Finale Forum

exactly.
go to the last measure of your score, the measure number there is the number that matters.

again, measures, not "frames".

OK, if you say so. That is not clear on the web site and it wasn't made clear by Jan way back when I first contacted him about the beta testing.

it's perfectly clear. it says 400 measures.

you are confusing frames with measures. at no point have measures been synonymous with frames.

"limited to 400 measures
and 36 (visible) staves" ... is what I read.

There you go. If all measures in all staves were counted, that would be an 11-measure piece. Let it go.

Thanx, you have been very helpful.

When's the release date for the Mac version?

I thought it was common to say that if a string quintet had 200 measures, the composer didn't mean 40 measures spread to five instruments, but five times 200 measures. And no big band composer ever told me that his new piece was 2000 measures, while it was only 120 measures for each big band instrument.

So "Silver400: Limited to 400 measures and 36 (visible) staves - recommended for all users with standard scores"
in comparison to
"Silver: Unlimited measures and staves - recommended for all users with huge scores"
means, of course, 400 measures x 36 staves for Silver400 (but not more than 400 measures in length and not more than 36 staves per system).
You can even have more staves, if they are invisible in print (e.g. staves for MIDI playback or separate staves for scores and parts).
But: A piano piece of 600 measures in left hand and right hand is too much for Silver400 as it exceeds the 400 measures limit.

It wouldn't make sense otherwise: 400 measures / 36 staves would mean 11 measures per staff, who writes such a piece?
You wouldn't even get a proper movement of a string quartet into it as 4 x 100 measures would be the limit.
400 measures / 36 staves could be the limit for a free demo version, but not for 70 EUR. Especially if the unlimited version only costs twice.

But we'll take your hint and try to make it more clear on the website.

The versions Silver400, Silver and Gold are available since November 2018 when the beta test started.
The measure/staves limit hasn't changed since then.

More than 50% of the Perfect Layout users have the Silver400 version and most of them who were also beta testers claimed that this was more than enough for them.
Don't forget the default output is IDENTICAL in all three versions (also in the Gold version!).
So for just 70 EUR (plus VAT) which is less than half the price (!) of the standard update of the German Finale version, you get more features than in the last 5 Finale updates together for just 10% of the price of these five updates.

The feature list spans 13 pages in the PDF manual (pages 99-111).
If you only look at the v26 update: it more or less only brought "articulation stacking and articulation/slur collision removal", two features which are also (partially) included in Perfect Layout (...they work a bit differently, but already in v2014). But these are just two features in Perfect Layout from more than 100 and still 70 EUR + VAT is much less than the v26 update.

The final release date for the Mac version is not yet available. We hope to start the Mac beta test within the next two months.

Jan
https://elbsound.studio

elbsound wrote:400 measures / 36 staves would mean 11 measures per staff, who writes such a piece?

Webern?

Yes, but he is dead and can't buy the plug-in anymore

elbsound wrote:Yes, but he is dead and can't buy the plug-in anymore

ROFLMAO

I thought it was common to say that if a string quintet had 200 measures, the composer didn't mean 40 measures spread to five instruments, but five times 200 measures. And no big band composer ever told me that his new piece was 2000 measures, while it was only 120 measures for each big band instrument.

Jan thanx so much for making that more clear. I think I did mention that to you way back when you were doing the beta testing. However, when I do work for others I do list all the measures. Not simply one instrument or one stave. It believe it is common practice to charge per measure in total. You have rekindled my interest in the plug-in. Again, thanx.

ebiggs1 wrote:

I thought it was common to say that if a string quintet had 200 measures, the composer didn't mean 40 measures spread to five instruments, but five times 200 measures. And no big band composer ever told me that his new piece was 2000 measures, while it was only 120 measures for each big band instrument.

Jan thanx so much for making that more clear. I think I did mention that to you way back when you were doing the beta testing. However, when I do work for others I do list all the measures. Not simply one instrument or one stave. It believe it is common practice to charge per measure in total. You have rekindled my interest in the plug-in. Again, thanx.

it is common practice to charge "per frame" of music, not per measure.

