# SALOW Notation for Curvy Copter.



## Sion (Aug 14, 2019)

Spoiler: Archived-Outdated











Spoiler: Archived-Outdated









Spoiler: Archived-Outdated









Spoiler: Archived-Outdated


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 14, 2019)

"clockwise" is a relative term. The letterings are only clockwise if you look at the cube from the bottom. Also something tells me the algorithm you have is not right since I is not adjacent to either of the other two letters used.

That being said, this is essentially the best notation possible if all twelve edges have to be used.


----------



## Sion (Aug 14, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> "clockwise" is a relative term. The letterings are only clockwise if you look at the cube from the bottom. Also something tells me the algorithm you have is not right since I is not adjacent to either of the other two letters used.
> 
> That being said, this is essentially the best notation possible if all twelve edges have to be used.




Thanks for the feedback; I feel honored. Care to make some changes to the alg?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 14, 2019)

My only comment to this is that we used to have a megaminx scrambling notation with a bunch of letters, and it was completely impractical. I wonder if it would actually be better to just use the two letter designations directly, so instead of I F+ B F+, why not simply DL FR+ UF FR+? It's longer, but probably a lot easier, especially for someone who's not too familiar with scrambling.


----------



## Sion (Aug 14, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> My only comment to this is that we used to have a megaminx scrambling notation with a bunch of letters, and it was completely impractical. I wonder if it would actually be better to just use the two letter designations directly, so instead of I F+ B F+, why not simply DL FR+ UF FR+? It's longer, but probably a lot easier, especially for someone who's not too familiar with scrambling.




My idea was that it would be less intimidating to get involved if everything was on a one letter basis. It would also account for the fact that curvy copter is a completely new puzzle compared to anything else. 

Also, I also thought of the complications of how the letters would go in order, for example being RU or UR? I'm sure this would more than confuse people who are new to cubing.


----------



## superphluous (Aug 14, 2019)

Sion said:


> My idea was that it would be less intimidating to get involved if everything was on a one letter basis. It would also account for the fact that curvy copter is a completely new puzzle compared to anything else.



I feel like it's a more intimidating to have to learn the piece that each letter refers to than just having more letters in a move.



Sion said:


> Also, I also thought of the complications of how the letters would go in order, for example being RU or UR? I'm sure this would more than confuse people who are new to cubing.


The order of the letters wouldn't matter, because RU and UR refer to the same piece, and therefore the same turn.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 14, 2019)

Sion said:


> Thanks for the feedback; I feel honored. Care to make some changes to the alg?


I see him doing a lot of (C+ E+) B (C- E-) moves.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

I think using the + and - for the partial turns is actually a really good and simple solution. I do think using something a notation of the Side and then top,bottom, and side would be better. So like FU LD RU FR LU FR y2 ... to do the initial scramble, then use those kinds of pairs with jumbling +\- to do scrambles like squan


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

Update: I'm going to buy a curvy copter tomorrow, so I will be able to describe the notation (Traditional Positionative and A-L Sion notation variants) in better detail.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Update: I'm going to buy a curvy copter tomorrow, so I will be able to describe the notation (Traditional Positionative and A-L Sion notation variants) in better detail.


Nice! I’d get the lan lan. The cubicle also makes stickers for it btw


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

I agree with the people above - just using things like "FR" is much more clear than "F" and is easier for most people to figure out. As for the orders of the letters (FR vs. RF), we would just need a standard. For example, F/B is the most important, followed by U/D, followed by L/R. For example, FL would never be LF, and UR would never RU.
What about partial turns below 180 degrees? I'm not too familiar with the curvy copter, but would two partial clockwise turns on FR be "FR++", or would it always end up being a 180 degree turn?
Everything else is great though!


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Two partial turns would, using R/L, U/D, F/B Order, would be, in your case: RF. However, in reconstruction, where someone would do two F+ moves, it would be RF+ RF+.


So to be clear, does doing two partial turns always end up in the same place as doing a 180?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Two partial turns would, using R/L, U/D, F/B Order, would be, in your case: RF. However, in reconstruction, where someone would do two F+ moves, it would be RF+ RF+.


I think it would be much easier if turns between 90 and 180 degrees were denoted with F++ or RF++ instead of writing double moves. 


Aerma said:


> So to be clear, does doing two partial turns always end up in the same place as doing a 180?


No, this puzzle is too interesting for that.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> I think it would be much easier if turns between 90 and 180 degrees were denoted with F++ or RF++ instead of writing double moves.
> 
> No, this puzzle is too interesting for that.



yeah, that's a good idea, but wouldn't that technically cancel out to an RF-?

I'll technically find out tomorrow, lol.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> yeah, that's a good idea, but wouldn't that technically cancel out to an RF-?
> 
> I'll technically find out tomorrow, lol.


No, because RF- is 180 degrees away from RF++.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> No, because RF- is 180 degrees away from RF++.



Would you be able to make any jumbling moves from the position of RF++?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Would you be able to make any jumbling moves from the position of RF++?


From solved, RF++ would take the puzzle to the same shape as RF-, some of the pieces would just be in different places. So yes, you would be able to continue jumbling.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Would you be able to make any jumbling moves from the position of RF++?


Yes, UF should be able to jumble. There you have to perform six partial turns to return to the original state on an edge btw.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> From solved, RF++ would take the puzzle to the same shape as RF-, some of the pieces would just be in different places. So yes, you would be able to continue jumbling



So RF++ is the opposite of RF-, and RF-- is the opposite of RF+? So would it be possible to call RF++ RF-' and RF-- RF+'?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> So RF++ is the opposite of RF-, and RF-- is the opposite of RF+? So would it be possible to call RF++ RF-' and RF-- RF+'?


It would be turned the same way but the center petals would be in different spots. So algs that would solve those later or swap them would have to be very specific.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> So RF++ is the opposite of RF-, and RF-- is the opposite of RF+? So would it be possible to call RF++ RF-' and RF-- RF+'?


In a jumbled position this might not be the case though? Like in the part of a scramble where you're jumblind the cube, FR++ could be different from FR which could be different from FR+ , which could differ from FR-


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Two partial turns would, using R/L, U/D, F/B Order, would be, in your case: RF. However, in reconstruction, where someone would do two F+ moves, it would be RF+ RF+.


I just checked this and two partial turns is not equal to 180


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> So RF++ is the opposite of RF-, and RF-- is the opposite of RF+? So would it be possible to call RF++ RF-' and RF-- RF+'?


Sure you could call them that, but RF-' certainly makes less sense than RF++ since RF++ would denote a ~110 degree clockwise turn.


Aerma said:


> In a jumbled position this might not be the case though? Like in the part of a scramble where you're jumblind the cube, FR++ could be different from FR which could be different from FR+ , which could differ from FR-


Yes, it should be normal for all of these to be distinct legal moves (as they are when the cube is in the solved state).


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

Aerma said:


> In a jumbled position this might not be the case though? Like in the part of a scramble where you're jumblind the cube, FR++ could be different from FR which could be different from FR+ , which could differ from FR-



This is true. 

I'm guessing it can go like this: (neutral), RF+, RF--/RF+', RF, RF++/RF-', RF-,(neutral)?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> This is true.
> 
> I'm guessing it can go like this: (neutral), RF+, RF--/RF+', RF, RF++/RF-', RF-,(neutral)?


I imagined that RF++ would be the move in between RF+ and RF (at least that's what makes the most sense to me).


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> I imagined that RF++ would be the move in between RF+ and RF (at least that's what makes the most sense to me).


That’s how I am interpreting it as well. I’ve got my CC here and I’m doing the different moves as this thread is progressing


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> I imagined that RF++ would be the move in between RF+ and RF (at least that's what makes the most sense to me).



I'll be able to make more sense of it once I get my hands on a curvy copter tomorrow.

So you'd say RF+, RF-', RF, RF+', then RF-?


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 15, 2019)

A have an idea: Since this notation is kind of like Old Megaminx notation, maybe we can improve it just like Megaminx.......

