wide angles are easier to play compare to sharp ones as the flow towards the next object is always constant and doesnt change compare to sharp jumps where player needs to change speed depends on the spacing, while wide angle symmetry gives the opportunity for players to just jump and flow at ease towards the next object since the spacings between 01:24:135 (4) - are the same

Hobbes2 wrote:

wide angles are easier to play compare to sharp ones as the flow towards the next object is always constant and doesnt change compare to sharp jumps where player needs to change speed depends on the spacing, while wide angle symmetry gives the opportunity for players to just jump and flow at ease towards the next object since the spacings between 01:24:135 (4) - are the same

FWIW I disagree with this, sharp angles are generally easier to play than wide ones, because when you snap from one note to another, in a sharp angle that force used to slow your movement down to hit the note can also be applied when moving to the next note. With a wider angle, you have to use a force to slow the cursor down and then another to speed it up again to hit the next note. Pishi talks about it in one of his flow videos if you wan't a more in depth explanation.

Sonnyc wrote:

Easy.
00:05:687 (4,5) - The song is quite similar with 00:11:204 (4,5) - 00:16:721 (4,5) but the rhythm you've expressed is quite different. Since the song hasn't changed so much, this difference felt like an inconsistency rather than a variation. I'd recommend changing the rhythm of 00:11:204 (4,5) - 00:16:721 (4,5) to what you've done at 00:05:687 (4,5) so the strong sound at 00:22:238 (4,5) could get a proper emphasis.
00:44:652 - 01:50:859 - Since there is a strong sound unlike 00:43:273 - 00:41:893 - you can consider adding a note here. I mainly follow the sax here and if I were to add a note 00:44:652 here, it'll confuse the players since I didnt follow the drums from here 00:40:169.

Normal.
01:18:445 (5) - 02:23:273 (3) - Consider replacing this to a circle since the rhythm density around here felt too high without a 1/1 interval inside.
02:01:204 - Clap.

Hard.
00:43:963 (4) - Comparing the slider shape with 00:42:928 (1,2,3), this was slightly different while the music didn't drastically change. Rearranging the sliders so that (4) doesn't feel too off is recommended. Rotating each sliders might work here imo.

Insane.
00:59:049 (4,1) - This 1/2 being the same spacing with 3/4 rhythms in this section was quite tough to read the rhythms properly. Still you've managed to keep a consistency for 1/2s by using the symmetry logic. Since this was the only 1/2 that had a broken consistency, I require you a symmetry for this. didnt make a symmetry but I did make the shape similar
02:13:963 (1) - Since there is a sv decrease, I think you can make the shape more abnormal as you've done at 01:29:825 (1) to create some consistent concept.
02:23:618 (1,2,3) - The sudden jump towards (3) felt inconsistent considering your placement selection for similar music parts of 02:18:101 (1,2,3,4) - 02:29:135 (1,2,3). I recommend a consistent spacing.

Call me back after applying the mod.