Perhaps for you but it is not universal...apparently.

so far you appear to be the only one confused by this.

It is so great to have a place to come when you need help. Thanx!

Michel R E wrote:it is common practice to charge "per frame" of music, not per measure.

It's just a lot easier to think of frames when pricing out a job.

Take your 100 bar 5 stave brass quintet. If you charge 50¢ a frame, that's 500 frames times 50¢ = $250. A 100 bar 30 stave orchestral work would be 3,000 frames times 50¢ = $1,500.

You'd have to come up with totally different per measure rates for the quintet and the orchestra piece.

It's just a lot easier to think of frames when pricing out a job.

I don't see why. I have been doing it for a nickel per measure for easy stuff and 10 cents for harder work. I have never done an orchestra score although I play 2nd trombone in an orchestra. I don't ever intend to either. My strings knowledge is at middle school level. Plus I don't seek out work. I have enough to do of my own stuff.
Thanx for your input it is appreciated. I like to know how others do things.

Hi,

Does this plug-in turn off Fin26 auto stacking globally? I've written them three times to make this a standard feature but they've never bothered to even write to acknowledge I've written. Pretty dumb way to treat one of the oldest publishers in the country.

thanks,
david

MAC High Sierra, Catalina
Win7, 10
Finale 12, 18, 25, 26

-

I've written them three times to make this a standard feature but they've never bothered to even write to acknowledge I've written

You've written whom three times? MM or PL? Jan has answered every email I have sent him. PL doesn't have a, or at least didn't when I bought it, helpline but Jan has been very helpful. I have no idea what's up with MM. I fear for them and us!
I have run PL on several scores now and see no issue with the stacked articulations. They seem to work "perfectly" for me and what I do.

Hi David,

are you sure that you have mailed to us (Elbsound.studio - The makers of Perfect Layout)?
We haven't found a mail asking about turning of auto-stacking globally. Under which name did you send us an email?
But I can tell you that turning off auto-stacking globally is not possible with the current JW Lua release.

However there are a few ways to avoid auto-stacking Fin26.
1.) Import a pre-Fin26 document and set the Open preferences to "Keep Positioning"
2.) Adjust the Fin26 template and deactivate "Stack automatically" in all articulations. That takes 2 minutes, but works for all documents.

Best regards,
Jan Angermüller
Elbsound.studio

I'm new from Sibelius, so I apologize if this question is missing something.

Sibelius has an Optimize Staff Spacing feature that intelligently places articulations etc. and everything else using Magnetic Layout Is this that? Because Sibelius offers that for free.

... Magnetic Layout Is this that?

No, Magnetic Layout is not even close.

PL puts everything where it should be. Right now with the virus halting in-school class using PL to get scores ready for Smart Music is invaluable.

I'm interested in purchasing Perfect Layout and I've watched the videos but still have a couple of questions about how Perfect Layout handles cues and I'm hoping I can get a user's response/impression (I've already emailed them directly and am looking forward to their reply).

1) When a cue in a different clef than the natural clef of the current instrument begins or crosses a system break does the plug-in offer the user the option to have the original instruments clef remain at the beginning of the next system but a small "cue-clef" to appear after the key signature to continue the cue? You can see an example of what I'm talking about on the last 2 systems of page 3 of the tuba part to Mahler Symphony No.2 ( https://ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usim ... wBrass.pdf ). Will this be don't after the plugin runs a layout operation so that it knows where the system break occurs in the score/part? In the past I've had to use offsets to the clef and manual slide any note up or down to get the correct look.

2) Is there an option of have the cue text/instrument name appear on the stem side of the cue notes? I often see the instrument name appear below the stave if the cue is below the whole bar rest and above the staff if the cue is above the whole bar rest. You can see this on the same page and throughout the tuba part I referenced above.

3) Can the default whole measure rest be adjusted vertically to either avoid collisions with the cue notes or, conversely, stay within a certain number of spaces of the cue notes?

Thanks. Ken