Hold one corner and do moves like wide R2 and D2 only, like Megaminx.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Basically if you have a solved cube and you turn the FR edge it would go FR+,FR++,FR(180 degrees), FR- -, FR -, original state


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> A have an idea: Since this notation is kind of like Old Megaminx notation, maybe we can improve it just like Megaminx.......
> 
> Hold one corner and do moves like wide R2 and D2 only, like Megaminx.


I have played around with that already and I don’t think that’s the way to go. Especially with jumbling. That would make it really awkward to do jumbling scrambles. I think Sion so far has the best solution for the jumbling notation of +/-


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> Basically if you have a silver cube and you turn the FR edge it would go FR+,FR++,FR(180 degrees), FR- -, FR -, original state



While I like R++, I still think calling R++ R-' makes more sense since it is the positional inverse of R-, kind of like how U' is the inverse of U on 3x3.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> While I like R++, I still think calling R++ R-' makes more sense since it is the positional inverse of R-, kind of like how U' is the inverse of U on 3x3.


I understand it’s the positional inverse, but I think it needs to be ++ because if you only go by the position of the edge it’s the same but the four petals around each turning edge would be in different locations. Also as a side note I think it would look weird to have +’ since megamimx already uses ++. But from a scrambling point it would be identically if you’re just going for the manipulation of shape after doing some initial scramble to put the cube in a random state before jumbling.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> I understand it’s the positional inverse, but I think it needs to be ++ because if you only go by the position of the edge it’s the same but the four petals around each turning edge would be in different locations. Also as a side note I think it would look weird to have +’ since megamimx already uses ++. But from a scrambling point it would be identically if you’re just going for the manipulation of shape after doing some initial scramble to put the cube in a random state before jumbling.




Perhaps we could use forward and back slashes, so it could be RF/, RF//, RF, R\\, R\, which could differentiate CC from Mega, especially since something like F+ is completely different from F.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> I understand it’s the positional inverse, but I think it needs to be ++ because if you only go by the position of the edge it’s the same but the four petals around each turning edge would be in different locations. Also as a side note I think it would look weird to have +’ since megamimx already uses ++. But from a scrambling point it would be identically if you’re just going for the manipulation of shape after doing some initial scramble to put the cube in a random state before jumbling.


If I understand this correct, I agree. So hypothetically in jumbled states these might all be different moves: FR, FR+, FR++, FR-, FR--


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Aerma said:


> If I understand this correct, I agree. So hypothetically in jumbled states these might all be different moves: FR, FR+, FR++, FR-, FR--


Yeah. I’m not completely sure as I never messed with jumbling. But in theory those moves could potentially swap different petal pieces so I think notation definitely needs to be specific


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

Actually, on second thought, Using RF/, RF//, RF, RF\\, and RF\ would make much more sense literally since you're turning jumbling moves on angles.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Perhaps we could use forward and back slashes, so it could be RF/, RF//, RF, R\\, R\, which could differentiate CC from Mega, especially since something like F+ is completely different from F.


Really good idea IMO. 

Just to be clear, each edge can have 6 possible placements, right?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> Really good idea IMO.
> 
> Just to be clear, each edge can have 6 possible placements, right?


Yep!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Actually, on second thought, Using RF/, RF//, RF, RF\\, and RF\ would make much more sense literally since you're turning jumbling moves on angles.


Yeah that I think that is better too


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

This is great development. I'll be updating the word files tomorrow with all of the community changes.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

So RedKB's center-swap alg would be like this?: UR/ FL/ UF UR\ FL\


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> This is great development. I'll be updating the word files tomorrow with all of the community changes.


Nice! Just to be clear, is every so far in agreement that the ideal scramble would be like squan where initially the puzzle is just put in a random state, then jumbling moves are applied?


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2019)

Also just for even more clarity: At 4:40 in RedKB's jumbling tutorial the algorithm he does would be this, correct?: FD FR/ FU FR/
It's a bit hard to tell from video :/


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Aerma said:


> Also just for even more clarity: At 4:40 in RedKB's jumbling tutorial the algorithm he does would be this, correct?: FD FR/ FU FR/
> It's a bit hard to tell from video :/


It should be FD FR// FU FR/ since the FR edge turns a full 180 degrees during the algorithm.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 15, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> Nice! Just to be clear, is every so far in agreement that the ideal scramble would be like squan where initially the puzzle is just put in a random state, then jumbling moves are applied?



The state that is randomly generated is the eventual state in the end, not a state in a subgroup.

Any notation ideas that have been discussed here so far make me strongly not want this as an official WCA event ever.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

I would like to let everyone know the front page has been updated based on user suggestions. I'm confident a program developer can make a random state scrambler using SALOW notation for Curvy Copter.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> The state that is randomly generated is the eventual state in the end, not a state in a subgroup.
> 
> Any notation ideas that have been discussed here so far make me strongly not want this as an official WCA event ever.


It's definitely easier to write a scrambler that first randomly permutes the pieces before randomly jumbling them, which of course has the same effect as long as the jumbles are chosen with the correct probabilities.

Making this a WCA event is definitely worth it for the 4/654117 chance each scramble that the cube starts in the meson shape /s


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 15, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> It's definitely easier to write a scrambler that first randomly permutes the pieces before randomly jumbling them, which of course has the same effect as long as the jumbles are chosen with the correct probabilities.



I don't disagree, but I'm pretty sure that methodology is not how the current Sq1 scrambler works.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> I don't disagree, but I'm pretty sure that methodology is not how the current Sq1 scrambler works.



Whatever the case, I'm really excited as we now have a notation that is viable to put in a Random State Scrambler, Algorithms, and Reconstructions.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> Any notation ideas that have been discussed here so far make me strongly not want this as an official WCA event ever.


Oh same.

The front/back slash notation looks supremely confusing. If / and \ are supposed to be "atomic" clockwise and anticlockwise turns (70 degrees or 40 degrees, depending), and if // and \\ are inverses of \ and / respectively, how the heck would // and / differ? You're just arbitrarily deciding that one of them should refer to 180° + an atomic turn. Also, why / for clockwise and \ for anticlockwise?

Just use notation like UF1, UF2, UF3, UF2', UF1' (the "1"s may be omitted) to denote however many atomic turns of that one edge, imo.



Kit Clement said:


> I don't disagree, but I'm pretty sure that methodology is not how the current Sq1 scrambler works.


Sure, but maybe for the Curvy Copter it'd be easier to use this approach rather than directly coding a solver that can handle arbitrary jumbled shapes.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Oh same.
> 
> The front/back slash notation looks supremely confusing. If / and \ are supposed to be "atomic" clockwise and anticlockwise turns (70 degrees or 40 degrees, depending), and if // and \\ are inverses of \ and / respectively, how the heck would // and / differ? You're just arbitrarily deciding that one of them should refer to 180° + an atomic turn. Also, why / for clockwise and \ for anticlockwise?
> 
> Just use notation like UF1, UF2, UF3, UF2', UF1' (the "1"s may be omitted) to denote however many atomic turns of that one edge, imo.



You swapped "/" and "\", but generally speaking, it's if it were on a clock, the direction that would be fastest for the top of the slash to reach 12 o'clock. 
As for your system, in SALOW, "UF2" is the equivalent of "U4" on 3x3.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> The state that is randomly generated is the eventual state in the end, not a state in a subgroup.
> 
> Any notation ideas that have been discussed here so far make me strongly not want this as an official WCA event ever.


I don’t blame you. It is a bit of a mess right now, but right now things are still developing in the growing pains stage. This is the first time curvy copper has really been discussed seriously in a long time. Hopefully things can be more polished over time.


----------



## superphluous (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> As for your system, in SALOW, "UF2" is the equivalent of "U4" on 3x3.


