For those of you with deep pockets, there is ResultsManager which is an add-in for Mindmanager that gives added functionality esp if you like the GTD methodology. I had ruled MindManager out of the equation on cost and only purchased it when I started some part-time study and qualified for academic discount.

I've been participating in the PB4 beta and it has been adding a few nice features which are transforming it from interesting to useable. No word on price though yet, so I'm not sure how much of a premium all the extras will cost.

On IdeaMason, I don't think it is fair to state that it can't fulfil you needs just because it only costs $79. It is a capable program, but was bit too slow on my ageing computer for my liking. I think is may also work best if you've got plenty of screen real estate to play with to have a couple of the windows open side by side.

After having tried many of the programs mentioned on this forum, I'm sticking with OneNote 2007 for my information management needs. Strange how I've come to use an application that is the digital equivalent of a paper notebook. The only negative about OneNote is the pricing policy with no "Upgrade from OneNote 2003" price available, I have to fork out the full cost of the application all over again when my trial runs out at the end of the month.

Nigel

NW wrote:

On IdeaMason, I don't think it is fair to state that
it can't fulfil you needs just because it only costs $79. It is a capable program, but
was bit too slow on my ageing computer for my liking. I think is may also work best if
you've got plenty of screen real estate to play with to have a couple of the windows open
side by side.

What about its outlining functionality. Seemed decidedly incapable to me.

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Is there something about the complexity of creating mind map programs that leads to
them being so epensive?

All I can figure is that they are marketed to corporations. Products for corporate use (and even more so for lawyers) always seem overpriced.

A few years ago I bought VisualMind 7 -- it was the worst
software investment I ever made.

Was I responsible for this bad decision? I didn't find it grossly unstable. A conflict with WindowBlinds that he developer denies exists would cause constant crashing if you apply it to VM. I have been dissatisfied the the development path, with is now emphasizing group use. The developer is very polite but one of the most unresponsive I have come across. When still at 7 (a version 9 beta has just been released), the developer agreed that he Notes Pane was way underdeveloped and that it should at least be possible to set a different default font. This remains true of the version 9 beta. When I asked whether they would consider adding default configurability for the notes pane before the final release, the developer as usual thanked me for my suggestion. I would be most surprised if it were included.

I now use Visi-Mind, which has excellent support and stability, but the features probably would not suit you. I like Visi-Mind _for_ some of its defects. The unpolished appearance helps keep my concentration on content. I think of the mind-mapping programs, with the possible exception of MindManager, Visi-Map is the most suited to serious work of the better known programs.

I don't know if you'll trust my recommendation this time around after VisualMind, and this isn't exactly a recommendation, because I have only read about the program and downloaded it briefly--but you might check out a program called MINDMAPPER. It has more frills than Visi-Mind, is fairly innovative with database like features, and is less expensive than the big players, although not cheap.

Nice program, when it wasn't crashing.

And it
was always crashing.

So when I do mind mapping I use FreeMind, which is certainly
more stable than the over-priced VisualMind.

Unfortunantely it is not able to to
create the same variety of map formats.

I wonder if there is a reasonably priced mind
map program that offers the variety of a VisualMind or MindManager without the
excessive cost?

Daly

Tom S. wrote:
>
>
>Stephen R. Diamond
wrote:
>
>>Personal
>>Brain, which I have not yet tried,
>aside--I think if I
wanted to build a pim with mind
>>navigation, I would look to Mind
>Manager, plus
investigate the applicable
>>third-party add-ons, based on which a
>veritable
Mind Mgr subculture seems to be
>>developing.
>
>This is true but Mind
>Manager is
quite a bit more expensive.
>
>I was very enthusiastic about Personal
>Brain. But I
soon started to butt heads with a flaw. You end up connecting an item to
>quite a number
of different characteristics (context, start date, due date,
>project,
personnel, etc...) When you think about it we link data with an awful lot of

>characteristics. Before you know it there a a lot of them and keeping track of them
with
>all of those connecting lines can be a pain.
>
>Tom S.

I have never been a "visual" thinker and so have never used mind mapping. I have occasionally tlloed at a mind map screen shot, but all I've seen seem to be capable of being re-expressed as a left-pane outline. Am I missing something?

This is my previous post, hopefully with the gibberish removed.

