That's a great idea, and employing this radius principle more broadly may also make the results more robust.jan wrote: ↑08 Mar 2017, 08:56 If if it had taken the vertical distance as radius, it would have detected a closer collision (between p and the top left corner of the G box instead of between the slur and the top of the G box), and the bottom system would have probably gotten a more pleasing position a bit further down.
I agree.jan wrote: ↑08 Mar 2017, 08:56 I think systems 2 and 3 from the video (image below) are too far apart and would have looked better if the calculation took into account some of your thoughts about the "center" of the top/below staff areas. There is only a rather small peak in the middle of the 3rd system ("F Grave") and at the very left ("E") which leads to a very large system distance. The wide hairpin on the top staff seems to be a "calm" element which could come a little closer to the other staff in this case.
I know I said above that Tempo markings take an overall precedence, and that the top margin should align with it. In cases like this, however, I would ignore this principle to avoid the excessive space. It should be said that I generally tend to ignore rehearsal marks altogether (especially the border), instead relying on a predetermined amount of blanket space between staff groups or systems that is large enough to fit them. In this particular case I would also entirely or partially disregard even the tempo marking, bringing the top margin down as needed, but no more than above the tuplet bracket.
Awesome! How would you do that, btw? This sounds like a great premise to base rules and conditions on, and from your excellent list of conditions, it looks like this could be a very robust plug-in in the end.