"Perfect Layout" plugin Windows beta starts soon

General notation questions, including advanced notation, formatting, etc., go here.

Moderators: Peter Thomsen, miker

User avatar
elbsound
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:06 am
Finale Version: Finale 2014.5
Operating System: Windows

Post by elbsound » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:14 am

The Windows beta test for the "Perfect Layout". plugin for Finale's JW Lua platform will start this month.
If you are interested and are working on Fin2014/2014.5/Windows, you can apply for participation here.

Here is a recent 20secs screencam video of the plugin:
it shows the one-click process of creating the layout from the score below.
The focus is on horizontal alignment of tempo and rehearsal marks with a minimized vertical offset which is the most difficult part of the plugin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWnXXknVKTw
The Finale document uses the alternative Haydn/HayFIN music fonts.

I am very sorry for the long delay in the development. Unfortunately MakeMusic doesn't support this project and I don't have access to the original Finale plugin development kit like Jari, Tobias or Robert. And as Jari had stopped the JW Lua development unexpectedly in December 2015, it was necessary to rewrite some code and to do a lot of extra developments to make the plugin work.
But I think it was worth the wait.

Jan
Elbsound.studio

Image


User avatar
N Grossingink
Posts: 1786
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:50 pm
Finale Version: 27.3
Operating System: Mac

Post by N Grossingink » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:30 pm

Thank you.

Do you plan a Macintosh version of Perfect Layout?

N.
N. Grossingink
Educational Band, Orchestra and Jazz Ensemble a specialty
Sample: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pFF5OeJDeLFGHMRyXrubFqZWXBubErw4/view?usp=share_link


Mac Mini 2014 2.6 Ghz, 8Gb RAM
OSX 10.15.7
Finale 2012c, 25.5, 26.3, 27.3

User avatar
elbsound
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:06 am
Finale Version: Finale 2014.5
Operating System: Windows

Post by elbsound » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:44 pm

Yes, but it will take a bit longer as it needs a different font handling which I haven't tested yet.
For the main fonts like Maestro, Engraver, etc. this is no big deal, but for support of all the other (unicode) music fonts as on Windows, it will require some additional testing.

User avatar
Michel R E
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:16 pm
Finale Version: Finale 2012, 25, 26
Operating System: Windows

Post by Michel R E » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:41 pm

when you say "Jari had stopped the JW Lua development unexpectedly in December", does this mean you have heard anything fro him regarding any of his work?

If he has stopped work on the JW Lua then does that mean that your plugin will never be available for Finale 25?
User of Finale since version 3.0 on Windows.
Now using a mix of Finale 2012, Finale 25, and 26.1
GPO, Garritan Solo Stradivari violin, Gofriller Solo Cello.
XSamples Chamber Ensemble.
Absolute convert to NotePerformer3.

User avatar
elbsound
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:06 am
Finale Version: Finale 2014.5
Operating System: Windows

Post by elbsound » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:02 pm

Well, there maybe an update of JW Lua at any time - who knows?
The last JW Lua update is from December 2015 and the last personal (off-list) email Jari replied to me on JW Lua topics is from 2014.
So I am not expecting much anymore. If an update is released - fine, if not, we'll have to live with that.
That's why I decided to go into beta with the plugin and not wait any longer.
But that means the JW Lua plugins at this time will not be available for Fin25.

Should there be JW Lua 64bit updates in the future, the plugin will also run in Fin25.
Its code doesn't depend on 32 or 64bit.

My hope is that MakeMusic will change its decision to not hand out its plugin development kit once they have worked with the Perfect Layout plugin. Then things will be a bit more easy for me.

User avatar
Michel R E
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:16 pm
Finale Version: Finale 2012, 25, 26
Operating System: Windows

Post by Michel R E » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:44 pm

I have sent in a strongly worded request to MakeMusic to make the plugin developer toolkit available to you.
If others are interested in this plugin, then they should actively work to make it happen for Finale 25.

Since Jari displays no interest in talking about or developing further the JW plugins, we will have to look elsewhere for the tools to make our day-to-day work easier.

Again, YOU people should take this into your own hands. Contact MakeMusic and demand that they make the plugin developer toolkit available to ELBStudios.
User of Finale since version 3.0 on Windows.
Now using a mix of Finale 2012, Finale 25, and 26.1
GPO, Garritan Solo Stradivari violin, Gofriller Solo Cello.
XSamples Chamber Ensemble.
Absolute convert to NotePerformer3.

Knut
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:33 pm
Finale Version: Finale 25
Operating System: Mac

Post by Knut » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:19 pm

I did not know that Finale's PDK wasn't publicly available.
That's kind of like Adobe or FontLab not making their scripting APIs public; a preposterously stupid and incomprehensible move!

User avatar
motet
Posts: 8229
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 pm
Finale Version: 2014.5,2011,2005,27
Operating System: Windows

Post by motet » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:31 pm

I tried to get it a few years back and was likewise rebuffed.