I have never been a “visual” thinker and so have never used mind mapping. I have occasionally looked at a mind map screenshot, but each I’ve seen seems to be capable of being re-expressed as a left-pane outline (viz., as a hierarchal tree).. Am I missing something?

Stephen, thanks for your reply.

Of course, you are not responsible for my decision -- even if you did recommend a particulalr program.

In this instance though, if I recall correctly you may have had a leaning to MindGenius (is that the correct name?).

Anyhow, thanks for the feedback on VM's developer. That is good to know.

I have downloaded VM 8, and it seems much more stable.

I will check out VisiMind.

Daly

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Daly de Gagne wrote:
>Is there something about the complexity of creating mind map
programs that leads to
>them being so epensive?

All I can figure is that they are
marketed to corporations. Products for corporate use (and even more so for lawyers)
always seem overpriced.
>
>A few years ago I bought VisualMind 7 -- it was the worst

>software investment I ever made.

Was I responsible for this bad decision? I
didn't find it grossly unstable. A conflict with WindowBlinds that he developer
denies exists would cause constant crashing if you apply it to VM. I have been
dissatisfied the the development path, with is now emphasizing group use. The
developer is very polite but one of the most unresponsive I have come across. When
still at 7 (a version 9 beta has just been released), the developer agreed that he Notes
Pane was way underdeveloped and that it should at least be possible to set a different
default font. This remains true of the version 9 beta. When I asked whether they would
consider adding default configurability for the notes pane before the final
release, the developer as usual thanked me for my suggestion. I would be most
surprised if it were included.

I now use Visi-Mind, which has excellent support and
stability, but the features probably would not suit you. I like Visi-Mind _for_ some
of its defects. The unpolished appearance helps keep my concentration on content. I
think of the mind-mapping programs, with the possible exception of MindManager,
Visi-Map is the most suited to serious work of the better known programs.

I don't
know if you'll trust my recommendation this time around after VisualMind, and this
isn't exactly a recommendation, because I have only read about the program and
downloaded it briefly--but you might check out a program called MINDMAPPER. It has
more frills than Visi-Mind, is fairly innovative with database like features, and is
less expensive than the big players, although not cheap.
>
>Nice program, when it
wasn't crashing.
>
>And it
>was always crashing.
>
>So when I do mind mapping I use
FreeMind, which is certainly
>more stable than the over-priced
VisualMind.
>
>Unfortunantely it is not able to to
>create the same variety of map
formats.
>
>I wonder if there is a reasonably priced mind
>map program that offers
the variety of a VisualMind or MindManager without the
>excessive
cost?
>
>Daly
>
>Tom S. wrote:
>>
>>
>>Stephen R. Diamond

>wrote:
>>
>>>Personal
>>>Brain, which I have not yet tried,
>>aside--I think
if I
>wanted to build a pim with mind
>>>navigation, I would look to Mind
>>Manager,
plus
>investigate the applicable
>>>third-party add-ons, based on which a

>>veritable
>Mind Mgr subculture seems to be
>>>developing.
>>
>>This is true
but Mind
>>Manager is
>quite a bit more expensive.
>>
>>I was very enthusiastic
about Personal
>>Brain. But I
>soon started to butt heads with a flaw. You end up
connecting an item to
>>quite a number
>of different characteristics (context,
start date, due date,
>>project,
>personnel, etc...) When you think about it we
link data with an awful lot of
>
>>characteristics. Before you know it there a a lot of
them and keeping track of them
>with
>>all of those connecting lines can be a
pain.
>>
>>Tom S.

Stephen, I mean I will check out MindMapper.

Daly

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Stephen, thanks for your reply.

Of course, you are not responsible for my decision
-- even if you did recommend a particulalr program.

In this instance though, if I
recall correctly you may have had a leaning to MindGenius (is that the correct
name?).

Anyhow, thanks for the feedback on VM's developer. That is good to know.

I
have downloaded VM 8, and it seems much more stable.

I will check out
VisiMind.

