If a plugin has trouble doing cue notes, why would it be any easier in the native program? If you care how the cue notes look, no automation MM is likely to come up with is like to be good enough. If you don't care, then TGTools is sufficient, although there are a few tweaks that would be helpful. (So help me, I do care, so TGTools provides only a starting point for me.)
When I said I thought dynamic parts would be possible within an annual cycle, what I meant was: * Separate Page and System records per part * Separate note spacing per part * Separate "Special Part Extraction" bits to limit which expressions appear where. * A UI to allow separate Page Views for each part * (Marginally Possible) a way to hide a particular layer in a particular page view (for, e.g., cue notes) Off the table, I suspect, would be separate font settings for titles. Also, if like me you combine parts in a score and split them out in parts, you could not use dynamic parts. (I seriously doubt that Sibelius's new feature provides this capability either.) Of all those bullet points, the one would give me the most heartburn is separate note spacing. It is essential, but I suspect it tears at the heart of Finale and would be extremely risky and painful to implement. The entire picture gives me heartburn as a plugin developer, too. Perhaps this is a case of "be careful what you ask for". The more I think about it, the less useful I personally would find it. Automatic vertical spacing seems much more attractive to me. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
