a hunt around trying to find some detailed information on selector modification and location of selector files.
What I've found is somewhat confusing...
First selectors seem to be in the config folder, then they're supposed to be in the ToolbarBitmaps folder (which I don't have), but there aren't any in config either.
Now I know the filenames: 100.nwc, 101.nwc etc. but where are they? A search of my entire machine does not disclose ANY selector files.., yet I have active selectors... The standard default ones from my 2.51 upgrade. And where in the folder structure are they supposed to be?
There is also a smattering of information about in the beta threads from before the release of 2.51, but no aggregation of information relating to selector management that I can find.
So... can anyone give me a quick and dirty guide to the care and feeding of selectors please?
On my system (Windows 8.1) they are in C:\Users\Mike\AppData\Roaming\Noteworthy Software\nwc2\Config. That is, the settings are per user. I don't remember the corresponding Windows XP folder location, but you should be able to find it based on the above information.
I am not particularly interested in the original topic here, but I would like to know where I find the "StaffSymbols" font. Is that new to the Beta release? It's not in Page setup that I can access. Or is it a special "unofficial" font?
When you insert a text object, there are two font choices available at the top of the list: Staff Symbols and Cue Symbols. Both of these are the same font, but different sizes, and use the Notation font you have chosen in Page Setup.
According to the online version history for NWC, these were added to the fonts list in version 2.5.
Sometimes I see in my scores a flat or sharp symbol which is placed between parentheses. How do I set these symbols into NWC? Looking in the help sections ("parenthese", "#") didn't help.
I believe this is called a "courtesy" accidental, and is put in the score as a reminder. NWC does not directly support the ( ) as part of the accidental, but you can achieve this in your score by first applying a plain accidental to your note (which will not affect its playback) and then add the ( ) as text, with a space between them. Depending on the chord structure and font you use, you might need to play with the alignment a bit, or add a space or two to the beginning or end of your text string.
Yes. Enter the first note as usual – this will determine the stem colour, and then add successive notes using Control/Enter each time having set the notehead colour from the "Item Color" menu.
Alernately, to change the color of an existing notehead, position your hand-pointer directly over the notehead in question, then right-click and choose a new color from the Color submenu.
Edit: If you want to change the stem color after creating a note, highlight the note and do Properties. The Item Color on the Visibility tab will set the color of the stem, while the Notehead Color on the main tab will allow you to set the color of all noteheads for the note/chord. (This property seems to show the wrong notehead color sometimes for a single note if you have changed the notehead color via right-clicking.)
It has. In: Cue notes? You no longer need to adjust the Vertical Offset. The "rest" part of a RestChord can be hidden. some day, noteworthy may document the "Show Rest" option on the Rest Chord tab.
That thread was from 2008, which I assume is before the Spacer was added. And now that spacers can have .01 resolution widths, I supposed one could tweak the spaces between the notes/rests more easily than using text elements with "Preserve Width" set.
It has always bugged me that there are so many choices for noteheads (standard, X, diamond, blank, "do-re-mi", etc.) but the obvious (to me) cue noteheads are missing. (Of course, true cue notes would need to inherit the beam and stem size of their grace cousins)
Maybe not, but there are "cue" rests and I suspect that someone would be unhappy if they were removed.
Thank you, cue notes/rests is the term I was trying to think of, when I said "reduced size".
I've tried to use grace notes/rests as a substitute for cue notes/rests, but have had a difficult time getting them to line up with "real" notes on other staves. I should probably search the forums for "cue notes", since I suspect this has been discussed at length before.
Is there even such a thing as a "grace rest"? I mean, of course I realize you can create them in NWC, and they have useful properties (although after reading the "False acciaccatura" thread, one would say they are less useful than they used to be). What I mean is, do they show up in real scores? I've never seen one in a score (I'm not counting reduced size notes/rests for alternate melody lines and similar situations, which can currently only be created in NWC via text objects.)
As of NWC 2.51, the method you describe no longer works.
I was experimenting with Susanna's score last night, and found that if I removed the fermatas, the chord would play as intended (with the initial grace note). Of course it would no longer sustain as intended, but text object fermatas and an invisible tempo change (or something similar) could be added.