Daly

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>Daly de Gagne wrote:
>>Is there
something about the complexity of creating mind map
>programs that leads to
>>them
being so epensive?
>
>All I can figure is that they are
>marketed to corporations.
Products for corporate use (and even more so for lawyers)
>always seem
overpriced.
>>
>>A few years ago I bought VisualMind 7 -- it was the worst

>
>>software investment I ever made.
>
>Was I responsible for this bad decision? I

>didn't find it grossly unstable. A conflict with WindowBlinds that he developer

>denies exists would cause constant crashing if you apply it to VM. I have been

>dissatisfied the the development path, with is now emphasizing group use. The

>developer is very polite but one of the most unresponsive I have come across. When

>still at 7 (a version 9 beta has just been released), the developer agreed that he
Notes
>Pane was way underdeveloped and that it should at least be possible to set a
different
>default font. This remains true of the version 9 beta. When I asked
whether they would
>consider adding default configurability for the notes pane
before the final
>release, the developer as usual thanked me for my suggestion. I
would be most
>surprised if it were included.
>
>I now use Visi-Mind, which has
excellent support and
>stability, but the features probably would not suit you. I
like Visi-Mind _for_ some
>of its defects. The unpolished appearance helps keep my
concentration on content. I
>think of the mind-mapping programs, with the possible
exception of MindManager,
>Visi-Map is the most suited to serious work of the better
known programs.
>
>I don't
>know if you'll trust my recommendation this time
around after VisualMind, and this
>isn't exactly a recommendation, because I have
only read about the program and
>downloaded it briefly--but you might check out a
program called MINDMAPPER. It has
>more frills than Visi-Mind, is fairly
innovative with database like features, and is
>less expensive than the big
players, although not cheap.
>>
>>Nice program, when it
>wasn't
crashing.
>>
>>And it
>>was always crashing.
>>
>>So when I do mind mapping I use

>FreeMind, which is certainly
>>more stable than the over-priced

>VisualMind.
>>
>>Unfortunantely it is not able to to
>>create the same variety
of map
>formats.
>>
>>I wonder if there is a reasonably priced mind
>>map program
that offers
>the variety of a VisualMind or MindManager without the
>>excessive

>cost?
>>
>>Daly
>>
>>Tom S. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Stephen R. Diamond

>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Personal
>>>>Brain, which I have not yet tried,

>>>aside--I think
>if I
>>wanted to build a pim with mind
>>>>navigation, I would
look to Mind
>>>Manager,
>plus
>>investigate the applicable
>>>>third-party
add-ons, based on which a
>
>>>veritable
>>Mind Mgr subculture seems to be

>>>>developing.
>>>
>>>This is true
>but Mind
>>>Manager is
>>quite a bit more
expensive.
>>>
>>>I was very enthusiastic
>about Personal
>>>Brain. But I

>>soon started to butt heads with a flaw. You end up
>connecting an item to
>>>quite
a number
>>of different characteristics (context,
>start date, due date,

>>>project,
>>personnel, etc...) When you think about it we
>link data with an
awful lot of
>>
>>>characteristics. Before you know it there a a lot of
>them and
keeping track of them
>>with
>>>all of those connecting lines can be a

>pain.
>>>
>>>Tom S.

Cassius

You are not missing something if you ask me!
Because I think that creating a mind map is just another representation of the outline paradigma.

I am a convert coming from the PersonalBrain and MindMapping perspective to the classical text oriented outlining.
Even I still like PersonalBrain I don't use it anymore. Version 4 has some interesting features and will be worth a look but I am still hesitant because to the export capabilities.

Regarding the Mind Mapping software: I am using MindManager X5 standard edition and it is ok for my needs. I haven't upgraded to v6 yet and every three months I think 'now I am going to upgrade!' but when I see the price I then stop the buying procedure.

I don't think MindMapping software is overpriced because I know how difficult it is to develop a stable solution. When you consider all the features these applications deliver then the pricing is ok.

My dream system is having the MindManager version 6 pro and the Gyronix ResultManager 2 pro edition. Have a look at the price of the full bundle... (around USD 310.00 ResultManager2 only)

Dominik

Cassius wrote:

I have never been a
“visual” thinker and so have never used mind mapping. I have occasionally looked at a
mind map screenshot, but each I’ve seen seems to be capable of being re-expressed as a
left-pane outline (viz., as a hierarchal tree).. Am I missing something?

I have never warmed up to mind mapping either. I think it can be a convenient method for expressing certain types of information to others, but it doesn't seem to bear a lot of fruit for my brainstorming and planning. The one difference between mind-mapping and straight outlining that comes to my mind is that the structure of an outline is linear... that is, subjects even on the same level flow in a definite direction. A mind map, being more radial, eliminates this distinction. I'm sure that those who find mind maps useful will be able to tell us about the many other advantages that I can't think of.

Steve Z.

I think a distinction needs to be made between mind maps (as I know them, which, as Cassius said, could be expressed in a tree-like linear form); and non-tree-like navigation/outliner systems, such as Personal Brain.

An item in a tree can have one parent, and multiple children. That's the basis and at the same time the limitation. After that, most tree-like outliners have to think of (mostly awkward) ways of creating internal links between branches, such as creating virtual copies of the files or having text wiki links.

What a tool like Personal Brain allows (or should allow) is links from any item to any item, regardless of its place in any hierarchy, so you get a web rather than a tree. By choosing your topic you see all the topics linked to it, regardless of where they might be if the items were tree-based.

I see this as being a graphical version of a web or wiki page - it's a network. Some people like that sort of thing. Others like the tree structure, which is inherently neat and understandable. I use tree-based outliners, but hate the way most handle internal linking, and wondered whether graphical interfaces would help.

By the way, I've seen the current Personal Brain 4 beta and it seems to me to still be all over the place, so I think there's a way to go yet ....

Graham

Maybe another program might be of interest: Topicscape 3D, a 3-dimensional Mindmapper. It was featured at Bitsdujour a few days ago and I have just found a review on donationcoder.com. Here's the link:

http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=7805.msg55102#msg55102

Andreas

Graham, CRIMPer that I am, I have tried PB also, an have found it is OK if it is not too complex. Otherwise I find it heavy going to have a sense of what all is there. So I agree with you re PB4 beta.

Daly

Graham Rhind wrote:

I think a distinction needs to be made between mind maps (as I know them, which, as
Cassius said, could be expressed in a tree-like linear form); and non-tree-like
navigation/outliner systems, such as Personal Brain.

An item in a tree can have one
parent, and multiple children. That's the basis and at the same time the limitation.
After that, most tree-like outliners have to think of (mostly awkward) ways of
creating internal links between branches, such as creating virtual copies of the
files or having text wiki links.

What a tool like Personal Brain allows (or should
allow) is links from any item to any item, regardless of its place in any hierarchy, so
you get a web rather than a tree. By choosing your topic you see all the topics linked to
it, regardless of where they might be if the items were tree-based.

I see this as
being a graphical version of a web or wiki page - it's a network. Some people like that
sort of thing. Others like the tree structure, which is inherently neat and
understandable. I use tree-based outliners, but hate the way most handle internal
linking, and wondered whether graphical interfaces would help.

By the way, I've
seen the current Personal Brain 4 beta and it seems to me to still be all over the place,
so I think there's a way to go yet ....

Graham

One navigational approach has been overlooked in this discussion: Wikis. And, in particular, Connected Text, which may be unique in the number of navigational schemes it uses. First, of course, is the Wiki linking, which makes every item a parent to all the items linked to it. Then, the developer has installed the graphical navigator, which seems to operate similarly to Personal Brain -- though, not with as much nimbleness. Finally, Connected Text has a topics panel, which is basically an index of topics (or items). This topics panel acts very similarly to the hierarchical tree of most two-panel outliners, except that each topic is listed at top level with all the topics it is linked to listed as sub topics. Very ingenious, I think.

Steve Z.

Cassius wrote:

I have never been a "visual" thinker and so have never used mind mapping. I have
occasionally tlloed at a mind map screen shot, but all I've seen seem to be capable of
being re-expressed as a left-pane outline. Am I missing something?

I think you actually may be. It can be surprising how many people saw little special value in mindmapping, until they actually seriously tried it. I, for example, never seriously tried mindmapping because it seem ridiculuous, until it was recommended by a legal writing expert that I respect. It really is hard to see why mindmapping should be as effective as it is. Essentially, I think, it is the most effective way I know of to bring chunks of information before your mind.

