NOTATIO

tisimst wrote:Pretty much! The only thing I had to do was give it permission to put the second beam between the staves (it chose to put it above the group for some reason), but everything else is default settings--beam slopes/positions, stem positions, etc.

Hmm, that would mean that my statement about LilyPond above is incorrect. I seem to remember some of us questioning Dorico's spacing abilities with cross staff beaming in an earlier thread, based on a limitation in LilyPond, which had to be worked around. However, your examples seem fine. Perhaps the app has been updated since then?

John Ruggero wrote:Would it make a difference if you moved the staves closer together? Does Dorico do a better job? But maybe Dorico cannot yet do that?

Moving the staves closer together doesn't make a difference to the beam placement, but increasing the reference width does improve the spacing between beam groups somewhat:
Neither of these problems appear to be solvable with settings, unfortunately, and as we all know, only the beams can be manually edited at the moment.

Knut wrote:Hmm, that would mean that my statement about LilyPond above is incorrect. I seem to remember some of us questioning Dorico's spacing abilities with cross staff beaming in an earlier thread, based on a limitation in LilyPond, which had to be worked around. However, your examples seem fine. Perhaps the app has been updated since then?

I'm not sure which statement/limitation you're referring to, but I'm pretty sure I've been using the same version this whole time (2.19.36).

tisimst wrote:

Knut wrote:Hmm, that would mean that my statement about LilyPond above is incorrect. I seem to remember some of us questioning Dorico's spacing abilities with cross staff beaming in an earlier thread, based on a limitation in LilyPond, which had to be worked around. However, your examples seem fine. Perhaps the app has been updated since then?

I'm not sure which statement/limitation you're referring to, but I'm pretty sure I've been using the same version this whole time (2.19.36).

I'm referring to my comment above that read:

Knut wrote:As pointed out in a previous thread, Dorico, like Lilypond, handles the notes within each beam group nicely, but not the notes surrounding each group.

The discussion I was referring to was this one: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=158
Dorico was apparently never discussed in this thread, though.

Oh, yes. I forgot about that little anomaly. I'll have to file a bug report for that one. It definitely shouldn't do that.

Another product .. almost the same with Finale

Great font in Sib, odod.

OCTO wrote:Great font in Sib, odod.

thank you sir ... i guess beaming slant is really a "manual practice" for every engraver

Beam angle is what I want to talk about with this example. An earlier version of Sibelius drew cross-staff beams at angles which were sometimes good and often not. For Sib 4 (as I recall) they revamped their beam algorithm, and since then Sib just throws up its hands and draws them all horizontal, which I almost never want. So we have to go through and move each one. A rule I made up for myself is to make the beams go at the same angle they would if the notes were all on the same staff. Has anyone ever heard of such a principle being used?

And by that rule, in this example I actually do want them horizontal! because the staff positions are the same between the staves.

Dorico’s note spacing here is fantastic IMO. But I am wanting a preference setting that angles the beams exactly the same as when the notes are on one staff. (Perhaps that would be difficult to do, since the stem length depends on the space between the staves, which is doing automatic collision avoidance. But maybe not so difficult, since the stems of cross-staff beamed notes have to meet the beams already.)