Here's how Dorico does the first example by default:

Even in tight spacing conditions the dot spacing is still correct. Note also the correct kerning ('tucking') of the 'a' in voice 2 at the end of the 1st beat of bar 1 and the 'g' and the end of the 2nd beat of bar 2, and of the accidentals at the beginning of the second beats of both bars:

Here's the second example:

It would indeed be a great help if Finale could handle the spacing of layers with the same accuracy as Dorico.

Yes, it is "sad commentary"  that after all these years, Finale is still not able to deal with such basic spacing issues. I certainly hope that MM feels the heat of Dorico behind them getting closer and closer,  and is making haste to rectify these problems. 

Absolutely – this improvement is now a must.

We never see the right margin of your examples, so we do not know whether you locked too many measures into the system. Certainly when things look too jammed up to me, I usually reduce the number of measures in the system.

J Adrian,

Regardless, Finale doesn't space augmentation dots or handle multi-layer/voice spacing well.

J Adrian, I'm sorry, but that's a little beside the mark.

Indeed, you rather missed the point of this whole topic. It's obvious that Finale doesn't space objects which are at different rhythmic positions regardless of how tight or loose the spacing is due to either measure layout or the music spacing library. It's also obvious that it's quite possible for software to take such collisions into account, witness the excellent default spacing from a fledgeling program like Dorico. It's a bit shameful that a mature program which has been around for 30 years is still unable to do something as basic as this.

There are examples on the Dorico Forum, too, where users have tried to fit too many measures into a system and run into spacing problems. Do I hope Finale will improve and see some capabilities in Dorico that inspire them? Of course.

Here is the first example, which was mine from another forum, spread out to 2.33 measures on a full line. Most editions have three measures on a line here. The dots and notes still  overlap.

Only if two measures are placed on a line is the spacing more acceptable, although I find the second 16ths still a little  too close to the dots when there are seconds and would respace. What is not acceptable is the need to resort to exceptional spreading like this to produce an acceptable result.

What clefs are those, by the way? The treble clef, especially, doesn't look like one of the Finale Defaults.

Thanks for asking, George. The bass clef is Maestro; the treble clef is mine.  I designed it with the help of Knut and others at http://notat.io/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=84

While I like most of the Maestro font, I never liked the treble clef.

Great job! It's a nice signature for your work.

I really appreciate your compliment, George.  Thanks so much!

I tried to correct one of the examples in the OP with the only means available in Finale itself, the Beat Chart. To arrive at the, still not perfect, result in the second example below I had to apply about 30 operations to the first one (actually I lost count). These including nudging "in the blind" since you don't see the result in the music when nudging the boxes, and experimenting with measure width and extra space at the end, and beginning, of the measure. Now, imagine that you have a job with a great number of situations like this one!...

This is of course connected to an issue with the workability of the Beat Chart, wich is discussed in two other feature request threads :

https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115008459668-Selection-Problems-with-the-Beat-Chart

https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/115007133787-More-on-the-Beat-Chart

Without the layer spacing problem you wouldn't have to use the Beat Chart quite as much as now. However, with the layers spacing in its present sorry state, an improved beat chart functionality is simply necessary. So, which of these corrections will we see first? 

Anders – you could not have been "nudging in the blind" in the Beat Chart, because the Beat Chart does not allow nudging (with the arrow keys). You must have been "dragging in the blind" with the mouse. And it is exactly this – the inability to nudge with arrow keys – that is the most serious and most frustrating shortcoming of the Beat Chart. I cannot even imagine it being a big task to add nudging ability to the Beat Chart. Can we not have it already, please??

Ere - of course I meant 'dragging'. Thanks for correcting! And, as John and you so clearly point out, there's the rub.

It's time consuming, but the most reliable way of doing this right now is to set the "nudge" at 6 pixels (1 space at 100%; 1/2 space at 200%) from the preferences menu, select incorporate for manual positioning under "music spacing options," and make sure seconds and unisons spacing is unchecked (as these spacings override manual adjustments for some reason), then use the note position tool to manually adjust each note.

The system really needs work ....

And then you have to remember exactly how much you nudged each note, so that you can do exactly the same amount of nudges on every other note in the same measure in every other staff of a large orchestral score...

I'm sorry, George, neither do I find the note positioning tool really helpful in this situation.

I said it was the most reliable in that the note positions won't be haphazardly cleared like the beat chart, not that it's viable for a large orchestral score. Although, if you know what you re doing, it's not that bad.

Both methods are, as I think you meant, time consuming - in my opinion far too much so. We shouldn't have to resort to workarounds like the ones described by both you and me to do something as basic as this.

Yeah man, I completely agree!

Michael Johnson, am I right in supposing that you don't find the issue with spacing between layers more important than the other issues mentioned in your reply? If so, how come?

Hi Anders:

I had not prioritized my list, rather had listed the common hot topics of Finale's spacing limitations. As with most of these spacing problems, the genre and instrumentation will expose a flaw more frequently than other scenarios. Keyboard music tends to expose the most problems as the original post demonstrates. One of our general operating agreements as a development team now is to add the greatest value as quickly as possible. That isn't to say that we don't address a problem for a small coterie of users or address an issue that takes a long time, but fundamentally the goal is to have a positive impact on users. Refactoring layer spacing would have a huge impact on a large group of users. Great questions, thank you for asking.

Cheers,

Michael Johnson

VP, Professional Notation

MakeMusic

Thank you for your extensive and illuminating reply, Michael!

just wanted to add that this well explained topic here is also one of the top in my list of needed improvements!!!

so thanks to all, and mostly Vaughan, for taking the time to lay it out here

I hadn't planned to post here again, but since there is some hope that MM developers use these requests as a reference when planning their work, I would like to clarify one detail about collisions between layers. In my experience the most frequent bother is that accidentals in layer 2 collide with notes in layer 1, as shown here:

Needless to say, this is rather frustrating when working with keyboard music (this is a piano reduction). I would think there are quite a few engravers doing keyboard music, including inevitable work in more than one layer, for all the thousands (millions?) that play such an instrument.