But then, others, like Dominick, have obviously used mindmapping extensively, and still find little specific value. Who benefits and who doesn't. One thought I've had is that the "visual thinker" angle is misleading. Consider that the virtue of *any* outline is that it uses consistent visual cues to indicate the relationsips between parts and wholes. The difference is that in a mind map, the visual cues are more prominent. I think it may in fact be those who are NOT visual thinkers who benefit most. If spatial visualization is not a strength, the mindmap provides a visible spatial structure, perhaps substituting for less conscious and inexplicit visual structuring that the _low_ visual thinker might find harder to generate.

Connected Text's mixture of graphical and tree-based navigation is exactly what I'd like to see more tools have. But its editor is, to me, very backward and labour intensive, requiring all sorts of tags and reminding me of the word processor I was using in 1985. When I saw that, I uninstalled it in a hurry ...

Graham

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

One navigational approach has been overlooked in this discussion: Wikis. And, in
particular, Connected Text, which may be unique in the number of navigational
schemes it uses. First, of course, is the Wiki linking, which makes every item a parent
to all the items linked to it. Then, the developer has installed the graphical
navigator, which seems to operate similarly to Personal Brain -- though, not with as
much nimbleness. Finally, Connected Text has a topics panel, which is basically an
index of topics (or items). This topics panel acts very similarly to the hierarchical
tree of most two-panel outliners, except that each topic is listed at top level with
all the topics it is linked to listed as sub topics. Very ingenious, I think.

Steve Z.

Graham Rhind wrote:

I think a distinction needs to be made between mind maps (as I know them, which, as
Cassius said, could be expressed in a tree-like linear form); and non-tree-like
navigation/outliner systems, such as Personal Brain.

An item in a tree can have one
parent, and multiple children. That's the basis and at the same time the limitation.
After that, most tree-like outliners have to think of (mostly awkward) ways of
creating internal links between branches, such as creating virtual copies of the
files or having text wiki links.

This is where I thought UR exceled. Consider the screenshot below:

http://www.kinook.com/UltraRecall/Screenshots/AdvSearch.png

What caught my attention about this program was the iittle frame in the lower right hand corner, "Item parents". What that means is that you can place the item in multiple places in the tree and see, in one shot, where all those places are. A click on the folder or item in this frame brings you to that spot in the tree. This provides perspective and makes navigation much more nimble. It's a very simple idea but very effective. Indeed, I found this list to be much more effective than trying to follow the connections in PB3.

Tom S.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

"I think it may in fact be those who are NOT visual thinkers who benefit most [from mind maps]. If spatial visualization is not a strength, the mindmap provides a visible spatial structure, perhaps substituting for less conscious and inexplicit visual structuring that the _low_ visual thinker might find harder to generate."

I agree; I consider myself a highly visual thinker and find PC mind maps overtly simplistic; nowadays I use them regularly for presentation purposes only.

Re navigation, I think the issue is practical; if I had two monitors side-by-side, I would consider using a mind map or PB for navigation. On a regular single monitor setup though, an outliner tree column is much more effective in terms of screen real estate.

alx

Tom S, said, "This is where I thought UR exceled. Consider the screenshot below:

http://www.kinook.com/UltraRecall/Screenshots/AdvSearch.png

"What caught my attention about this program was the iittle frame in the lower right hand corner, “Item parents”. What that means is that you can place the item in multiple places in the tree and see, in one shot, where all those places are. A click on the folder or item in this frame brings you to that spot in the tree. This provides perspective and makes navigation much more nimble. It’s a very simple idea but very effective. Indeed, I found this list to be much more effective than trying to follow the connections in PB3."

Tom,
This appears to be a marvelous means of "surfing" one's PIM files. I'll have to see if my trial copy of UR is still working. Way back in the 5-1/4 floppy DOS days, I had a program (called something like 'Black Magic') that used hyperlinks as the means of navigating from one info item to the next and back. Seemed like a great idea, but I easily became lost. This UR method gives one an anchor.

Not having tried it yet, I have one question about it. In the GrandView Categories-Assignments view, one could find all outline items related to a specific assignment. [If you've never used GV, think of an assignment as a keyword.] Because GV is a single-pane outliner (no tree) an individual outline item found this way might make no sense because its "lineage" (parent, grandparent, etc.) is not shown. I finally created a macro to display the lineage so I'd know the "context" of the outline item. If I understand you correctly, the UR tree fulfills this purpose.