I think you misunderstood xyzzy - he's proposing a different way to write the notation. UF2 in SALOW notation would be UF// (or is it UF\\? further proving his point that the slashes are extremely confusing). I think using numbers is much clearer and much easier to read than slashes.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 15, 2019)

superphluous said:


> I think you misunderstood xyzzy - he's proposing a different way to write the notation. UF2 in SALOW notation would be UF// (or is it UF\\? further proving his point that the slashes are extremely confusing). I think using numbers is much clearer and much easier to read than slashes.


Haha, yeah. (I didn't read carefully enough, so mixing up / and \ is totally my fault. But I still stand by my claim that it's confusing.)


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Haha, yeah. (I didn't read carefully enough, so mixing up / and \ is totally my fault. But I still stand by my claim that it's confusing.)


I agree it is confusing now. basically the way I look at it, the slash mirrors the position of the edge. FR\ is one partial turn of the FR edge and the edge is tilted like the slash. We may need to look into this system more to improve it


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Aug 15, 2019)

Curvy copter and helicopter cubes are not the same thing correct?

EDIT: Nevermind googled it lol.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> I agree it is confusing now. basically the way I look at it, the slash mirrors the position of the edge. FR\ is one partial turn of the FR edge and the edge is tilted like the slash. We may need to look into this system more to improve it


Oops I guess I had the directions mixed up too, not to mention this idea doesn’t quite make sense when the cube is heavily jumbled. I’d much prefer numbers or +/- to this notation.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Oops I guess I had the directions mixed up too, not to mention this idea doesn’t quite make sense when the cube is heavily jumbled. I’d much prefer numbers or +/- to this notation.



I'll be going to get my curvy copter today, so that might help for sure. 

I do think the slashes look the cleanest on paper.

Numbers can get confusing if you aren't used to 3x3, and that everything in non jumbling would be considered RF3, which could be rediculous when it could simply be noted as "RF". 

As for the +/- system, I'm afraid that it could resemble mega scrambling notation too much, which could more than easily confuse the scramblers since ++ in megaminx is not the same as ++ or \\ in Curvy Copter.


----------



## Sion (Aug 15, 2019)

Good news: I just got a curvy copter; I am realizing what might be the best system is this:

RF+, RF+', RF, RF-', RF. RF-' is the inverse of RF+, and RF+' is the inverse of RF-.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 15, 2019)

Sion said:


> Good news: I just got a curvy copter; I am realizing what might be the best system is this:
> 
> RF+, RF+', RF, RF-', RF. RF-' is the inverse of RF+, and RF+' is the inverse of RF-.


That still doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't that make RF+ turning the puzzle the smallest amount clockwise and RF- turning the puzzle the second smallest amount counterclockwise (since the smallest amount counterclockwise would necessarily be RF-', the inverse of RF+)?


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 15, 2019)

Wait, so what exactly are these moves’ notation? I am not catching up:
(Clockwise)
45
135
180
(Anti-clockwise)
45
135

Edit: Nevermind.


----------



## Sion (Aug 16, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> That still doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't that make RF+ turning the puzzle the smallest amount clockwise and RF- turning the puzzle the second smallest amount counterclockwise (since the smallest amount counterclockwise would necessarily be RF-', the inverse of RF+)?


I'll be making new sheets tonight.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 16, 2019)

Also when I made the order of importance of sides, I meant for F/B to go in front of R/L  It doesn't really matter and you can keep it how it is if you prefer though


----------



## Sion (Aug 16, 2019)

Updated Front Page with three possible styles of notation that seem to work; I'm personally a fan of the first and third; the second might get confusing when the cube is completely jumbled.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 16, 2019)

The images make things a lot more clear, and I'm a fan of the first


----------



## Sion (Aug 16, 2019)

Aerma said:


> The images make things a lot more clear, and I'm a fan of the first


|

Agreed, definitely.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 16, 2019)

I think we can simplify scrambles even more if we use slightly different edge notation. We could use LU, LD, FU, FD, FL, FR, RU, and RD, and then just use y2s. Thoughts?


----------



## Sion (Aug 16, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> I think we can simplify scrambles even more if we use slightly different edge notation. We could use LU, LD, FU, FD, FL, FR, RU, and RD, and then just use y2s. Thoughts?



Jumbling would need to be in the scramble, or jumbling moves would be useless in a solve. It's best the cube comes scrambled outside of cubeshape.

I'm thinking 12 normal moves, 6 jumble-swaps, and 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 16, 2019)

Sion said:


> Jumbling would need to be in the scramble, or jumbling moves would be useless in a solve. It's best the cube comes scrambled outside of cubeshape.
> 
> I'm thinking 12 normal moves, 6 jumble-swaps, and 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape.


I don’t think 12 is enough. I think 16-20 would be better. The reason I brought that notation up is that it would really be simple to just do a y2 instead of keeping track of back edges.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 16, 2019)

Sion said:


> Jumbling would need to be in the scramble, or jumbling moves would be useless in a solve. It's best the cube comes scrambled outside of cubeshape.
> 
> I'm thinking 12 normal moves, 6 jumble-swaps, and 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape.





OreKehStrah said:


> I don’t think 12 is enough. I think 16-20 would be better. The reason I brought that notation up is that it would really be simple to just do a y2 instead of keeping track of back edges.


I'm with Ore - 12 isn't enough.
More importantly, 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape is not nearaly enough, isn't god's number for getting a position into cubeshape something like 24?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 16, 2019)

Sion said:


> Jumbling would need to be in the scramble, or jumbling moves would be useless in a solve. It's best the cube comes scrambled outside of cubeshape.
> 
> I'm thinking 12 normal moves, 6 jumble-swaps, and 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape.


None of those are nearly enough to make the cube reasonably well scrambled. There's a reason this event does and always will take much longer to do than squan.

I think a random state scrambler for a cubeshape puzzle is probably feasible, although a megaminx-style scramble would work just fine as long as it is long enough (say 40-50 moves?) and has several jumble-swaps. At the very least the shape should be chosen at random, since it's quite easy to generate optimal scramble sequences for the entire shape space beforehand. As you can read here (anyone remotely curious about this puzzle should read everything this link has to offer), the farthest shape from cubeshape is 28 moves. which is not so much that it is unreasonable as an official event (although the jumbling is quite difficult).

WRT notation, I think using numbers (FR2 for a ~110 degree clockwise turn from solved) is definitely the most viable notation, since it should be quite obvious to anyone familiar with the puzzle what this notation describes, even without any further explanation.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 16, 2019)

@Sion, *the system is now fantastic but is it possible to not use +, -, slashes or numbers to describe jumbling moves?*


The random state generator needs to be at least 40 moves long with 10+ jumbling moves and 10+ shape shift moves IMO.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 16, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> @Sion, *the system is now fantastic but is it possible to not use +, -, slashes or numbers to describe jumbling moves?*
> 
> 
> The random state generator needs to be at least 40 moves long with 10+ jumbling moves and 10+ shape shift moves IMO.


I just thought of a way to do that but it might not be the greatest system but it’s worth discussing I think. 

Why not use a parenthesis style notation for jumbling? A simple example that picks up where the discussion has been would be at the FR edge. It could be (FR,FU) where the first edge is the partially turned edge, and the second edge is the edge that is turned 180 degrees. 

Each edge has six states. If you examine the states on the solved puzzle, one is the solved state, and another is the 180 degree turn state. The other four states of the edge, let’s assume in this case the FR edge still, all have a unique jumble case with FU, FD, RU, or RD. 

The first partial turn of FR can jumble turn FD and RU, and affects the left top or bottom right petals of the edge depending on which full turn is done( FD or RU)
The Second PT jumbles FU and RD and these would change the other two petals. 

Therefore this notation should be able to cover the four different ways to jumble the edge without any + - / \ etc. 

I just thought about this as I read WishLins post so there may be some flaws I haven’t thought of yet, but that’s why we discuss things!


