Hmmm..............

I don't know but I see no one else seems to either. I do know Finale ignores some preferences. Why? Who knows?

Thank you, Ernie,

Yes, response has been quiet. I had attributed it to the holiday weekend.

One of those peculiarities. ;-)

Hoping for the release of the next PL update/upgrade.

Hope you are having a memorable holiday.

:-)
Vanessa

Perfect Layout v3 is in beta. You can try it.

https://elbsound.studio/perfect-layout/version3.0.php 

As you know I have been beta testing it for some time now. The score it produces is amazing even better than before if that thought is even possible. It is faster or at least it sems faster to me but I have a new computer. It works on linked parts much better than v2 does. I still need to tweak some things but I am learning how to set things for even better part layout. Sometimes I wonder if PL for parts is working against some of the limitations that you see in your recent query here. Perfect parts may not be possible with Finale as it is today. It is doubtful MM will help.

If you saw this post I did a week ago or so, it displays some odd behavior that should not be possible in Finale. But it happened. Despite some heavy Finale users like Jason and Robert no real explanation how it did or could happen.

Actually measure 56 and 57 plus 87 and 89 are hidden and numbered like Finale considered them to be a multimeasure rest. But you can not create a multimeasure rest when there are notes present. My guess it had something to do with JW Copy Part Layout.

Does undoing and then redoing multi-measure rests reveal the hidden measures?

My recollection (from long ago) was that if multi-measure rests existed and one added notes into them, that did not always clear the mm rests in the affected parts. This may even have been the case when one used a pre-existing file to keep its preferences and erased all the material therein before using it to enter new music. Some things held over in the background.

Perhaps this was fixed since I recall it, but it is worth checking.

There is a Document Option you can toggle on and off:

Document menu > Document Options > Multimeasure Rests > Update Automatically

If you - from Scroll View - put entries in a multimeasure rest, then the option Update Automatically will break the multimeasure rest, and reset all measure widths (in all measures!) to the defaults.

This is useful in the initial phase of entering the music, but not so useful in the later phase of working on the layout.

Peter thanx again for the reply but again I must repeat that is not what happened. Flute 1 was perfect in layout form. I tweaked what PL had done so I know the measures were there and correct. Flute 1 was then used by JW Copy Part Layout to make the Flute 2 and Oboe parts. I did not recheck Flute 1, no reason to, before printing and did not notice it until rehearsal. This is the same replay that Jason and Robert came up with but is not the case.

Here is the score.

Jason and I finally decided JW Part Copy Layout had a glitch or the file got corrupted somehow. I have tried several times to duplicate this and can not. Perhaps it had to do with the fact Flute 2 and Oboe does have multimeasure rests in measure 56 and 57. And maybe JW Copy Part Layout got uncombobulated.

Does undoing and then redoing multi-measure rests reveal the hidden measures?

Yes the fix is easy.

My recollection (from long ago) was that if multi-measure rests existed and one added notes into them, that did not always clear the mm rests in the affected parts. 

However this is/was not the case as there never were any multimeasure rests created. We ultimately, "decided JW Part Copy Layout had a glitch or the file got corrupted somehow."

You can plainly see the notes are there in the screen shot of the score. Nothing is added nor rests created until linked parts are made, JW Copy Part Layout applied, print.

Hi Ernie,

So, knowing that JW had a glitch, what was you final work-around?

:-)
Vanessa

My mistake and would have saved me a bit of embarrassment at rehearsal was I did not check each part after printing. That won't happen again!

The fix was to break multimeasure rests. It seems clearly that Finale thought the measures affected were multilmeasure rests but even that is not a good answer because the first measure in a multimeasure rest has the first measure included in the measure numbering scheme. And it is hidden just like the others! That clearly isn't what happened here as the first measure is clearly visible in each case.

I am going to confess that user error on my part somehow got into play. This was the sixth revision of this piece. If you delete the Flute 1 part in measure 55, 56, 57 and run JW Part Copy Layout you get the three-measure rest. If you then do a next revision and copy Clarinet 1 into Flute 1 for example and subsequentially run JW Part Copy Layout again you get the results I got in my finale layout. So, although I did not create a multimeasure rest JW Part Copy Layout did. The score does not show a MM rest. That is the only scenario I can come up with that yields what I saw.

However, why would one measure show and two measures be hidden and treated like a MM rest? You would think if Finale did treat it as a MM rest all of it would be treated so. Not just two measures.