Page 7 of 7
Posted: 27 Oct 2016, 22:09
Knut wrote:Great to hear that SMuFL seems to be working as expected in Dorico. I haven't been able to locate where the Bravura metadata file (and in turn, metadata for other fonts) is supposed to be stored, though. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
On Windows, the location is C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Dorico\fonts\metadata\
(I think--going off memory here...). Not sure about Mac, but should be in a similar location.
On the mac, the Bravura metadata is stored in: /Applications/Dorico.app/Contents/Resources/fonts/metadata/
I also sent a note to Daniel Spreadbury about having Dorico search in other locations for font metadata and to verify that, for now, metadata for 3rd party fonts also need to go in that area. Ideally, in the future, Dorico and other applications that use SMuFL-compliant fonts would look in system-wide or user-specific locations, such as:
or something similar, as currently described in the SMuFL specification
Posted: 28 Oct 2016, 13:13
Thanks, composerjk, and welcome to the forum!
Ben, one of the developers, fortunately lead me to the right place.
I don't really know why Dorico wouldn't use one of the locations specified in the standard, but according to Ben it was due to 'expediency' (whatever that means in this case). The way he phrased it, though, I got the impression that the location for the metadata file might change in a later version, but for now it's indeed locked to the application file.
Posted: 25 Nov 2016, 13:10
Dorico update 1.0.10 is here!
Here's what the info on the video says:
The Dorico team in London and in Hamburg have been both working hard on the first update for Dorico over the past six weeks, and we are very proud to release the first maintenance update. This update includes a number of important improvements both in the completeness of the GUI localisation, and in the functionality of key commands specially when using a Japanese keyboard.
Dorico 1.0.10 includes more than 200 enhancements and fixes, including:
•Substantial performance improvements throughout the application
•Initial support for VST Expression Maps
•New Transpose dialog
•Editable vertical staff and system spacing in Engrave mode
•New tools for selecting music quickly
•Auditioning of notes during input and editing
•Input for transposing instruments at written or sounding pitch
•Support for instruments that do not show key signatures, e.g. French horn and timpani
•You can download the update from the following link:
•Get more detailed information on Dorico from our website:
•Buy Dorico and profit from ground-breaking features, streamlined workflows and stunning plug-ins:
•If you require assistance with registration, activation, re-activation, support news, the latest Knowledge base support articles or want to visit our support forums and be part of our community please visit us at:
Posted: 18 Dec 2016, 11:40
I've been testing the demo version of Dorico, creating a new piece in parallel with one in Finale.
Note entry is a little bit tedious, with a few more keypresses per action. Everytime you select something in the palette, Dorico sounds the instrument. So, choose a note value: Beep. Load a dot: Beep. Load a sharp: Beep. That's before you've even placed the note.
Dorico notices where you click in the measure: so if you add a minim and then click on beat 2 of the bar for another note, your first note gets halved.
The flexibility and control of Finale's Expressions categories is still a winner, for me. Dorico's features here for adding new text in particular positions is more limited.
Finale still has more global manipulation of notation. I'm still learning how Dorico works, so may be missing some knowledge of how things work.
Dorico's strengths lie in automatic placement of systems and much better collision avoidance. Add a slur, and watch a staff move to accommodate the extra space needed.
All in all: Dorico does things automatically that you have to do manually in Finale, but there are other things that Finale does better, which you will have to fiddle with manually in Dorico. Finale's handling of fitting measures to systems gives greater control and flexibility.
There are lots of really tedious omissions: No two-staff organ instrument, for instance. There are also limitations in font selection. I'm also not a big fan of Bravura, and the number of SMuFL compatible fonts that can be used is small.
Give it a year or two, and I would expect many of Dorico's shortcomings to have been addressed. The question is whether Finale can raise its game within that time.