On 8/11/10 3:02 PM, "Xavier Scheuer" wrote:
> On 11 August 2010 19:43, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, I mixed two different ideas in my earlier reply to you.
>>
>> Obviously, for what you want, a beamExceptions entry with subdivide
>> is the correct solution.
>>
>> Thanks for callin
On 11 August 2010 19:43, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I mixed two different ideas in my earlier reply to you.
>
> Obviously, for what you want, a beamExceptions entry with subdivide
> is the correct solution.
>
> Thanks for calling it to my attention,
I'm sorry, I'm still confused. :s
Is
On 8/11/10 9:25 AM, "Xavier Scheuer" wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 14:42, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> Yes, this is true. We currently do not have the capability of
>> setting multiple levels of subdivide; we only subdivide on the beat.
>>
>> The exact mechanism of getting multiple levels of su
On 10 August 2010 14:42, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> Yes, this is true. We currently do not have the capability of
> setting multiple levels of subdivide; we only subdivide on the beat.
>
> The exact mechanism of getting multiple levels of subdivision is not
> yet finalized. We may use a subdivide
On 8/10/10 2:52 AM, "Xavier Scheuer" wrote:
> Hi Carl!
>
> First of all thank you for your formidable work on the new autobeaming,
> it seems really powerful and the ideas to configure it more "logical"
> (although I must confess, I'm still not totally used to all these
> changes)!
>
> I wou
Hi Carl!
First of all thank you for your formidable work on the new autobeaming,
it seems really powerful and the ideas to configure it more "logical"
(although I must confess, I'm still not totally used to all these
changes)!
I would just like to know if it is currently possible to define rules
