Brian, How does this solve the problem of needing different schemes in score and parts? Perhaps I am missing something here?
Perhaps what we need is an EXPANSION of the "viewable in" to include SCORE and PARTS, with both checked as default. That way I could easily set up the desired region for the score (measure numbers centered under the last staff, small type) and for the parts (start of each system, above the measure, aligned left, larger type) ALSO: Robert Patterson has made a good argument for the "two files vs. 30 files" situation. Perhaps I was misled by all the hype for linked parts. FOR ME it is seeming so far to create as much work as it removes. For years, since Finale 2.2, I had done a "score for score" and "score for parts" in many, but not all, cases. It now appears MANDATORY to create a "score for score" and "score for parts." How does that marginal cost balance against the marginal benefit of one file? It's a wash as far as I can tell in MY case. I am curious if others' cases differ. Given current storage and backup technology, I am beginning to feel that having 30 files is less of a burden than dealing with the eccentricities of linked parts. I have to tweak parts anyway, so maybe in MY case, it's better--or just as good--to have each part as an independent file. Not intending to diss anyone, just trying to understand and further the discussion. I am not in the major leagues of Finale users, but I do a fair amount of work with it and people don't say it stinks or quit recommending me. ;-) >Brian Williams done writ... Actually, there's a much easier way to turn on/off which measure number regions will print than changing the "measure number X through XX" settings- simply change the "Viewable In:" setting at the bottom of the Measure Number dialog. This works with any number of regions you have set up. Brian Williams _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
