Re: fine-tuning new flags - feedback needed

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

2011/2/4 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:
> Hi,
>
> this is (hopefully) the final version of the new flags; it's a mix of
> previous two propositions and some new modifications. I must admit
> that i'm proud of it :)
> Some differencies between this version and the "compromise" version
> (from my previous mail):
> - 32nd stems are a bit shorter (but not as short as i suggested
> before), 128th stems are a bit shorter too. This makes the stem length
> transition smoother (see the coloured lines in the attachments),
> - the downstem flags are modified in such a way that the gap between
> notehead and flag is smaller; this makes 64th and especially 128th
> notes more balanced (at least in my opinion), see the dots in the
> attachment,
> - the downstem 8th flag is a bit shorter. This is to make sure that
> there will be a visible gap between notehead and the end of the flag.
> See attachment,
> - the shortened upstem 8th flags are shorter (now the dots don't
> collide with them!).
>
> Here are the .ly files used for testing: http://www.sendspace.com/file/gjh6ng
> Here are the pdfs: http://www.sendspace.com/file/j9dq5t
> Here are pdfs made with current dev release (2.13.47) for comparison:
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/ogl8rk
> Here is the patch file (i hope i got this right...):
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/2dx8wa
>
> Please tell me what you think.
> Graham, Han-Wen, Reinhold, Keith - may i ask for your opinion too?
> After all, this changes will affect virtually all scores (all notes on
> middle line of the staff will have longer stems, not mentioning other
> changes). Also it's my first contribution, and i've spent many hours
> fine-tuning the new flags, so i'd like to know how this turned out.
Hey Janek,

thanks for looking into this, and welcome to the world of font-design
aka. endless fiddling :)


Overall comments:

* There is no question that this is better for the 32nd and shorter in
forced directions, especially for the head-facing part of the flag.

* It seems to shorten the flags at the tip end too.  I'm not sure if
that is desired.

In normal non-forced positions, the flags are a little bit taller than
the beamed notes from the same position, and the old version maintains
that for the forced positions too (of course, the beaming quants
sometimes make it less obvious).  This effect is gone in your verison
example, it seems all forced stems are getting shorter than the beams.
 Is there a way to main

* For the longer (8th, 16th), it trades some voloptuousness for
practicality.  I think the overall feel of feta is more on the
exuberant side, so I think we could lessen the effect there, and
lengthen the hooks a bit more.

* I'm not sure, but it looks like the outer flag of the 64th and 128th
upstem flag seems to pop out a bit.  There is a correction for this,
perhaps you uptune that correction for the shorter up flags.

> (as for the c++ code - i'm totally aware that it needs improvement.

Can you look in define-grobs.scm ?  I didn't look closely, but I
suspect a lot of the things you are hard-coding in C++ are actually
soft-coded in the details property; if not, we should work to softcode
them; it will make your experiments easier as well.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen