[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: Changing tremolo beam gap implementation

From: Torsten Hämmerle
Subject: Re: Proposal: Changing tremolo beam gap implementation
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:55:03 -0700 (MST)

Noeck wrote
> I would also expect the "gap" to be the free space between stem and beam.

Hi Joram,

Thank you, then we seem to have a common understanding of "gap", even if the
current tremolo beam gap implementation behaves differently.

Noeck wrote
> In your attached image, I wonder if you have drawn the upper beam from
> the inner edge of the stem only for demonstration reasons, what a gap=0
> would be. The stems and beams have slightly rounded corners, haven't
> they? So if the beam touches the stem, it should overlap to avoid little
> notches where they touch.
> In other words, while currently gap=0 is a valid choice, with your
> proposed gap definition, gap should either be >0 or -stem-thickness but
> not 0, right?

Yes, you are right about the rounded corners, and even if a zero gap does
not make much sense, it should be handled in a reasonable way.
My example image was purely focusing on the size of the gap and wasn't fully
functional yet.

*Intended implementation*
The full-size stems will, as usual, run through from the very left to the
very right.
In the special case of gap = 0, the beams will also run completely through
the stems.
Only for non-zero gaps, the gap will start at the inside of stems so that
the effective free space will be as wide as the gap property suggests.

I've attached an example image showing gap = 0 and gap = 0.13 (i.e. the stem


As you can see, a gap of 0 will not suffer from rounded beam corners, but a
gap > 0 will actually have the expected width.
In other words, if gap > 0, the shortened tremolo beam start will be shifted
by stem-width + gap compared to a standard stem. 

Cheers and thanks for the hint,


Sent from:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]