Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Feature improvement: Measure positioning (Read 5297 times) previous topic - next topic

Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Hello, all.  Just wanted to voice an opinion about how NWC does measure positioning.  Although NWC does a very good job in creating hardcopies, I think it's possible to improve the logic of how it determines where system breaks should automatically be placed.

For example:  Let's say I have a two (full) page SATB song that I've written and I've put a system break after the last measure or checked the box to extend the last measure to get the last line to span the width of the page.  Now suppose (and this happens often with me) the last measure won't fit on the line before it.  NWC will put it on another line (as I'd expect) but with only that one measure spanning the width of the page (not what I want because it looks ugly).

The way I usually balance my measures manually is by trying to get every line to have as close to the same number of measures as possible.  I have a song with 47 measures on eight lines.  If I let NWC choose my system breaks, most lines have six measures, one has seven and the last line has four measures and looks really spaced out.  So instead, I place forced system breaks to make two lines have six measures and the rest have only five.  When I print this out, it looks better and less spaced out at the end.

Perhaps NWC should try to "even out" the number of measures in each line--automatically see that one line has a single measure when all the rest have five measures.  Then it could make some of the lines have only four measures and "fill in" the line that has only one measure.  It would definitely look more balanced and appealing in a printout that way.

Sometimes I want to put a system break in a specific spot for a reason, and leaving THAT spot without a forced break is not negotiable.  In such a case, I pretend that break is the end/beginning of the page.  I use my manual method above from the beginning up to that point and ignore everything after it, then I do the same thing after that point ignoring everything before it.  I balance each side of that given break exclusive of the other, and both sides look balanced.

This probably doesn't work in all cases, but it works in more cases than not.  I think this would be a good improvement for the NWC programming team to consider.  And for songs that don't have a forced break after the last measure or don't have the checkbox to extend the last measure checked, everything can work exactly as it does now.

What do others think about this?  Do you think I'm just blowing hot air, or does anyone else think some adjustments in this area could help make NWC a better product?

Thanks for listening.
Kevin

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #1 –
It would be nice to have, Kevin - you should put it on the wish list.  I'd prefer it to be an option that could be over-ridden, though.

I don't want all staffs on a printed part to be too uniform.  It's easier for my eyes to track to the next line in a busy part if they aren't too alike.

I generally work backwards from the end of the piece, deciding how many measures I want in the last line, forcing a break on the bar line before it.  This works better for me than setting breaks earlier in the tune, guessing how they will affect the last line.

When I eyeball the result in print preview, I decide whether to force a system break for the second last line, and sometimes the third last.  I don't think I've ever felt the need to force breaks for this purpose on more than 2 or 3 lines at the end of the part.

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #2 –
I'd also prefer it to be an option that could be over-ridden.

When I end up with one bar on the last line, I find a rest somewhere,
make it invisible, and add a rest as a text item.
That bar takes up less room (I usually need to "pad" it with nbsps),
so subsequent bars realign and the final bar isn't "orphaned."
I'd rather not have to do this...

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #3 –
Kim has a point. At least in vocal music, a lot of pieces have a final ending that is nothing more than the otherwise-last measure with a fermata. But the one extra bar, for the special ending, often overflows to another system. As Kim noted, this can be solved by faking a rest (or note, or even a measure bar) as text, which may not cause the overflow. It would be nice if the extra measure could be squeezed, since there is rarely a need for it to take up much space. The solution might be to allow local (per measure) override of the feature that increases note spacing according to duration, or alternatively squeezes lyrics.

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #4 –
The solution might be to allow local override of the feature that increases note spacing...
Exactly!
To the Wish List!

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #5 –
where exactly is the wish list

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #6 –
Go to the Noteworthy Software home page, then look under Link Ensemble.

You can make submissions to the Wish List, but you can't see what anyone has asked for.

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #7 –
You can make submissions to the Wish List, but you can't see what anyone has asked for.
YEAH RIGHT,,,, DAMN!!!

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #8 –
I guess there's some logic to it.  First, why should NWC make the ideas its contributors provide public so its competitors can pick up on them?  Second, it's probably easier to guage demand for an idea if people make suggestions independently of what others have written.  Third, contributors or more likely to say what they want their own way, instead of just writing "me, too."  That makes for a better variety or explanation of needs/wishes.

On the other hand, it is frustrating to us on the outside, isn't it?

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #9 –
Another method would be to have the Wish List within the newsgroup, where only identifiable, registered program users could see it (and vote).

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #10 –
That,  Robert, in and of itself, is one for the Wish List! (grin)
 

Re: Feature improvement: Measure positioning

Reply #11 –
David wrote: (...)First, why should NWC make the ideas its contributors provide public so its competitors can pick up on them?
Robert replied: Another method would be to have the Wish List within the newsgroup, where only identifiable, registered program users could see it (and vote).

It would be a good idea, if only we could be sure that none of the NWC competitors creators have bought NWC, which I doubt. I don't know the name in English, but we call it "veille technologique" (or part of it)...