User avatar
zuill
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:35 pm
Finale Version: Finale 2011-v26.3.1
Operating System: Windows

Post by zuill » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:38 pm

What is the PDK Framework available on Jari"s sight? I know nothing about programming.

Zuill
Windows 10, Finale 2011-v26.3.1
"When all is said and done, more is said than done."

Knut
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:33 pm
Finale Version: Finale 25
Operating System: Mac

Post by Knut » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:43 pm

zuill wrote:What is the PDK Framework available on Jari"s sight? I know nothing about programming.

Zuill
I think this is his own development, most likely based on an earlier, public PDK version or perhaps some effective lobbying.

User avatar
elbsound
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:06 am
Finale Version: Finale 2014.5
Operating System: Windows

Post by elbsound » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:01 pm

Jari, Tobias and Robert get the original PDK. They are the only developers that are still supported by MM.
Otherwise they couldn't have built the 64bit version of their plugins.
Last edited by elbsound on Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MikeHalloran
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:56 am
Finale Version: 27
Operating System: Mac

Post by MikeHalloran » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:28 pm

Without it being developed for 25, I don't understand the point.
Mike Halloran

Finale 27.3, SmartScore X2 Pro, GPO5 & World Instruments
MacOS Ventura 13.2.1; 2017 iMac Pro 18 Core, 128G RAM, 4TB; 2021 MBAir M1
NotePerformer3, Dorico 4, Overture, Notion 6, DP 11, Logic Pro

Knut
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:33 pm
Finale Version: Finale 25
Operating System: Mac

Post by Knut » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:02 pm

MikeHalloran wrote:Without it being developed for 25, I don't understand the point.
Sitting on hundreds of lines of code just because development of a PDK happened to suddenly seize without any explanation doesn't seem like much of a point either.

Surely, all users aren't completely up to date, at least not on the Windows side, and are even more likely to stay that way for a while if the functionality of Jan's plug-in is good enough.

User avatar
MikeHalloran
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:56 am
Finale Version: 27
Operating System: Mac

Post by MikeHalloran » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:34 am

Knut wrote:
MikeHalloran wrote:Without it being developed for 25, I don't understand the point.
Sitting on hundreds of lines of code just because development of a PDK happened to suddenly seize without any explanation doesn't seem like much of a point either.

Surely, all users aren't completely up to date, at least not on the Windows side, and are even more likely to stay that way for a while if the functionality of Jan's plug-in is good enough.
Ok... If MM started selling a 32bit product called, Finale Classic, it would make more sense—but they won't. I'm pretty certain that MM is looking forward to the time that they will discontinue all support for the 32bit versions, probably after PrintMusic 25 (or whatever it becomes) is released.

The only times I can recall something like that was Coca-Cola Classic and Word Classic (5.1). Both were re-branding of older products when the launch of a new one turned out to be a disaster, New Coke and Word 6, respectively. New Coke went away and Microsoft eventually dropped 5.1.

I'm not unsympathetic. I still think that 5.1 was the best version of Word ever.

HyperCard was way cool and the SDK is still free.
Mike Halloran

Finale 27.3, SmartScore X2 Pro, GPO5 & World Instruments
MacOS Ventura 13.2.1; 2017 iMac Pro 18 Core, 128G RAM, 4TB; 2021 MBAir M1
NotePerformer3, Dorico 4, Overture, Notion 6, DP 11, Logic Pro

Bill Reed
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 7:24 pm
Finale Version: 25.2
Operating System: Windows

Post by Bill Reed » Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:39 am

Finale 25, Overture, Sibelius, Notion, Cubase, StaffPad
Win10 x64, 32GB RAM, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20
Kontakt, VSL VI Pro, VE Pro, EWQL Orch, Choirs and Pianos
August Foster 190

User avatar
Michel R E
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:16 pm
Finale Version: Finale 2012, 25, 26
Operating System: Windows

Post by Michel R E » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:05 am

Bill Reed wrote:From the Finale Requests section:

https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/ ... 5001408368
I replied on that thread.. maybe a tad harshly. But going by past MM responses, it's probably going to go unnoticed anyways.
User of Finale since version 3.0 on Windows.
Now using a mix of Finale 2012, Finale 25, and 26.1
GPO, Garritan Solo Stradivari violin, Gofriller Solo Cello.
XSamples Chamber Ensemble.
Absolute convert to NotePerformer3.

User avatar
motet
Posts: 8229
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 pm
Finale Version: 2014.5,2011,2005,27
Operating System: Windows

Post by motet » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:11 am

Thanks to the three of you who responded. Alas, I'd be very surprised if anything came of it.

User avatar
Michel R E
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:16 pm
Finale Version: Finale 2012, 25, 26
Operating System: Windows

Post by Michel R E » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:19 am

the more of us actually send in the "request" (more than just replying on the forum, but actually filling out the feature request) the higher our probability that this will finally be heard by someone with a modicum of decision-making power within MM's hierarchy.
User of Finale since version 3.0 on Windows.
Now using a mix of Finale 2012, Finale 25, and 26.1
GPO, Garritan Solo Stradivari violin, Gofriller Solo Cello.
XSamples Chamber Ensemble.
Absolute convert to NotePerformer3.