----------



## Sion (Aug 16, 2019)

I was thinking. Wouldn't the Right positive jumble be written as:

RU+ LF+ RF RU- LF-?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 16, 2019)

Sion said:


> I was thinking. Wouldn't the Right positive jumble be written as:
> 
> RU+ LF+ RF RU- LF-?


Middle move should be FU.


----------



## Sion (Aug 16, 2019)

I just realized how much has been fleshed out. We might as well try to write out the different types of jumbles soon to prove its functionality.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 16, 2019)

I have an idea: Why not use 2s? This will distinguish the jumbling notation away from normal notation, thus solving @Sion ’s original concern.

Take UF edge as an example, The six possible positions counting clockwise will be:

UF+
UF++
UF2
UF- -
UF-
No moves

This is super intuitive even to people that haven’t see anything about this(@Sion ‘s version still need to explain the ‘ )


----------



## One Wheel (Aug 16, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> I have an idea: Why not use 2s? This will distinguish the jumbling notation away from normal notation, thus solving @Sion ’s original concern.
> 
> Take UF edge as an example, The six possible positions counting clockwise will be:
> 
> ...


This makes sense, except that if an edge is not turned it doesn’t need to be notated. So turning clockwise you would go through:
UF+
UF++
UF
UF - -
UF -
No turn (no notation)


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 16, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> This makes sense, except that if an edge is not turned it doesn’t need to be notated. So turning clockwise you would go through:
> UF+
> UF++
> UF
> ...


Yes, my point is just that @Sion concerned about that UF and UF+ are totally different moves, so I added a “2” to distinguish.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 17, 2019)

Am currently working on a Curvy copter solver to be used in a random state scrambler. Thus far I have examined the scramble space when only the top 4 edges are twisted without jumbling. Average optimal solution is ~13.64 moves with longest being 20 moves from the superflip (only edges are unsolved). Will update as I continue.

EDIT: The above describes phase 4 of the solution, solving the cube once it can be done so with only U edge moves.

Phase 3 is reducing from U edge moves and FR, BL to just U edge moves. This takes ~13.92 moves on average and at most 19.
Phase 2 is reducing from non-D edges to the above listed state. This takes ~13.81 moves on average and at most 20.

The fact that these are all essentially the same is fairly satisfying.
Phase 1 is solving the D edges and centers. This takes ~8.18 moves on average and at most 12.

Thus this reduction solves the curvy copter once it can be done so without jumbling in an average of ~49.55 moves and at most 71 (hence 71 is an upper bound for God's number, which I suspect is between 30 and 40). For reference, the default length for random-move helicopter cube (non-jumbling) scrambles in cstimer is 40 moves.

Note: we can save more than one move on average by doing adjacent edges instead of opposite in phases 2 and 3, but this significantly increases the number of total cases for phase 2 and thus probably isn't worth the one move save (although it does reduce the bound for God's number to 70). In order to do better bounds for God's number doing 3 phases is feasible, but this is not helpful for generating scrambles quickly.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Aug 18, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> This makes sense, except that if an edge is not turned it doesn’t need to be notated. So turning clockwise you would go through:
> UF+
> UF++
> UF
> ...


I like this much more. Reminiscent of a Megaminx scramble, which has two pluses or minuses and is still used, despite it being slightly cumbersome to type out.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 19, 2019)

I can now generate random-state scrambles without jumbling (although I do not think this is especially impressive). I have yet to solve the problem of how to most efficiently reduce from any square shape scramble to one that can be solved without jumbling. Here are 12 scrambles for your amusement:


Spoiler: scrambles



0 UB UR UB UR UF UB UR UF UL UB UR RF UF LB UL UB UR UF LB UB UR UL UF UB LB LF UF UL RB UB UR UB UR RF UF UL UB LF RB DL DB DF LF UL UB DL DF RF
1 UR UB UR UF UB UL UB UR UF UL UF UR LB UL UF UR UB RF UF RF UF UR LB UL LB UL UF RF LF UL RB UR UB RB UR UB RB UR UF UL UF UB RB DR DB DF RF
2 UR UL UF UR UF UR UL UF UR UL UB UR UF UB UR UF RF UF RF LB UL UB LB UL UB UR UL UF UR RF LF UL RB UB UR UF LF UL UF LF UL RB UR UB UL UF RB DB DF DR DB DL DF DR DB DL DF
3 UF UL UF UR UB UR UF UR UB UR UB UL UF UL RF UR UB RF LB UL LB UL UF UB UR UF RF LB UB UR LF UL LF UL UF RF LF RB UR UB RF RB UB RB DB DL DR DB RB DF DL
4 UL UB UL UF UB UL UF UB UL UF UR UB RF LB UL UB UR RF UF UR UF UL RF UF LB UL LF UL RB UB UR UL UF RB UR UB UR LB UL LF UF DL LF LB DR RB UB UR UF RF DF
5 UF UB UR UF UR UL UF UR UF UL UF UL UF UB UL UF RF LB UL UF UR UF UB UL UF UB RF LB UL UB UR RF RB UR RF UF LF UF UR UB RF UR RB UB UR UL UF DB DR DB RB DF RF UR UB LB
6 UF UR UL UF UB UL UB UL UF UB UL RF LB UB UR UF UR UL UB UL UF UB LB UL UB UR LF UL LF RB UR UB UL UF UR UB UL RF UF DB RB UR LB UL UF RF
7 UB UL UF UR UB UL UF UB UL UF UL UB LB UB UR UF UL RF UR UF LB UB UL LB LF UL RB UR UF RB UR LB UL UB RB LB DR RB DF RF DL LF DB DF
8 UR UB UR UF UR UB UR UL UF UB UL RF UF UR UB RF UF RF LB UL UB LB UL UB UL UF LF UL LF UL UF LF UF UR RB UR UB RF UR DL DB LB DB DF LF UF DF LF
9 UF UR UB UR UF UB UR UF UL UB RF UF UR RF LB UL UF UB UR UF UL UB LB UL UB LB UL LF RB UR UF UL RF LF UL UF UB UR RB UB UL DB LB DR RB UR DB DR RB DF DR
10 UF UB UR UF UB UR UB UR UL UB UR UF UL RF UF UR RF LB UL UB UR UF UR UL UB LB UL UB LB LF UL UF LF UL UF RB UB UR UF LF RB LB UB LB DB LB DL DB DL DR DF
11 UR UL UB UL UF UL UF UR UL UB UL UF UB UL UF RF LB UB UR UF UR LB UL UB UL UF LB UB UL UB RB UB UR UL LF UF UL RF LF UF UL RF UR RB UB DB LB UL DL DF DR DF


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 19, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> I can now generate random-state scrambles without jumbling (although I do not think this is especially impressive). I have yet to solve the problem of how to most efficiently reduce from any square shape scramble to one that can be solved without jumbling. Here are 12 scrambles for your amusement:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: scrambles
> ...


Looks decent. Can you give me the source code or something?


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 19, 2019)

Ohhhh my god. I saw this thread and looked when it was one page. I thought to myself it would die off like most other threads but boy have you guys outdone yourselves. This all seems very confusing, but I think the numbers system works the best.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 19, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> Ohhhh my god. I saw this thread and looked when it was one page. I thought to myself it would die off like most other threads but boy have you guys outdone yourselves. This all seems very confusing, but I think the numbers system works the best.


Thanks. Hopefully this will only end after curvy copter is an WCA event.


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 19, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> Thanks. Hopefully this will only end after curvy copter is an WCA event.


And hopefully that means I can get a decent curvy copter cheap! Any suggestions for now?


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 19, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> And hopefully that means I can get a decent curvy copter cheap! Any suggestions for now?


I found Lanlan easier to jumble and Meffert's turns smoother. That depends on you.

I hope there will soon be Moyu curvy copter (M?) or something. That will be dream come true.


----------



## KingCanyon (Aug 19, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> I found Lanlan easier to jumble and Meffert's turns smoother. That depends on you.
> 
> I found there will soon be Moyu curvy copter (M?) or something. That will be dream come true.