I developed an itree in notepad. I gave it the file extension of .nwcitree and place it in the itree section of noteworthy where the sample, default, classic etc itrees are. When I start a new song, and choose my itree it comes up invalid and shows a blank square where the tree should be. I can see it in notepad, but how do I get it into the nwcitree or itree files?
Without posting the file here for us to see, it's hard to tell what went wrong. You have probably read the comments in Sample.nwcitree, so you'll know that there are rules for some of the commands/options in the file.
Did you create the file from scratch, or did you base it on one of the existing itrees that came with NWC?
I wouldn't say it was incomprehensible, just maybe a bit on the technical side. Some folks here are less computer savvy than others I did understand it and found it interesting, but since I write software for a living, I'm probably not your average Noteworthy Composer user.
I assume you know this already, but if you are changing fonts, margins and such for a score, you will likely change the appearance of the resulting score. Measures may break in different spots, and you may have more or fewer pages than you did before.
Whenever I change fonts in a score, I find I need to preview it before I commit the change, for the above reasons. But maybe your scores are simpler and less prone to the problems I mentioned.
To share your file with the other NWC users to have hints and feedbacks, the best place is the NoteWorthy Composer newsgroup. Server: news.noteworthysoftware.com Group: noteworthy.composer In alternative you can access it at http://news.noteworthysoftware.com/
Separate note: I tried accessing the web portal to the newsgroup, and it prompts me for a username/password. I tried the ones I use on the forum and they doesn't seem to work. Is a separate registration required?
And to be honest, I thought I'd read somewhere that the newsgroup was being phased out in favor of the forums. Was I misinformed?
How did he get the quarter note in front of the dotted quarter? I ran into a problem with it overlaying the bottom of the dotted quarter, and wound up using a combination of the two methods. I had two occurrences of that.
As fathafluff mentioned, you need to use the Extra Note Space property to move notes forward if their heads would otherwise overlap when layered. Likewise, you may need to create additional accidental spacing in some cases. When you are building chords on a single staff, or using the primitive 2-layers-per-staff mode, NWC is smart enough to move noteheads and accidentals to avoid overlaps, but you will need to do this manually when you use layers. (There may be user tools that assist with this process.)
Why not, Rick? Admittedly, WAV files sound slightly better (to some of us; I've found that most people are unable to tell the difference, and are mildly amazed that I can). But since you're starting from a MIDI file, sound quality isn't that great anyway, and IMHO the huge difference in size between WAV files and MP3 files is determinate in this case. Of course, if you know a way to burn a disc directly from Audacity, it would save a step....but I don't think there is one.
I think Rick's point is that in order to create mp3 files from Audacity, you have to download and install the separate LAME MP3 encoder plug-in, which are extra steps in the process (despite the loss in quality that you describe). The documentation for Audacity clearly mentions burning audio CDs from WAV or AIFF files.
If notes on layered staves are crashing into each other (e.g., Eb and F), this webpage can help. Both staves must be cut into the respective text areas, click on Submit, then copy the staves back where they were originally.
Because this reads two staves at the same time, it would be almost impossible to create a traditional user tool to do this.
Thanks for sharing those pages Warren. That said, this is exactly why I've been frustrated with using separate layers vs. the built-in split-chords-on-one-staff approach. All of the nice things that NWC does for you on split-chord staves (note collision, stem height/flag position alignment, accidental spacing, etc.) have to be done by hand or by several passes of user tools. I will admit to not having spent any time exploring whether the latest user tool interface would allow one to parse through layered staves and do the necessary fix-ups on each layer so that everything looks great. I should do that.
Or... maybe such a tool already exists, or an existing one could be built upon?
I'm going to hijack this topic for a small rant about the current ver. 2.75 betas, which appear to be all about unicode and fine adjustments of symbol placement instead of notational improvement. ... I can see a great deal of need for true 8va notation, improved slurs, ossia/cue notes, and some of the other things we've been asking for forever, and these still aren't happening. I think we have a little priorities problem here.