User avatar
MikeHalloran
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:56 am
Finale Version: 27
Operating System: Mac

Post by MikeHalloran » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:01 pm

My sources from within tell me it's not going to happen.

That Finale has long relied on paid plugins for some of its basic functionality is something of a disgrace in my book. I'd like to see MM do away with 3rd party plugins completely and pay whatever it takes to bring that stuff in-house.

MM is not Oracle.
Mike Halloran

Finale 27.3, SmartScore X2 Pro, GPO5 & World Instruments
MacOS Ventura 13.2.1; 2017 iMac Pro 18 Core, 128G RAM, 4TB; 2021 MBAir M1
NotePerformer3, Dorico 4, Overture, Notion 6, DP 11, Logic Pro

Knut
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:33 pm
Finale Version: Finale 25
Operating System: Mac

Post by Knut » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:41 pm

I don't doubt your sources, but MM bringing the entire TG-Tools and Patterson collections, as well as all of Jari's plug-ins into the core application seems to me like wishful thinking.

I'm no fan of Finale's heavy reliance on plug-ins either, but as long as MM doesn't act, it doesn't make sense to prevent anyone else with programming skills and time on their hands from improving the situation.

Plug-ins aren't meant to dominate an applications feature set, but they are nevertheless a necessary addition, especially for an application with scripting abilities as weak as Finale.

I can't really see why anyone would be opposed to MM making their PDK public, especially when there are people in the user community with nearly complete plug-ins which might make all our lives easier.

User avatar
MikeHalloran
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:56 am
Finale Version: 27
Operating System: Mac

Post by MikeHalloran » Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:22 am

Knut wrote:I don't doubt your sources, but MM bringing the entire TG-Tools and Patterson collections, as well as all of Jari's plug-ins into the core application seems to me like wishful thinking.
I never implied it was anything else. I only said that MM has no intention of making the current version of the SDK public—they've announced the same thing on the official board so I've not really added anything new.
Knut wrote:...

I can't really see why anyone would be opposed to MM making their PDK public, especially when there are people in the user community with nearly complete plug-ins which might make all our lives easier.
I can think of a few reasons but none of it matters. Since none of us work for MM, anything further adds to the idle speculation.

In any case I have no use for new plugins for old versions of Finale.
Mike Halloran

Finale 27.3, SmartScore X2 Pro, GPO5 & World Instruments
MacOS Ventura 13.2.1; 2017 iMac Pro 18 Core, 128G RAM, 4TB; 2021 MBAir M1
NotePerformer3, Dorico 4, Overture, Notion 6, DP 11, Logic Pro

User avatar
motet
Posts: 8229
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 pm
Finale Version: 2014.5,2011,2005,27
Operating System: Windows

Post by motet » Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:24 am

MM should certainly incorporate basic functionality within the program rather than use plug-ins, but that really has nothing to do with making the PDK available. It's akin to having JavaScript in a browser or macros in Word or Excel--giving users the ability to customize is a good thing, and can only increase the value of the program. I suspect they simply don't want to support it; they barely want to support the program itself. Perhaps they think FinaleScript is good enough, but it isn't.

Knut
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:33 pm
Finale Version: Finale 25
Operating System: Mac

Post by Knut » Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:40 am

Exactly!

Knut
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:33 pm
Finale Version: Finale 25
Operating System: Mac

Post by Knut » Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:19 pm

MikeHalloran wrote:
I never implied it was anything else. I only said that MM has no intention of making the current version of the SDK public—they've announced the same thing on the official board so I've not really added anything new.
You're quite the contrarian, Mike.

I should have said 'even more unlikely' instead of using the term 'wishful thinking', since both of our interests would constitute such at this point. However, MM's current policy, reflected in their response on the official board is the whole reason for the protests uttered in this thread. The only way to affect change is to tell MM about it. It might be futile, of course, but pessimism certainly doesn't get you anywhere.
MikeHalloran wrote:In any case I have no use for new plugins for old versions of Finale.
None of us do, which is why we want MM to release the PDK.

User avatar
motet
Posts: 8229
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:33 pm
Finale Version: 2014.5,2011,2005,27
Operating System: Windows

Post by motet » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:57 pm

While it's true that some things relegated to plug-ins would be better off as built-in, it's missing the point to say that there should therefore be no plug-ins at all. I look at is as analogous to Java and Javascript in a browser or macros in Word or formulas in Excel. Customizability to extend the function of the program beyond what the developers thought of or beyond what most people would want is a good thing, and can only enhance the value of the program.

When I looked at the PDK several years back it was very poorly documented and arcane. Perhaps MM is reluctant to release and support something in such a state. I think it would be OK to give it to Jan "as-is" and say they won't answer questions about it, though. I'm guessing he would need the help of Patterson or the other two to make any sense of it. Ideally, MM would fix up the documentation, but perhaps they don't have the resources.

Post Reply