Where did you here this? I would love to get a Moyu curvy copter.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 19, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> Ohhhh my god. I saw this thread and looked when it was one page. I thought to myself it would die off like most other threads but boy have you guys outdone yourselves. This all seems very confusing, but I think the numbers system works the best.


I’ve been thinking about CC for a long time and there’s a lot of smart people involved and invested in this now so I think we can really progress!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 19, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> I can now generate random-state scrambles without jumbling (although I do not think this is especially impressive). I have yet to solve the problem of how to most efficiently reduce from any square shape scramble to one that can be solved without jumbling. Here are 12 scrambles for your amusement:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: scrambles
> ...


Do you think you could break down scrambles to include y2 s? That way you would perform some scramble y2 and repeat for a couple cycles? It would reduce the number of edges needed to be notated, which I think would look cleaner.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 19, 2019)

KingCanyon said:


> Where did you here this? I would love to get a Moyu curvy copter.


Oh, sorry! I had a typo. I mean “ I hope”.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 20, 2019)

I just tried using some Dignitas on the LanLan curvy copter and loosen it a bit. It now feels quite smooth and almost no catches now.

If anyone has a scanned curvy copter 3d file( .stl / .obj), please PM me, thanks!


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2019)

I was playing a little more with my curvy copter, and found the true Jumble move for SALOW:
UR+ LF+ UF UR-' LF-'.

It isn't UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- since UR- is two moves away counter-clockwise from the neutral position. Executing the Jumble as "UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-" would result in the cube being in the permutation of UR-' RF-'.

I can expect to see variants of UR+ LF+ UF UR-' LF-' being used in scrambles, along with "non-sequitarian," or "NS" jumbles or jumbles that don't end in the inverses they started with, and "Unusual" jumbles, where the first two moves don't match direction.

An example of a pure "NS" Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR+' LF+'

An example of a pure "Unusual" Jumble: UR+ LF- UF UR-' LF+'

An example of a combo Jumble: UR+ LF- UF UR+' LF+'

I hope this could lend a hand to adding complexity to scrambles.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 20, 2019)

Sion said:


> I was playing a little more with my curvy copter, and found the true Jumble move for SALOW:
> UR+ RF+ UF UR-' RF-'.
> 
> ........


Can you make a video about your notation? It's quite good, but I think many people still can't understand it.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 20, 2019)

A curvy copter 3d file: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3635632


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> Can you make a video about your notation? It's quite good, but I think many people still can't understand it.



I can definitely do this tomorrow.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 20, 2019)

Again, using numbers (UR2) is completely unambiguous and would not need an explainer video.


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Again, using numbers (UR2) is completely unambiguous and would not need an explainer video.




I'll most likely make a video which should clear most things up. Curvy Copter is very unique, and the more I play with it, the more I realize how complex it actually can be for how simple it actually is.

I'm sure a video would easily clear up any ambiguity that Curvy Copter might have. I basically understand +/-/' SALOW like the back of my head at this point, as to how I was able to transcribe the jumble move without really thinking it over too much.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 20, 2019)

Sion said:


> I was playing a little more with my curvy copter, and found the true Jumble move for SALOW:
> UR+ RF+ UF UR-' RF-'.
> 
> It isn't UR+ RF+ UF UR- RF- since UR- is two moves away counter-clockwise from the neutral position. Executing the Jumble as "UR+ RF+ UF UR- RF-" would result in the cube being in the permutation of UR-' RF-'.
> ...


Shouldn't all instances of RF be replaced with LF?


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Shouldn't all instances of RF be replaced with LF?




LMAO. Just caught that. Fixing it now.


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2019)

An example of a pure Positive Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR-' LF-'

An example of a pure Negative Jumble: UR- LF- UF UR+' LF+'

An example of a pure "NS" Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR+' LF+'

An example of a pure "Unusual" Jumble: UR+ LF- UF UR-' LF+'

An example of a combo Jumble: UR+ LF- UF UR+' LF+'

I'm sure doing these can give people a better grasp on SALOW. I'll be doing a video soon.

Besides, most bizarre jumble cases would most likely only be present in scrambles. Most jumbles are most likely going to be pure positive jumbles anyway.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 21, 2019)

I now have a solver that can solve any position that is in cube shape, including those which require jumbling moves to solve. It averages roughly 70 moves if you count the 5 move conjugates that have been discussed here extensively as only 2 moves (because they are so essential and rather simple).


----------



## One Wheel (Aug 21, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> I now have a solver that can solve any position that is in cube shape, including those which require jumbling moves to solve. It averages roughly 70 moves if you count the 5 move conjugates that have been discussed here extensively as only 2 moves (because they are so essential and rather simple).


Honestly I’m not sure about using scrambles that end in a jumbled position, I just think that for competition jumbling needs to be an allowable part of the scramble.


----------



## Sion (Aug 21, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> Honestly I’m not sure about using scrambles that end in a jumbled position, I just think that for competition jumbling needs to be an allowable part of the scramble.



I can agree, though it would be nice to see some jumbled action in copter scrambles anyway since there are particular cases for solving certain going-to-cubeshape positions, as is demonstrated in RedKB's jumbled solving tutorial.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 21, 2019)

Personally if this puzzle were to ever appear in a competition I would prefer if the scrambles used the full potential of the puzzle. I plan on asking Matt Galla (creator of this thread) for assistance with that step since he already has code for working with the possible shapes. Anyone know if he's on these forums?


----------



## Sion (Aug 21, 2019)

Was about to make a video, and then I ended up messing mine up by accident


Spoiler: Large Image







Anyway, the images I posted in my first post's most recent update details what each rotation does to a neutral cube state. Now I need to get solving.

EDIT: I just figured out a way to use both numbers and +/- signs that can be very easy to understand. Give me a moment to type it up and to transcribe the jumbles.


----------



## Sion (Aug 21, 2019)

What are your thoughts of this system?


----------



## Sion (Aug 21, 2019)

Here are some of the jumbles in this new system:


An example of a pure Positive Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-

An example of a pure Negative Jumble: UR- LF- UF UR+2 LF+2

An example of a pure "NS" Jumble: UR+ LF+ UF UR+2 LF+2

An example of a pure "Unusual" Jumble: UR+ LF-2 UF UR- LF+2

An example of a combo Jumble: UR+ LF-2 UF UR+2 LF+2


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 21, 2019)

This is obviously better than before, but still inferior to removing pluses and minuses all together.


----------



## One Wheel (Aug 21, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> This is obviously better than before, but still inferior to removing pluses and minuses all together.


I disagree. @Sion is right. ++ or +2 work out the same, but pluses and minuses to denote jumbling moves is a clean, intuitive system.


----------



## KingCanyon (Aug 22, 2019)

Seems like I understand the notation better with this demonstration. How would you prevent jumbling turns that aren't possible to move because of other pieces in the random scramble generator?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 22, 2019)

KingCanyon said:


> Seems like I understand the notation better with this demonstration. How would you prevent jumbling turns that aren't possible to move because of other pieces in the random scramble generator?


That would be a bit of a pain for a random-moves scrambler, but for a random-state scrambler I only need to have a move sequence to reach each attainable shape, and then choose one at random. Matt Galla has already done work in this area when exploring the shape space, although I do not think his work is too hard to reproduce. Essentially the difficulty lies in deciding which possible piece location block which edges from turning. Once that is known, it is easy to explore the entire shape space with a simple breadth-first search.

EDIT: Much of the work here is quite difficult to reproduce (the symmetry stuff and constructing a massive graph), but what i need (move sequences to reach each shape ignoring symmetry) is not so much.


----------



## Sion (Aug 22, 2019)

These past days have been productive.

What we have done:

Came up with a finalized notation system using numbers and +/- symbols that is easy to read and transcribe intuitively. 