** end of rant **
Hi William,
Thanks for your comments. You have undoubted seen some of my own comments / requests regarding some of the areas you mentioned in your "rant", including slurs and beaming in two-part staves. I don't want to second-guess the developer(s) and their priorities, but being a developer myself, I understand that it can be challenging to determine the direction to take an application, and to choose which areas to work on for new versions of a product. On the one hand, there are the notation improvements we've mentioned, for which there are generally known workarounds (some of them not pretty), but then there are areas that aren't as easily worked around (i.e. character sets, positioning, etc.) Also, maybe the inclusion of Unicode support will increase sales in other countries, and that revenue could help fund other improvements that we've all been waiting for. (Then again, I have no idea if NoteWorthy Software is a for-profit entity, or if NWC is mainly a "labor of love" by someone who has a separate day job. Perhaps this message will elicit an answer to my question?)
Anyway, I don't want to turn my reply into another rant, but I think that additional discussion on this topic might be a good thing. While I don't mind the occasional workaround to make a score look its best, it is frustrating sometimes when the amount of effort to get the final 5% improvement in appearance ends up being a much larger proportion of the time I put into creating the rest of the score.
Have you tried using Noteworthy with my LilyPond converter for final output using LilyPond?
I've seen you mention it before, and thanks for mentioning that option. However, after playing around with Lilypond a bit, I've decided it's not quite my cup of tea. Very powerful and versatile, but it also has a steep learning curve (unless I just wanted to use it as an final output generator for another program's files).
I don't want to turn this into a "which program is best" thread, because obviously this is a NWC forum, and that's what I'm here to discuss. But sometimes it's useful to reference how program X implements a particular feature, as part of asking whether NWC could someday do something similar.
Strictly, it's not called melismas - that's the practice of extending lyrics over more than one note. The line is called a lyric extender. If you really want these, Lilypond does them very nicely.
Thanks for the correction. I knew that Lilypond did these, as does MuseScore, but I am still hopeful that Noteworthy Composer will eventually gain a small number of features/enhancements that will allow me to quit using MuseScore for the majority of my choral scores. I can live without the lyric extenders, but the "slur issue" and more convenient split staff handling of beamed notes is giving MuseScore an edge these days - and yes, I know how to use layered staves and other workarounds to do this. The split staff / beam issue is simple, but slurs take a lot more work to make them look "nice". (Not saying things that haven't been said a dozen times, sorry.)
Rick covered most of this, but I wanted to add a little.
Using underscores for lyric padding is no longer a recommended technique. The spacer is now the recommended technique for adding padding where you need it (or in some cases, to reduce padding). You can add it quickly using the Insert key.
While we are on the subject of lyrics, perhaps I can ask a question. One thing I've missed in Noteworthy lyrics is the ability to create a melisma - the trailing underscore on a lyric that spans multiple notes. I'm sure there are workarounds to create these manually, but I was wondering if the ability to more easily create these is on the radar for a future release? (I'm guessing it's not a highly requested feature).
In Noteworthy 2.1, when I selected a chord that solved in the next chord and clicked 'tie' (or pressed '/'), only the notes that did not change between the chords would actually tie. But now, in version 2.5, ALL the notes are trying to tie. So I get stuck with (mostly) 2 notes that are not able to tie, but show a tie anyway... Correcting this takes a lot of time. Building a chord 1 by 1 also takes more time (I use a midi keyboard now)...
Anyone know how to handle this?
In the attachments you will see the bad situation (knipsel1) and what I want it to be (knipsel 2).
There's an easy way to toggle the tie on and off for each note of a chord. If you position your cursor over the notehead in question and right-click, a context menu appears, in which "Tie" is a choice. Clicking that will toggle the tie on or off for that note in the chord.
That said... It might be nice if there were a preferences setting to revert to the behavior in 2.1 (I didn't remember that it did this, to be honest).
How are you writing the marcato sign? Do you enter the note, then highlight it and make it marcato, or do you set the marcato sign before you enter the note, or do you highlight several notes and make them marcato? Are you using the native marcato sign (the icon and/or ! (the shift and number 1 key)?
It would help to know which version of Noteworthy Composer and which Windows version, as well as the type of computer monitor.
If you can also post a screen shot that would help too.
Actually David, I think the Marcato command is ^ (shift 6 on US keyboards), not !. But I concur with your advice, it would help if he could include a screen shot to indicate the problem. It could have to do with the type of notes being annotated, or other score settings.
I thought it might be worth mentioning that there's another easy way to tell if there are new posts here. I use an RSS aggregator (Feedly, but there are others) to monitor the forums, and it will tell me when there are new posts or replies to existing posts (in all but the Back Stage forum). I'm pretty sure there are instructions in the forum's Help menu to tell how to add a feed to your aggregator, but if anyone wants more information on this, please let me know.
