Neither of them have a distinctive point where the bpm makes a turn, they're both about consistent increase and an average AR would be fitting to represent the slowly increasing density. The lack of a break point would necessarily cause multiple spots where you have multiple ARs on your screen at the same time and I think that such a behaviour causes more issues than it solves. I'm more with GhostFrog here: After breaks or spinners where the change is very clear and doesn't cause a weird clusterfuck.
Also let's be honest, the only maps this can be considered somewhat relevant for very fast AR10 maps as the relative difference to other ARs is significantly bigger than between these ARs(twice as fast as AR7 which is twice as fast as AR0) and the absolute difference in ms-intervalls per 1/1 or 1/2 is rather big.
If we got 130bpm 1/2s that's 231ms between two notes and if we take 1/1 it's 462ms. AR10 is 450ms so upon lowering the AR to AR9,8(=479ms approachtime) the readibility for the 130bpm parts should already improve significantly without making the fast part a lot harder to read.
Between two 260bpm 1/2s we obviously got half the time which is 116ms, meaning that upon hitting a note we already see the next 5 ones. Changing the AR to 9.8 would barely affect this as it is already mapped with high density in mind and causes no additional overlaps that could make reading harder than it is.
AR9.7 is already a bit edgy on the fast parts but relaxes the slow parts even more than AR9.8. So it's not like AR10 is the only and perfect solution for Image Material...I'm not quite sure if decimal AR was already a thing when Image Material got approved but if you sit down for 5min and calculate some values it's not difficult to find a compromise for the problem before you even started to map.
(As mentioned in my first post, if 1/1 on half-bpm suddenly become difficult to read your AR is probably too high in the first place).
Also let's be honest, the only maps this can be considered somewhat relevant for very fast AR10 maps as the relative difference to other ARs is significantly bigger than between these ARs(twice as fast as AR7 which is twice as fast as AR0) and the absolute difference in ms-intervalls per 1/1 or 1/2 is rather big.
If we got 130bpm 1/2s that's 231ms between two notes and if we take 1/1 it's 462ms. AR10 is 450ms so upon lowering the AR to AR9,8(=479ms approachtime) the readibility for the 130bpm parts should already improve significantly without making the fast part a lot harder to read.
Between two 260bpm 1/2s we obviously got half the time which is 116ms, meaning that upon hitting a note we already see the next 5 ones. Changing the AR to 9.8 would barely affect this as it is already mapped with high density in mind and causes no additional overlaps that could make reading harder than it is.
AR9.7 is already a bit edgy on the fast parts but relaxes the slow parts even more than AR9.8. So it's not like AR10 is the only and perfect solution for Image Material...I'm not quite sure if decimal AR was already a thing when Image Material got approved but if you sit down for 5min and calculate some values it's not difficult to find a compromise for the problem before you even started to map.
(As mentioned in my first post, if 1/1 on half-bpm suddenly become difficult to read your AR is probably too high in the first place).