-c

Both Steve D and Alex D have suggested that non-visual thinkers might benefit most from using mind maps. Not me! When I look at a mind map graphic, the first thing that comes to mind is "scatter brained." I have used structured diagrams to explicate processes that are difficult to follow when described using only text. Text tries to show some order /structure through the use of commas, dashes, quote marks, parentheses, brackets, braces, etc. {[(" '--,,--' " ,)]}}, but this doesn't work very well for complex descriptions {;-)

It has been said of smart people (certainly, all of us) that their thinking often goes off on tangents, some of which are fruitful. Perhaps the "fruitful" is what distinguishes "smart tangents" from "scatter brained," or ... perhaps not.

Anyway, I find it fun to "tangent," although you may well find my wanderings irksome.

-c

Cassius wrote:

Both Steve D and Alex D have suggested that non-visual thinkers might benefit most
from using mind maps. Not me! When I look at a mind map graphic, the first thing that
comes to mind is "scatter brained." I have used structured diagrams to explicate
processes that are difficult to follow when described using only text. Text tries to
show some order /structure through the use of commas, dashes, quote marks,
parentheses, brackets, braces, etc. {[(" '--,,--' " ,)]}}, but this doesn't work
very well for complex descriptions {;-)

I'm not sure I follow. You like structured diagrams for complex processes but dislike mindmaps? Are you saying mindmaps are insufficiently structured?

I know I've seen many mindmaps that seem like fluff. What I think is important in an analytic mindmap is the same as in any structured diagram. I find there are pre-conditions for using them. You need to have enough faimiliarity with he information that you can represent complex ideas by simple phrases. Basically, I find that mindmapping is a tool for loading short term memory with a lot of information. It presupposes that you have already chunked the material by some other means.

Daly de Gagne wrote:

have downloaded VM 8, and it seems much more stable.

Version 9 is out in a public beta. I think the stability has improved further. To my taste, it looks nicer too. What attracted me to V-M and still does to an degree is that it is the most nimble to manipulate. Visi-Map seems to have been designed more systematically, due I think to its long heritage, from a strictly technical standpoint it may be the most backward.

I said, "When I look at a mind map graphic, the first thing that comes to mind is “scatter brained.” I have used structured diagrams to explicate processes that are difficult to follow when described using only text."

Steve Diamond replied, I’m not sure I follow. You like structured diagrams for complex processes but dislike mindmaps? Are you saying mindmaps are insufficiently structured?"

Yes, the mind maps I've seen have been like the fluff you refer to--hardly any structure. One might as well put the nodes in a list.

I do not use structured diagrams for my own use, except when I am presented with one (say, from a contractor) and go through it to be sure it is logical and complete. I use structured diagrams to explicate, for others, processes that would be difficult to convey with text. For example, I used Inspiration to create an aviation "Benefit Estimation - Accident Analysis Process"
for estimating the impact of a proposed accident/fatality "product." As I developed the process,I seem instinctively to know what to do.

I use PIMs basically as a memory tool: To collect information from outside sources and to remind myself of ideas, etc. I've thought of, but which my brain may later have mislaid. If I were to liken my mind to a computer, I would say that the processor runs rather well, but the hard drive has a mis-aligned read head and some bad surface spots. A PIM is my hard drive crutch.

Steve D: If you wish to see this diagram, I'll email it to you in Word 2000 or RTF format, if you send a request to my "Chock-Full-of-Spam" email address: werauntie@yahoo.com. Please send the request within 2 days or it will become hidden under all the new spam.

-c


-c

It does but I believe its only only to one level. So, unless the newest version is different, you will only see the parent to one level (parent) not to grand parents.

Tom S.

Cassius wrote:

I do not use structured diagrams for my own use, except when I am
presented with one (say, from a contractor) and go through it to be sure it is logical
and complete. I use structured diagrams to explicate, for others, processes that
would be difficult to convey with text. For example, I used Inspiration to create an
aviation "Benefit Estimation - Accident Analysis Process"
for estimating the
impact of a proposed accident/fatality "product." As I developed the process,I seem
instinctively to know what to do.

Have you tried Axon Thought Processor?

alx

P.S. I've taken the liberty of sending you a message to the e-mail address you gave as I'd be very interested in seeing the diagram you mentioned.

Alex,

Check your email.

Axon Idea Processor.

-c