(Side note: The Simple Machines forum software has one of the better RSS implementations I've run across, since it will capture both new posts and new replies. Some forums' RSS code will only capture new posts, and you have to visit the forum to see if there are new replies)
Someone will probably suggest that the Boundary command include a 'Lyric Offset'. I don't disagree, but I have not found it to be necessary.
I don't need to suggest it because you just did :-) One trick that I've done to change the lyric offset, in cases where the lyrics go from a larger number of lines to one line (i.e. a refrain) is to move the single line portion from line 1 to line 3 or 4 (or whichever line gives the proper spacing when the lower margin is reduced). If my description isn't making sense, I can include an example to show what I mean.
Well, I suspect that layering is the fix you talk about and that Noteworthy do not consider that it needs fixing. (Alas !)
(My editorial comment continues)
To me, layering isn't a "fix" here, it's a workaround. I don't mind using layers for more sophisticated things (like lyrics above & below the staff), but it seems downright annoying to have to create a separate layer when I have one or two measures in an entire score with beamed notes in both directions. I have also resorted to using layers to handle stem-side slurs that are too far from the note heads (by shortening the stems on the layered staff). It just seems to me that there are a number of shortcomings in NWC where the solution is "use layers".
Another way to put this for the beaming issue: if I have to use layers to solve this, then the whole ability of having built-in layered notes on a single staff seems moot. I'd rather not go off on a rant here, because for the most part I am happy with NWC overall, but as I've mentioned in a few other posts, I find myself increasingly using "that other program" to get around these (and other) NWC shortcomings, and I would really rather not feel the need to resort to that.
I agree with the above technical description and solution to this problem... and I have to say that this is one of my biggest "pet peeves" with NWC (aside from the oft-discussed "slur problem"). I use NWC to create digital scores for our choir (either to remove the piano part, or to make PDF scores for our users who have tablets), and it's common for the soprano/alto and tenor/bass staves to be split this way. When I am previewing the printed score before starting a project, I wince whenever I see multiple voice beamed notes.
I am hopeful that eventually NWC can implement a fix for this. Personally I don't understand why beaming can't be applied automatically to each set of layered notes, instead of one of them (you can beam the upper or lower set by changing the flag direction). I can't think of any circumstances when I would want only one set of such notes to be beamed; can anyone else?
Thanks William, the reason I was asking is that I make part-enhanced practice midifiles for our choir, and I've found that members like piano as the instrument playing the notes, so I was wondering if there was some way of making the long notes sustain. Now I know there is no way, I'll have to change the instrument. Thanks again for your help.
I apologize if I'm not addressing your question - but are you aware that you can add Pedal down/up marks to your score? Would that give you the sustain that you're seeking?
I suspect granting the wish for Good Slurs may be just a bit more difficult.
It would be better to label this as Easier Good Slurs. There are all manner of tricks and workarounds to make slurs look better, by using hidden grace notes/rests and layers. And I can appreciate that it's either more difficult to implement, or lower on Eric's development priority list (or perhaps a bit of both). I really like NWC and try to use it for all my scoring needs, but it is increasingly tempting to fire up MuseScore when I have a score whose slurs or beams aren't going to look right without a lot of extra work. And I apologize for comparing NWC to "the competition" - it's not my intent to denigrate the program, as it is still my favorite app from a usability and consistency point of view. Hopefully in an environment where there are competitors, there will be incentive for all to continue to improve.
If the original poster has the software installed, and it is running in "non eval mode", then he must have used the authenticity code (license?) to install it, no? Is there a way to query the authenticity code from a working installed instance of the program?
I apologize if I am off base here, because it's been a while since I had to do a fresh install. I've had the program for ages - my original installation media was a floppy disk, although I did order a CD some time later, which I keep in a safe place.
It would be a great help if the User Guide (nwc251buide.pdf) had page numbers.
Well, the How To Guide does have page numbers: you can see them in the table of contents But I take your point, it seems that Eric forgot to enable them at the bottom of the pages (they are on in the tutorial)
NWC 2.51 has made this easier. You can right-click while hovering over any notehead on the selected staff. This brings up a context menu that allows you to edit all the properties of that notehead except for its position.
