(02-09-2025, 01:46 PM)Zubersoft Wrote: Thanks for sharing your experience - that's always really helpful so I can see what features are benefitting users switching over from other products like forScore, and areas where there is room for improvement (I know aesthetics is a big one for a lot of people).
Mike
Mike,
While aesthetics are certainly important, 90% of the time you're playing charts and scores and this is basically just displaying a nicely formatted PDF with reliable navigation. The other 10% of the time when you're managing your library I think that functionality trumps aesthetics. I like that you have more robust filters available when creating setlists. I also like that the forscore concept of Libraries is more easily managed using Collections in MS (while still having separate databases if the user is so inclined). In FS you can't search across libraries once one has been "selected" when creating a setlist. This was a huge problem for me when I wasn't diligent about metadata. With MS, I can always just change the filter when creating a setlist and correct my errors in 1/2 the time it used to take with FS.
As a tech guy, I may appreciate the functionality more than the look. Your sync is VERY GOOD, and I like that I even get access to the sqlite db and all my PDF's as backups.
So don't sacrifice awesome functionality just to make it look prettier.
[EDIT: I've since learned more about being able to format the library title and song titles so I can now get the # on the set lists.]
Rob