Fat Eighths!

[OCTO]

Agreed. There are some inconsistence with the engraving rules in his file, but I didn't want to comment. I just enjoyed the font outlook, as I believe it is purpose of that example.

[Knut]

Agreed. There are some inconsistence with the engraving rules in his file, but I didn't want to comment. I just enjoyed the font outlook, as I believe it is purpose of that example.

Sure. I agree. I was just curious whether it was the application's fault or not.

[tisimst]

Did you place the accidentals on downstem octaves in the wrong order on purpose, or is that how Sib. did it by default?

Even more: Is there a reason to ignore the rule, that accidentals of octave-distance should be aligned?

Generally speaking, they should be aligned. Sibelius has a knack of seeing accidentals for being larger than they really are, pushing "lower" instances farther away when it thinks there will be a collision (even when there's obviously _not_ one). I'm not sure why it does this, but it's royally annoying, at least to me.

@odod, if you trim the accidental's stems to be roughly the same size as Opus' accidentals (not always desirable, but anyway...) then that will guarantee the accidentals on notes an octave apart will horizontally align properly rather than be staggered.

[odod]

it was Sibelius's default ,
thank you all for the input, however i am sorry if its a bit OOT now ..

[MJCube]

Also off-topic but important:
The first note of m. 5 in RH (where you corrected the alignment) should be E‍♭, not D.

[odod]

Yes sir, actually there were so many errors,
Since this is only an example .. and i haven't finished
With this piece too

Thanks