2018-08-11 15:00 GMT+02:00 Torsten Hämmerle <torsten.haemme...@web.de>: > Thomas Morley-2 wrote >> I tried to Y-center the Fingering-stencil. >> >> Though, with the example below the result is not all that convincing. >> […] >> Additionally, if fingeringOrientations contains 'left or 'right a >> FingeringColumn is built at Staff-level, so the 'snap-radius-property >> comes into play. >> >> No real clue how to proceed... >
Hi Torsten, this weekend I'll have not much time and I'll be completely offline next week for holidays. That said... > Hi Harm, > > From my point of view, the Y-centering of the fingering stencil is perfectly > OK (we just need a "proper" solution), the dot collision problem has > bettered and can be completely cured by considering all the dots of the > chord. In my initial testing I experienced different behaviour, for no other reason than different finger-numbers, i.e. small differences in their extents. Especially for right positioned fingers. So I recommend thorough testings ... > > So, your remaining concern is the strange (?) behaviour of the > FingeringColumn with respect to the snap-radius. > This looks admittedly odd and I was wondering why the heck the outer > fingerings don't come closer to their noteheads, respectively why are they > arranged in a circular shape even if there is no accidental in the way. > But, looking deeper into this, it is the expected behaviour and everything > works as designed. If we don't like this, it would be another issue to > change FingeringColumn algorithm, but, in any case, this is no unwanted > side-effect of our stencil manipulations. The curvy positioning is bad, imho. But I agree it might be a different issue. > To illustrate this, I've switched off any padding values, put a box around > the fingering numbers and gradually changed the font size from very small to > big in order to be able to observe the evolution of fingering placement. > I've used just one flat because of its straight left border. > > <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/test-snap-radius.png> > > Starting off with a very small font size, there's enough space for each > fingering to take its ideal Y-position, exactly centred on its notehead. > > > *Rule: A fingering must never get in between accidentals and noteheads.* > > > *In (1)*, the fingering "1" hardly touches the blue line signifying the > lower end of the flat accidental. It still can stick to its notehead. > Fingerings 2, 3, and 4 clearly have to go outside the flat and are pushed > away from the notehead because of The Rule. > > *In (2)*, the font size has been increased so that the "1" just slightly > gets into the "forbidden" flat area and therefore is pushed away from the > notehead, too. The "5" still has enough space. > > *In (3) and (4)*, the increasing height of the numbers starts spreading them > vertically, away from their original Y position. In (4), it is clearly > visible that the "1" does not interfere with the flat anymore, but still (!) > keeps its outside position. > > *In (5)*, finally, all the fingering number keep a distance from their > noteheads, even if the "1" and the "5" are actually quite far away from the > accidental. > > The (intended) reason for this is that, even if there seems to be enough > space in the direct vicinity of their noteheads, these fingerings stay > "outside" because at their original Y position, they'd get in between > accidentals and noteheads. That's the simple reason why they stay "outside": > their X position is determined by the accidentals, calculated as if the > fingerings had their original Y position (i.e. the notehead's Y position). > In a second step, their Y position will be spread out due to stacking, while > keeping the X position. > > If there are more than on accidentals involved (or sharps with their more > complex left skyline), the stacked fingerings may take on alignments along a > curved path. > > In the end, snap-radius is used to avoid very small irregularities by > positioning the fingering in a straight line if they have "nearly" the same > X position to avoid an irregular, look. > > But, as I said, I consider this expected behaviour, even if it seems odd at > first glance. > Would you agree? Yes, so far. :) Thanks, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
