Suddenly, I get this: C:\ProgramData\Noteworthy Software\nwc2\UserPlugins\Trill.ms.nwcuser.lua:138: attempt to perform arithmetic on a nil valueUnfortunately, I cannot reproduce in a smaller score thatn the complete one.Harald
Couple of observations:If there is a fermata delay then it does not trill through the added delay. If the fermata is on the trill staff then it doesn't start until the delay (added on the front of the note) has elapsed. If the fermata is on another staff on a later note then it stops trilling for the length of the delay and then starts again!
If the trill is on a note tied to a subsequent note then the sound stops altogether at the end of the first note.
Not a big deal but it would be nice to have it perfected. I had thought that a work around would be to have a hidden tied note to mimic the fermata but the second problem kills that idea.
If there is a fermata delay then it does not trill through the added delay.
I'm not sure exactly why this is happening.
It happens because there can be no MIDI events during the pause.
In this system, the trill stops at the end of the rest under the note, not the end of the note.
Also it seems difficult to get nice short trill markings - I'd like tr. then maybe two waves; it seems to want to shoot off for ages.
I should probably create an object for that, if you think that would be useful.
I think the notation you are referring to is called a mordent.
I disagree. Looks like a trill.
The current speed options available are: 'Sixteenth', 'Thirtysecond', 'Sixtyfourth'.In some cases I find Thirtysecond too slow and Sixtyfourth too fast. In others Sixtyfourth is still too slow.Since in both Arpeggio and Acciaccatura Mike used the much more flexible parameter "Rate" (and surreptitiously allowed the fusa ) I'm wondering if the same could be done in Trillo too.
I assume you would want values of 16, 32 and 64 to correspond to those three note types?
It seems that you want to have faster trill options, so I assume that 16 would be an acceptable minimum value. Would 128 be a fast enough top value?
there would be the issue of backward compatibility
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 25 queries.