Made the realization that it is possible to make a scrambler for CC that accounts for forms other than cubeshape.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 22, 2019)

Sion said:


> What are your thoughts of this system?
> View attachment 10703


So good! Final advice: can UF+2 be UF2+ like clock? That is better IMO.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 23, 2019)

So I figured out how to work with the shapes (guess I didn't need Matt's help after all) and confirmed his number of 654117 different shapes (when rotations and reflections are counted as distinct shapes). I gotta sleep now, but I will have a full random-state scrambler tomorrow. The average move depth for a randomly chosen shape is 12.26 moves.


----------



## Sion (Aug 23, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> So I figured out how to work with the shapes (guess I didn't need Matt's help after all) and confirmed his number of 654117 different shapes (when rotations and reflections are counted as distinct shapes). I gotta sleep now, but I will have a full random-state scrambler tomorrow.




Will you use the +/- and number system like in my most recent post?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 23, 2019)

Sion said:


> Will you use the +/- and number system like in my most recent post?


Currently that is not my intent, as I plan on using +s and -s as shorthand to denote the 5 move conjugates that appear all the time. For example, UF+ would denote (UR1 LF1 UF3 UR1' LF1') and UF- would denote (UL1' RF1' UF3 UL1 RF1) (the 1's here are for clarity). I'd certainly be open to hearing other ideas.


----------



## Sion (Aug 23, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Currently that is not my intent, as I plan on using +s and -s as shorthand to denote the 5 move conjugates that appear all the time. For example, UF+ would denote (UR1 LF1 UF3 UR1' LF1') and UF- would denote (UL1' RF1' UF3 UL1 RF1) (the 1's here are for clarity). I'd certainly be open to hearing other ideas.




The only issue I have with that is that in reconstruction, you are going to have a lot of 3 moves, which to beginners could be quite confusing (I for one.) Not to mention, as I said in a previous post, for scrambling purposes, pure positive and pure negative jumbles are probably not going to be the only kinds of jumbles involved. 

The only reason why there is no "UF3" In SALOW is because a pure 180 degree rotation would be equal to UF-3 and UF+3, which technically cancel out. Canonically, this would make much more sense, and would lessen the need for shorthands.


----------



## Sion (Aug 23, 2019)

If we agree to disagree, would you be fine with making two scramblers with the two different notations and let others decide?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 23, 2019)

Sion said:


> Not to mention, as I said in a previous post, for scrambling purposes, pure positive and pure negative jumbles are probably not going to be the only kinds of jumbles involved.


If you wanna write a scrambler that uses more nuanced short jumbles to move pieces around, then go ahead, although I don't think it will do much for the movecount.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 23, 2019)

Sion said:


> If we agree to disagree, would you be fine with making two scramblers with the two different notations and let others decide?


Yeah I'll post scrambles tomorrow in both formats and see what y'all like.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 23, 2019)

Here are 12 random-state scrambles with my preferred notation. I will admit that having 3s on every move for ~2/3 of the scramble is somewhat clunky.


Spoiler: scrambles



0 UR3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UB3 LB3 UL3 LB3 RF3 UF3 UR3 UB3 UL3 UB3 RF3 UF3 UL3 RF3 RB3 UB3 LF3 UL3 UF3 LF3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UB3 RB3 UR3 LF3 UL3 UF3 RF3 DB3 DR3 DF3 DR3 DF3 LF- LF+ DF+ DL3 LF+ DL3 UL- UF3 UB- UF+ UB LB3 UB2 RF DF3 RF2 UF2 DL2 LF UF UB2' UR3 UB2 LF' RF3 RB3 UB
1 UL3 UB3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 UF3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UF3 UL3 LB3 UB3 UL3 RF3 UF3 UR3 UB3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UL3 RB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 RB3 UB3 LF3 UF3 UR3 UB3 UR3 UL3 UF3 RF3 RB3 UB3 LF3 DB3 DL3 LB3 DL3 DR3 RB3 DB3 DR3 RB3 DF3 LB- LB+ UB+ RB3 DB3 LB3 DF+ RF3 UL+ LB3 LF- UF3 RF3 UF+ RF+ UF3 UL- UB LB3 UB2 RF DF3 RF2 RB2 DL2 DB RB RF2' UR3 RF2 DB2'
2 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UL3 UB3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UB3 UL3 LB3 RF3 UR3 UB3 RF3 UR3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 RF3 RB3 UB3 UR3 LF3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UR3 UF3 LB3 DB3 LB3 DL3 DB3 DF3 LF3 DL3 DF3 LF3 UF- UF+ UB- UB+ UB+ RB3 DF+ DL3 UL+ UF3 UR3 LB3 UF+ UR3 LF3 DF3 UL LF3 UL2 RB DR3 RB2 LB2 DF2 DL LB RB3 DF3 RF2 DL
3 UF3 UR3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 LB3 UB3 UR3 UF3 RF3 UR3 UF3 UB3 UL3 LB3 UL3 UB3 UL3 RF3 UR3 RF3 RB3 UB3 UL3 UF3 RB3 LF3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 UF3 LF3 DL3 DB3 LB3 DF3 LF3 UF3 UL3 UB3 UL+ LB3 DL3 DB+ LB3 RB3 UF+ UR3 UB LB3 UB' DL2 LF DB3 RB UB DL DR
4 UB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UL3 LB3 UL3 RF3 UR3 UB3 UL3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UR3 RF3 UF3 RB3 UB3 RB3 LF3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 RB3 LF3 UF3 LF3 DB3 LB3 UL3 DR3 RB3 UB3 DB3 DF3 LB- LB+ DF+ UL+ UB3 UR3 LF+ UL+ LB3 UR+ RF3 DR3 UF+ RB- LB2 UB3 UR LB2' DF LF3 DF3
5 UF3 UR3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UL3 LB3 UB3 UL3 UF3 LB3 UB3 UL3 RF3 UF3 UR3 UF3 RB3 UB3 LF3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 RB3 UR3 UB3 UR3 RF3 RB3 LF3 UF3 DL3 LB3 UB3 LF3 DL3 DR3 DF3 LF- LF+ UB+ LB3 DB3 RB3 UL+ UF3 DR+ DF3 DB+ LB3 RB3 UF+ RF3 UB UR3 UB3 UR LB2 DL3 LB DF'
6 UL3 UF3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UF3 LB3 UB3 RF3 UF3 RF3 UF3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 UB3 UL3 RB3 UB3 LF3 UF3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 LF3 UF3 UL3 UB3 RB3 LF3 DL3 LB3 DR3 RF3 UF3 RB3 UB3 UL3 LF3 DL3 DF3 LB- LB+ DF+ RF3 DR+ RB3 RF3 UL+ LB3 DB+ LB3 UB3 UR2 RF3 UR2' DL2 DB3 RB DL DF DR2 RB' LB3 LF3 DF
7 UB3 UL3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UR3 LB3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 UF3 UB3 RF3 UR3 RF3 RB3 UR3 UF3 UB3 RB3 UB3 UL3 LF3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 LB3 DB3 LB3 DB3 DF3 DL3 LF3 DF3 DL3 LF- LF+ DF+ DL3 LF+ DL3 UL+ UF3 LB+ UB3 DB+ DR- UB2 LF2 UL RB DF'
8 UR3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UR3 UL3 LB3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UF3 LB3 UB3 RF3 UF3 UR3 UL3 RF3 RB3 LF3 UF3 RF3 UR3 UB3 UL3 RB3 LF3 UF3 UL3 RF3 DL3 LB3 DB3 DL3 LB3 DB3 DF3 LF3 DL3 DR3 UR- UR+ UB+ UL3 RB3 DB3 UL+ UF3 LB3 DL3 DL+ DF3 DB- LB3 RB+ UL2 UF3 UL3 LB RF3 UF3 RF DF2 RF3 DF2' DB3 LB3 UL DB2
9 UR3 UF3 UR3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UL3 LB3 UL3 UB3 UR3 LB3 UL3 RF3 UF3 UR3 UB3 RF3 UF3 UR3 UL3 LB3 LF3 UF3 UR3 RB3 UB3 UR3 UL3 UF3 RB3 UB3 UL3 LF3 UF3 DL3 DB3 DR3 RB3 UB3 LB3 DB3 LF- LF+ UB+ LB3 RB3 UL+ LF3 DF+ UF+ LF3 RF3 DR+ UF2 LF3 UF3 LF2 DB2 DR3 DB3 DR2
10 UL3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UR3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UB3 LB3 UB3 UL3 LB3 UB3 UL3 RF3 UR3 UF3 RF3 UR3 UF3 UR3 UB3 RF3 LF3 UL3 LB3 UB3 RB3 UB3 UL3 UF3 UR3 UB3 LF3 DF3 RF3 DR3 RF3 DB3 DL3 DF+ RF3 DL3 UB+ LB3 DF+ UL+ UF3 UR3 DR+ RF3 UF+ LF3 RF+ UF3 UL+ UR UF3 UR' LB2 UB DL3
11 UB3 UR3 UL3 UF3 UL3 UB3 UR3 UL3 UF3 UB3 UR3 UB3 UR3 LB3 UL3 UF3 UB3 LB3 RF3 UR3 UF3 RF3 UR3 UF3 UL3 RF3 UR3 UB3 LF3 UF3 RF3 UR3 RB3 UR3 UB3 UL3 LF3 UF3 UL3 LB3 DL3 LB3 DL3 DR3 DB3 RB3 DF3 UF- UF+ UB- UB+ DF+ UL+ LB3 UR+ RF- DF+ LF3 UL- UB UR3 LB3 UB RF2 DR RF DR2 DL3 DF


