I don't know if the following issue already existed before 1.70: I just discovered it today.
I wrote a SATB score, and adjusted all vertical sizes of all staves, so that they don't overlap. Then I layered S+A and T+B, and found that the Alto and Tenor parts were then overlapping. The problem is that the lower vertical size used under S+A is not that of the Alto part, but that of the Soprano part !
I think that it should be:
- either the lower vertical size of the lowest layered part;
- either the maximum of all layered vertical sizes.
Your opinion ?
> - either the maximum of all layered vertical sizes.
Coincidentally, we handled this last week. This is what future editions will do.
---------------------------------
Bug: When layering, the size of all of the layered staves should be considered when vertically placing the staves into the system. Currently, only the top staff in the layer is considered and the rest are ignored.
Status: Confirmed; Fix completed; Release target 1.70 SP1
---------------------------------
I am a delighted user ! Thank you again for that and for item https://forum.noteworthycomposer.com/?topic=1376.
Does this mean that the staff height will be the largest value in all the layered staff sizes?
Yes.
Whereas before only the first staff was considered. This means many existing pieces will now be laid out differently. I am surprised you are willing to introduce this backward incompatibility, considering the effort you spent avoiding this for text placement.
Only if you've been sloppy with your staff sizes in the first place! ;-)
You do have a point, but I'd much rather have the revised version. And anyway until a few days ago (release of 1.7) staff layering was officially an experimental feature, so of course none of our experimental files could ever have been considered as finalised (could they?)
Peter
Anyway, Blair, if you fear the modifications, here is a way you can be sure you'll have the same layout: whenever a staff is layered with the one above, set its sizes to 0.
This will be OK with experimental 1.55b (because only first staff sizes are used) and also with final 1.70 (because max(0,n) = n).
I *want* the revised version. ;-)
I agree, it should be made to work right, and the problems it causes are easy to fix. But people are going to complain. Better make it clear in the release notes what is going to happen.