Originally created by: *anonymous
Originally created by: gpermus@gmail.com
:::TeX
% huge PhrasingSlur by adding a small Slur on the first two notes
\version "2.11.0"
\layout { ragged-right = ##t }
\relative c' {
c'16\(( f,) f f f f f f f f f f f f f c'\) |
}
Originally posted by: gpermus@gmail.com
This doesn't work to reduce the size:
\override PhrasingSlur #'height-limit = #0.1
Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: hanw...@gmail.com
The easiest way to override is setting #'positions. Does that work?
Originally posted by: lemzw...@googlemail.com
Here an example of a normal slur:
Summary: huge (ugly) slur (both phrasing and normal)
Labels: -Priority-Low Priority-Medium
Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: gpermus@gmail.com
Here's an even simpler example of a normal slur misbehaving:
Labels: -Type-Defect Type-Enhancement Engraving-nitpick
Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: v.villenave
(Reproduced with 2.11.47)
Originally posted by: pnorcks@gmail.com
(Reproduced with 2.13.20)
Labels: -Engraving-nitpick
Owner: ---
Originally posted by: mts...@gmail.com
Badness also occurs with tuplets:
Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: brownian.box@gmail.com
Another example (reported by David Kastrup, http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2011-06/msg00325.html) -- I have simpified it to this code:
This case, I guess, is related to issue 379 (reported here as a case showing a somewhat ugly slur).
Related
Issues:
#379Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: pkx1...@gmail.com
From Mike:
--snip--
Message:
Hey all,
This fixes issue 163. The only downside is that it adds another entry
to an already-crowded details list. I also use a magic number of 2
(you'll see a comment about it) that should likely itself either be a
details entry or be taken from an existing details entry.
I agree with Han-Wen's comment in the source that there are too many
properties and that it risks to become unwieldy, so although I like this
patch because it makes a few of my scores look better, I'd like to have
a discussion about consolidating and/or better documenting the details
list in conjunction with the pushing of this patch. Ideally, I'd like
to see a regtest that clearly demonstrates the utility (and
indispensability) of each entry in the details list. By constructing
these regtests, it'll likely make pruning the list easier.
Cheers,
MS
Description:
First pass at avoiding very high slurs (fixes issue 163).
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4817048/
Labels: Patch-new
Related
Issues: #163
Originally posted by: pkx1...@gmail.com
make tests pass and reg tests look pretty good (attached differences here).
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review
Owner: mts...@gmail.com
Originally posted by: mts...@gmail.com
Not a prob, James!
Cheers,
MS
Originally posted by: k-ohara5...@oco.net
Workarounds, that make the height-limit (usually 2) *larger* and 'ratio (the preference tall heights relative to the limit) smaller :
Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: ColinPKC...@gmail.com
Mike feels this needs more work.
Labels: -Patch-review Patch-needs_work
Originally posted by: pkx1...@gmail.com
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Patch-needs_work Patch-new
Originally posted by: pkx1...@gmail.com
Passes Make - new reg test differences attached
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review
Originally posted by: mts...@gmail.com
Thanks, James! Your regtest run was a big help, as all of the results you found did not show up when I ran them (before my last update, which was the trivial (I think) removal of a double declaration - either that changed something (which it shouldn't have) or my regtest running script is not as good as I thought it was).
The visual results are still meh...I'll keep tweaking the patch.
Cheers,
MS
Originally posted by: pkx1...@gmail.com
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Patch-review Patch-needs_work
Originally posted by: hanw...@gmail.com
Mike,
maybe you can dig into the different examples a bit more? I think there are multiple independent issues.
this one should not have such a large curve to begin with; looks as if there is something wrong with the curve generated.
For the
.ly
from which this issue started, can you look at the score when the edges move farther away (which should flatten the slur), and see if there is somethign obviously wrong with the current scoring? #'inspect-quants is your friend.Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: mts...@gmail.com
I changed my patch (no need to run regtests) that diminishes the changes in the regtests and still solves all the problem cases (http://codereview.appspot.com/4817048) by only checking for height problems when extra encompasses are involved. 100% of the problems are from the way that extra encompasses are handled.
The problem could potentially be coming from the function fit_factor in slur-configuration.cc. This is the function that would modify the curve w/ respect to the extra encompass objects. I'll do some snooping...