Additional fun facts:
I still do not own a Curvy Copter (thanks pCubes).
This coincidence amuses me:


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 23, 2019)

Here are 12 random-state scrambles using Sion's preferred notation:


Spoiler: scrambles



0 UF UB UR UL UB UL UF UR UF UB UR UF UB UR LB RF UR UF UB UR UL LB RF UF RF UF UL RB UB LF UL UB UR UF UL UF RB UB UR UF UL LF DL LB DF LF UF UR RB UF- DL- LF UF+ DL+ UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- DL UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UB UR UF UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UF+ UL UF LB UL LB+2 RF+2 UF- UB+ LB UB LB+ UB+
1 UR UF UR UB UR UB UL UF UL UB UR UL UF LB UL UB LB UL UB RF UR UB UL UF UR UB UR UL RB UR UF UL LB LF UL LB UB UR UF RB UB LB UL DL LB DR RF UF LF DF DR DF UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- RB DB RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- RF UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- DF RF UB+ DL+ LB UB- DL- UL LF LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- RB UL+2 UF UL-2 DB+2 DR RF+ DB-2 DL-2 DF+2 DL+2 UL+2 LB UL+ DF+ DB UB UL UB+ UR+2 LB+2 UB+2 UR-2 LB+
2 UF UR UL UF UB UR UB UL UB UR UF UR UB UR UF LB UB UR UL UF LB RF UR UF UB UR UL LB UB RF RB UR UF LF UF UR UB UR UF UL UF LF UL LB DR DB DR DF RF UR LF DF UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UL RB RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- RF DL RB+ DF+ DR RB- DF- DF LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- LB UR+2 RF UR-2 RB-2 UB UL DF+ DR+2 RB UB UL+2 RB+ DF+2 UF+ UL UF UL+ UF+2 LF UF LF+2 DF+ LF DF LF+ UL+2
3 UF UL UF UL UB UL UF UR UF UL UB UL LB UL UF RF UR UF RF UR UF RF RB UR RB UR UB UR UL LF UF LF UF UR UL RB LF UL DB DL LB UL DB DL DB DR RB UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- RF DL UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UF UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- LF RF UR+2 UB UR-2 DF+2 DL LB+ DF-2 UF-2 UL+2 UF+2 UL+ DF+2 RF UR DF+ DR DF DR+ RF+2 DB+2 DR+2 RF+ DB-2
4 UF UL UF UL UB UL UF UB UR UF UB UR UB UR LB UB UL RF UR UF UB UL UB RF UF UR UF UB RF UF RB UB UL RB LF UL UF UB LF UF UL UB RB LF DL DB LB UL DL DR RB UB DR UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UR- LB- UB UR+ LB+ UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UR UF UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- UB- LF- UL UB+ LF+ UF UR- LB- UB UR+ LB+ LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- DL DR UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UR UB+ LB UB+2 RB+2 DL- DB+ DL+ UL+2 UF UL DB+
5 UL UB UR UL UB UL UF UL UB UR UL UF LB UB UR UF UR LB UB LB RF UR UB UL UF UR UB LB RB UB UR LF UF UR UL UB UR UF LF UL DB LB DF LF UL UB DL DB RB UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UL UF RB UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- LF LB RB+ DF+ DR RB- DF- RF UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- DR UF+ LB+ RF UF-2 DB LB- DR+2 RB+ DR+ DL+
6 UF UR UF UR UF UR UB UR UL UB UR UB UL LB UB UR RF UF RF UF UR UL UB UL LB RF UR UF RB UR UF UL UB UR RB UB LF UL UF UB UR RF DL LF DB UL- DB- LB UL+ DB+ UB+ DL+ LB UB- DL- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UR UF RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- DR DB UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UF LB DL UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- LB RB+ DF+ DR RB- DF- DB UB+ RF+ UR UB- RF- UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ RF DR UB- DR- RB UB+ DR+ UF+2 LF UF-2 RF-2 UR DL+ LB UB+2 DF+2 RF DL- UL+ UB UL+2 DL-
7 UF UR UF UR UL UB UR UB UL UF UR UF UL UF UB LB UB RF UF UR UB UL UB LB UB LB RF RB UR LF UF UR UL UB UL UF UR UB RF UR RB DB LB DB LB DF DR UB- LF- UL UB+ LF+ UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- LB DB RB UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- UL UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- RF UL+ LF UL+2 LB+2 UB UR DF- DL+ DF+ DL DF RF+2 UF+ RF UF RF+ UF+2 UR UF UR+ DF+2 DL LB-2 DF-
8 UR UL UF UR UB UL UB UR UB UR UL LB UL LB RF UF UR UF RF UR UF RF UR UB UL LB RB UR RF RB LF UL UF UB RF UR UB UL RF DB DL DR RB DR DB LB UB DL UF- DL- LF UF+ DL+ UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- LB RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UB UR UF UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UR UB LF+2 RB+2 UR RB-2 DF LF-2 UF+ DR+ DB+2 LB DB-
9 UF UR UL UF UR UL UF UB UR UB UL UF UR UL UB LB UB UL UF UR RF UF UR UL UB UL RF UF UL LB UB RF RB UR UF UB UL RB UB LF UF UR UL UB UL UF DL DR DF DL DB RB UR UB UL- DB- LB UL+ DB+ UB+ DL+ LB UB- DL- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UR UF LB RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- DL DR UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UF LB UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- DR UB+ RF+ UR UB- RF- UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- LF LF+ UF UR- LF+2 DF- RF DL+ LB+ DF RF+
10 UR UB UL UF UR UF UL UB UR UL UF UB UR UL LB UL UB UR UL UB RF UF UR UL UB UL LB RB UR UB UR LF UF LF UF UL UB UR UF UL DB RB UR DL LB UL DR DF UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- RB DB LB UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UR LF DF UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UR+ RB UR+2 DL+ DF RF+2 DL+2 DB+2 DR+ DB LB UL- DB+
11 UF UB UL UF UR UB UR UB UR UF UR UF UB UR RF UF UR UL UB LB UL UB RF UF UR UF UL UB UL LB LF UF UR UB UR RB LF UL UF UB LB RF RB LF UL DB DL DF DR DB DL DF DR DB DL UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UR- LB- UB UR+ LB+ UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- RB DB UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- DF RF UF UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- LB UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- LF RF LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- UB+2 RB UB-2 DL+2 LF UF+ DL-2 LB+ UL+2 LB UL+2 DR-2 RF+2 DB+2


This results in a wider range of scramble lengths (and longer scrambles on average, but only because we have stopped using shorthand). For example, the last 2 scrambles here are 83 and 127 moves.