Also except for the Slur property. But I didn't know about the context menu: thanks for pointing that out, it's very handy.
Edit: Someone will most certainly point out that "slur" is not a note property, it's a chord property, so I can see why it wouldn't be displayed in that context menu. But a single note is a special case of a chord, is it not?
To add a bit to David's excellent advice, you don't need to do anything with the stem length if you use a whole note as the grace note. As long as it's muted, it won't affect anything except the shape of the slur. And you can insert them anywhere the slur needs to be adjusted, not just at the ends. Save all your slur work for one session, and then, after you've created the first muted grace note slur handle, just copy-and-paste and adjust as needed.
I'm not at my NWC-installed computer right now, so I can't play with this... I did know that a hidden grace note could be used to bend a slur upward/downward (i.e. make the arch steeper), but I wasn't aware that they could be used to adjust the end points of the slur. Specifically, if I have a stem-side slur, the anchor points are always just beyond the end of the stems, instead of being closer to the note head. Is there any way to adjust this without the layering tricks?
While it's a long way from perfect, I usually do cues as diamond notheads and shorten any stems these days - I STILL want proper cues, but this works well enough for the moment.
This raises an interesting question (well, interesting to me at least): since I rarely (i.e. never) use diamond noteheads, I wonder if it would be possible to create my own copy of the Noteworthy font, substituting small cue noteheads for the diamond ones, and inserting diamond noteheads in my score, thus "tricking" NWC into rendering cue notes.
I don't currently have the font editing tools to let me try this, but I'd probably give it a shot if I thought this was feasible.
To my mind, the user fonts are under your absolute control, and NWC does not try to guess how you would like to have them when you change staff metrics.
Actually, the checkbox on the Staff Size dialog says "Proportionally Scale Other Staff Font Sizes" (emphasis is mine). When it is checked, only the Staff Italic, Staff Bold and Staff Lyric font sizes will be updated; neither the Page nor User fonts will be changed.
There have been times when I would have liked to be able to scale the other fonts sizes when I increased or decreased the staff size. Maybe in a future release, checkboxes could be added to that dialog for scaling the page and/or user fonts during a staff metric size change.
I've been working on a conductor's score for a 378-measure work for large orchestra and soprano. I'm storing the score in two versions, one for my hard-copy printer and the other for my pdf printer. This is necessary because, as anyone who has prepared a work for print knows, different printers often interpret the same command in different ways. In particular, pdf printers tend to dramatically change system breaks and pagination from the same work produced in hard copy.
But here's the interesting thing. When I change from my hard copy printer (HP Photosmart C3180) to my pdf printer (PDFreDirect v. 2), it throws absolutely everything off, particularly in relation to where collapsed staff segments begin and end and where courtesy time signature changes, clef changes, etc., need to be placed at the ends of systems. What I found this morning, however, is that if I reduce the staff metrics from 10 points in the hard copy version to to 9 in the pdf version, almost everything suddenly snaps back into place, and instead of a pdf score six pages longer than its hard copy counterpart, I get one that's just one page longer - and that extra page has only three measures on it.
So - is it the one-point difference, or is it the percentage difference? (At this size, one point is a 10% change.) Is it only the relationship of my specific printer to my specific pdf printer, or do all pdf printers bear the same relationship to all hard-copy printers? I dunno. But I thought others might find it worthwhile to try the same experiment.
I have a slightly different use case, which I've mentioned in a few previous posts, for which I also create hard-copy and "PDF ready" scores. I don't think I've observed the issue you are seeing, when the paper size and margins are the same for the printer and PDF versions of the score, but to be honest, I haven't done any specific tests... but I will now! I have a Samsung laser printer and I use the Nitro PDF converter "printer", and I'll try a few of my multi-page scores to see if they lay out differently.
Have you confirmed that the margins and paper size are the same for both scores? I've noticed that my PDF driver has a "dpi" setting, which I've never changed, and I don't see that changing it should affect the score's layout during printing.
One final question: do you see the same layout changes during print preview, or only on the actual hardcopy or generated PDF? I've noticed that sometimes there are minor differences between final rendering and preview mode.
I did understand it and found it interesting, but since I write software for a living, I'm probably not your average Noteworthy Composer user.