Originally posted by: mts...@gmail.com
The difference in the height of generated curves is relatively drastic when you remove the accidental. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but
fit_factor
can indeed change the numerical result exactly.I put a pretty print right after the calculation of height on line 166 of slur-configure.cc that gets the results below:
WITH ACCIDENTAL (first 8 notes):
HEIGHT 7.5342
HEIGHT 7.5966
HEIGHT 7.6652
HEIGHT 7.7397
HEIGHT 7.8201
HEIGHT 7.9061
HEIGHT 7.8044
HEIGHT 7.5583
HEIGHT 7.4280
HEIGHT 7.4779
HEIGHT 7.5342
HEIGHT 7.5966
HEIGHT 7.6652
HEIGHT 7.7397
HEIGHT 7.6593
HEIGHT 7.3961
HEIGHT 7.1501
HEIGHT 7.3845
HEIGHT 7.4280
HEIGHT 7.4779
HEIGHT 7.5342
HEIGHT 7.5966
HEIGHT 7.4747
HEIGHT 7.1942
HEIGHT 6.9335
HEIGHT 6.6900
HEIGHT 7.3476
HEIGHT 7.3845
HEIGHT 7.4280
HEIGHT 7.4779
HEIGHT 7.2252
HEIGHT 6.9293
HEIGHT 6.6558
HEIGHT 6.4015
HEIGHT 6.1639
HEIGHT 7.3172
HEIGHT 7.3476
HEIGHT 7.2056
HEIGHT 6.8719
HEIGHT 6.5664
HEIGHT 6.2850
HEIGHT 6.0243
HEIGHT 5.7814
HEIGHT 5.5541
HEIGHT 7.0555
HEIGHT 6.6905
HEIGHT 6.3589
HEIGHT 6.0555
HEIGHT 5.7762
HEIGHT 5.5174
HEIGHT 5.2764
HEIGHT 5.0510
HEIGHT 4.8391
HEIGHT 5.9249
HEIGHT 5.6170
HEIGHT 5.3338
HEIGHT 5.0718
HEIGHT 4.8281
HEIGHT 4.6003
HEIGHT 4.3863
HEIGHT 4.1845
HEIGHT 3.9936
HEIGHT 4.5814
HEIGHT 4.3399
HEIGHT 4.1138
HEIGHT 3.9011
HEIGHT 3.7002
HEIGHT 3.5096
HEIGHT 3.3284
HEIGHT 3.1554
HEIGHT 2.9897
HEIGHT 3.0476
HEIGHT 2.8713
HEIGHT 2.7021
HEIGHT 2.5392
HEIGHT 2.3822
HEIGHT 2.2302
HEIGHT 2.0830
HEIGHT 1.9401
HEIGHT 1.8010
WITHOUT ACCIDENTAL (last 8 notes):
HEIGHT 5.1913
HEIGHT 4.9759
HEIGHT 4.7668
HEIGHT 4.5637
HEIGHT 4.3661
HEIGHT 4.1736
HEIGHT 3.9859
HEIGHT 3.8028
HEIGHT 4.8371
HEIGHT 4.6237
HEIGHT 4.4165
HEIGHT 4.2149
HEIGHT 4.0185
HEIGHT 3.8270
HEIGHT 3.6401
HEIGHT 3.4575
HEIGHT 3.2791
HEIGHT 4.2132
HEIGHT 4.0101
HEIGHT 3.8120
HEIGHT 3.6187
HEIGHT 3.4299
HEIGHT 3.2452
HEIGHT 3.0645
HEIGHT 2.8875
HEIGHT 2.7140
HEIGHT 3.5412
HEIGHT 3.3490
HEIGHT 3.1609
HEIGHT 2.9765
HEIGHT 2.7956
HEIGHT 2.6181
HEIGHT 2.4438
HEIGHT 2.2726
HEIGHT 2.1043
HEIGHT 2.8225
HEIGHT 2.6414
HEIGHT 2.4631
HEIGHT 2.2876
HEIGHT 2.1147
HEIGHT 1.9442
HEIGHT 1.7762
HEIGHT 1.6613
HEIGHT 1.6639
HEIGHT 2.0611
HEIGHT 1.8902
HEIGHT 1.7211
HEIGHT 1.6510
HEIGHT 1.6526
HEIGHT 1.6545
HEIGHT 1.6566
HEIGHT 1.6588
HEIGHT 1.6613
HEIGHT 1.6469
HEIGHT 1.6475
HEIGHT 1.6485
HEIGHT 1.6496
HEIGHT 1.6510
HEIGHT 1.6526
HEIGHT 1.6545
HEIGHT 1.6566
HEIGHT 1.6588
HEIGHT 1.6465
HEIGHT 1.6469
HEIGHT 1.6475
HEIGHT 1.6485
HEIGHT 1.6496
HEIGHT 1.6510
HEIGHT 1.6526
HEIGHT 1.6545
HEIGHT 1.6566
HEIGHT 1.6464
HEIGHT 1.6465
HEIGHT 1.6469
HEIGHT 1.6475
HEIGHT 1.6485
HEIGHT 1.6496
HEIGHT 1.6510
HEIGHT 1.6526
HEIGHT 1.6545
Last edit: Simon Albrecht 2015-09-15
Originally posted by: pkx1...@gmail.com
http://codereview.appspot.com/4810072/
Passes Make, one reg test difference - see attached?
Labels: -Patch-needs_work Patch-review
Originally posted by: lemniska...@gmail.com
I'd say that new slur looks definately better.
Originally posted by: mts...@gmail.com
http://codereview.appspot.com/4810072/
Labels: Patch-new
Originally posted by: pkx1...@gmail.com
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Patch-review
Originally posted by: k-ohara5...@oco.net
The current patch has only the regtest change shown in comment 23, which is good and intended, so I assume we meant to tag this patch_review.
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-review