----------



## Sion (Aug 23, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Here are 12 random-state scrambles using Sion's preferred notation:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: scrambles
> ...




Would it be possible to put a cap to scramble length?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 23, 2019)

Sion said:


> Would it be possible to put a cap to scramble length?


Of course, but that wouldn't make it a random-state scrambler anymore. If you want shorter random-state scrambles, you need a more sophisticated solver. To do that would require more compute power than most people currently have (we could do slightly better with better coding, but I believe the difference is not that large).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 23, 2019)

While I understand the benefit to using the shorthand notation, I don't really like the idea of using it, because while it is beneficial for people who practice curvy copter all the time, it would be completely surprising and confusing for someone who is scrambling it for the first time. I think we should go with a format that is easily understood by everyone, and I think the shorthand takes that away. I realize it is simple, but it is nonetheless cryptic, and I think it would be mentally "rejected" by a number of people for a while until they got used to it, so I don't think it's practical for an actual competition scramble notation. Besides, the longhand notation would become very obvious to people who do get good at scrambling it, to the point where they'd read the entire group of moves as a single move anyway when scrambling and would start doing it all in one motion, so they would speed up even with the longhand notation.

I think it's wonderful that we now have a random state scrambler for this puzzle! Nice job, whatshisbucket! We can still look at the possibility of a more sophisticated solver someday, but just having something that works is quite an accomplishment. This makes me hope that curvy copter might be added to our online weekly competition next year!


----------



## Sion (Aug 23, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Of course, but that wouldn't make it a random-state scrambler anymore. If you want shorter random-state scrambles, you need a more sophisticated solver. To do that would require more compute power than most people currently have (we could do slightly better with better coding, but I believe the difference is not that large).


 
Would you be free to post a form of link or download for your Random state scramblers so we could possibly start doing unofficial averages and possibly make it easier to make methods?


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 23, 2019)

Just found a cool applet if anyone doesn't know: gelatinbrain

I found it in a old curvy copter alg discussion thread; it can simulate curvy copter (without jumbling) and provides alg input and stuff. It can be very helpful in finding non- jumbling curvy copter algs IMO.

Download: http://users.skynet.be/moz071262/Applets/Magic Polyhedra/ 

Curvy copter's file is at *File -> New -> cubes -> edge turn -> 3.3.0*


----------



## aerocube (Aug 24, 2019)

if this was an event,you would probably have to support jumbling during scrambles because that would be like sqan always being scrambled into cubeshape if jumbling wasn't allowed


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 25, 2019)

Everything needed for you to run the scrambler is here. Just download everything in the folder and run the python code while the reference files are in the same folder as the .py file. Currently the scrambles are outputted just with python print statements; if you would prefer them outputted in a text file I can make that change (or you can if you know how to write python). Currently 12 scrambles are outputted at a time; this can be changed similarly. The scrambler does take a while to run because it reads all the files, but it takes about the same time to make 1 scramble as it does to make 100 since only the file reading is time consuming. Happy solving!


----------



## Hazel (Aug 25, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Everything needed for you to run the scrambler is here. Just download everything in the folder and run the python code while the reference files are in the same folder as the .py file. Currently the scrambles are outputted just with python print statements; if you would prefer them outputted in a text file I can make that change (or you can if you know how to write python). Currently 12 scrambles are outputted at a time; this can be changed similarly. The scrambler does take a while to run because it reads all the files, but it takes about the same time to make 1 scramble as it does to make 100 since only the file reading is time consuming. Happy solving!


This is great! I have a small question related to your Python syntax: I notice that you have some lines longer than 80 characters, the recommended max line length. Whenever I have a long >80 characters, I use a \ to have it go to the next line so that each line stays within 80. Does this actually change anything, or am I just wasting effort doing this while programming?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 25, 2019)

Aerma said:


> This is great! I have a small question related to your Python syntax: I notice that you have some lines longer than 80 characters, the recommended max line length. Whenever I have a long >80 characters, I use a \ to have it go to the next line so that each line stays within 80. Does this actually change anything, or am I just wasting effort doing this while programming?


Keeping your lines under 80 characters might make people less annoyed by your code and more likely to read it. So would putting spaces between things (like c = a + b). However, these don't affect how the code runs, and thus my code still functions despite being oftentimes unreadable.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Sep 1, 2019)

I have added a non-jumbling scrambler for those who wish to practice curvy copter untainted by imperfect shapes. It is otherwise the same.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Sep 2, 2019)

I have made updates to make the scrambler faster and the interface more convenient. The .py files with "new" at the end represent these updated versions. Most importantly, the full scrambler now runs much faster (6 seconds down from 20 on my machine) and the interface will make it such that more scrambles can be generated without having to read all the helper files again. To use it, just run the code until it prints "Ready!", after which you input how many scrambles you would like printed. It will print them, and then ask for input again. To stop the code, simply input "0". The scrambles can be generated at rates of roughly 200/sec for the full scrambler and 50000/sec for the simpler scrambler. 

Facts about scramble length:
I did simple testing by generating a bunch of scrambles and looking at the min and max lengths. The range over 50000 scrambles for the full scrambler was 59-159, although before that when I only asked it to check 1000 scrambles it managed to create a 51 move scramble (!), which I think is one of the most extraordinary anomalies I have ever seen (this is less than half the average length). I believe only 2 out of the 50k scrambles were under 60 moves, and only 16 of the last 40k (this was all I checked) were under 65. 
The range over 13 million scrambles of the shorter version was 27-64. I believe the only thing notable about this is that both the min and max are perfect cubes. Also, the mean is much closer to the max, but this results from the average movecount for each of the last 3 phases being closer to the max than the min.


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 2, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Keeping your lines under 80 characters might make people less annoyed by your code and more likely to read it. So would putting spaces between things (like c = a + b). However, these don't affect how the code runs, and thus my code still functions despite being oftentimes unreadable.



At least you admit you write unreadable code! Better than a lot of programmers I've seen.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Feb 13, 2020)

Is there a timer and/or scrambler website for CC? Other then of course the scrambles for the weekly competition.


----------



## Wish Lin (Feb 13, 2020)

cubeshepherd said:


> Is there a timer and/or scrambler website for CC? Other then of course the scrambles for the weekly competition.


cstimer has a non jumbled version.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Feb 13, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> cstimer has a non jumbled version.


Are there any jumbled versions anywhere?


----------



## Wish Lin (Feb 13, 2020)

cubeshepherd said:


> Are there any jumbled versions anywhere?


whatshisbucket has a full scrambler, but it’s not a website, but a python script. Other than that, I personally don’t know any website that has one.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 25, 2020)

cubeshepherd said:


> Is there a timer and/or scrambler website for CC? Other then of course the scrambles for the weekly competition.



Speedcubing Extra Events just added Curvy Copter to their scrambler, and thus you can find it on the Training page for that event here: http://speedcubingextraevents.org/Event/curvyCopter/Training


----------



## cubeshepherd (Feb 25, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> Speedcubing Extra Events just added Curvy Copter to their scrambler, and thus you can find it on the Training page for that event here: http://speedcubingextraevents.org/Event/curvyCopter/Training


Thank you very much for the link.


----------



## qwr (Jul 22, 2020)

whatshisbucket said:


> Everything needed for you to run the scrambler is here. Just download everything in the folder and run the python code while the reference files are in the same folder as the .py file. Currently the scrambles are outputted just with python print statements; if you would prefer them outputted in a text file I can make that change (or you can if you know how to write python). Currently 12 scrambles are outputted at a time; this can be changed similarly. The scrambler does take a while to run because it reads all the files, but it takes about the same time to make 1 scramble as it does to make 100 since only the file reading is time consuming. Happy solving!



Can you put this on github?


----------

