Do I have to use differently depending on the picking situation for USX, DSX, and DBX? In other words, is it good to be able to do each motion? Also, does Pick Slanting have to fit each escape motion? For example, UWPS or Zero-degrees Pick slanting in a USX situation.
And , How do DSX users play on lines that need to escape up, such as pentatonic scale descending? I think I’m usually USX, but the direction of the peak is close to zero-degrees. I’ll be waiting for your answer!
I think most (if not all) well known players developed their lines based on what came naturally to them, so if they have, for example, a strict USX style, then DSX lines would seem foreign to them.
If you goal is to play any possible line in the way it’s “supposed” to be played, then yes, you’d have to develop DSX / USX / DBX, or a motion that has a secondary to allow for double escapes.
I think you need to reread the advice given on your previous thread, particularly Troy’s advice to not try and “do a pickslant”. This sort of micromanagement doesn’t tend to work.
It’s recommended to get a fast tremolo on one string first. Film that and figure out what escape you are using etc. Then practice phrases that match.
Most players interviewed showed they stick relatively close to a primary motion. Then some use secondary motions, sweeps, swipes etc etc.
Thank you for answering my questions! You’ve been a great help. I think I need to figure out my movements according to the advice you gave me.
This is a great and very compact summary of what generally happens!
As others have indicated, great players don’t usually “play anything”. Instead, the choices they make develop alongside the motions they know. They generally become good at lines that fit their motion, and then they may add in other “helper” motions or techniques to get slightly more lines. But these are usually only as an addition to the primary technique. These different picking styles have slightly different mechanical capabilities, so the vocabulary is slightly different for each of them. You can think of it like learning a language. Not every phrase in English is available exactly the same way in other languages, but the overall capability to communicate is similar.
Thanks for your advice! Now i know about the primary plus secondary motion. But, i still cofuse it with TWPS. TWPS is dead words now? Or, Is this changed into “Primary Plus Secondary Motion” ? If so, Antigravjth Seminar is still useful for me? I want to learn about the more…
I will soon upload tab that i think it is related to this topic and also join the masters in mechanics!
Thanks!
Long answer: Picking Motion – Cracking the Code 
Short-ish answer:
In a nutshell, we separated two different concepts that were previously bunched together:
Pickslanting = orientation of the pick
escape motion / picking motion in general = what is the path the pick is travelling.
In the updated language, TWPS would mean that you change the actual orientation of the pick. This happens for example in Gambale’s playing when he changes directions while sweeping (DWPS for downstroke sweeping, UWPS for upstroke sweeping).
In the “mixed escapes” styles of playing, there is often no need to change the slant of the pick to perform the “secondary escape”. So we decided that TWPS would be misleading for this type of playing.
I think Antigravity is still very valuable, provided that you approach it with this updated knowledge 
Thank you for your kindness! I think I need to do some more research! So, the previous concepts of escape motion is separated into two different concepts, Pick Slanting And Picking Motion ( Escape motion ) And the mixed escape isn’t TWPS. Then, I have to see Antigravity Seminar with idea that, TWPS in old seminar is now Mixed escape( Secondary Motion ). Am I right…?
Yes! Or more precisely:
some players may actually do a bit of TWPS when they play mixed escape stuff
other players (e.g. andy wood) keep pickslanting constant and only change the direction of motion