# HD Method (2x2, alternative to CLL+)



## Neuro (Jun 27, 2017)

Hello everyone! I should first note that this is NOT officially my method, it is the product of @Thermex and @Sue Doenim! I am simply a proponent and alg genner, as was the other main "creator" the method @Shiv3r. 

Here is a link to the HD Method Guide, it includes a linked algsheet and goes into much more detail than what's given here.

So what is the HD Method exactly? This method was conceived by Thermex and Sue Doenim soon after viewing the VOP Method. What was realized is that by implementing CLL+ elements into this method, you could achieve similar lookahead/efficiency to CLL+EG1/2 with less than half of the algs! And with the help of myself and Shiv3r, we devised this and assisted in making the algs for this outstanding 2x2 method. This method can get someone to sub-3 quite quickly and with little effort.

It has 3 steps officially but it can easily be 2looked with some practice (as explained in the formal guide) Here they are:

1: V- Build a V with DFR missing on the bottom. Similar to Ortega, the corners do NOT need to be permuted

2: LOLS- Orient the last 5 corners while preserving the permutation of V, 23 algs, Ortega OLL brings down to 16 algs that are all quite easy to learn and are very fast

3: NLL- While this name is somewhat inaccurate, it solves the cube in 36 algs

This method is able to achieve some crazy singles and still has similar efficiency to CLL and it's variants while having significantly less algorithms! So let us know our thoughts and if anyone has any algs the would like to give or have any questions at all about the method, please respond in the thread and we will respond as soon as possible! Thank you all for reading and I hope you enjoy this method!


----------



## tx789 (Jun 27, 2017)

If it can't always be one-looked not worth it. 42 algs isn't that many any way.

This isn't as effecient CLL has two steps therefore it is better. To be good at 2x2 you need to learn hundred of algs. Always one looking.


----------



## WACWCA (Jun 27, 2017)

I wouldn't use this because I can't one look it, and It's 2 algs every time, just too slow compared to other methods


----------



## Neuro (Jun 27, 2017)

I believe it should be noted that this is a method created for people who want to get fast with ought having to learn a stupid number of algs and is not intended to switch people from CLL.

The appeal of this is the low alg count while achieving similar times to CLL+EG. Lack of one looking can be a disadvantage, however V and LOLS can be predicted in inspection easily as well as being able to determine your NLL set so all you have to do is identify your NLL which all are extremely easy to recognize and even know as you are finishing LOLS.

This in no way is meant to influence people switching from CLL+, it provides a nice alternative for people who don't want to learn hundreds of algs but would still like to be fast at 2x2. Oh and it's actually about the same efficiency as pure CLL with high probability of >12 move singles.

I understand hesitations of the method, I hope this provides some context as to why the method was created as well as assist in the understanding of the method as a whole. While there are officially 3 steps, it really boils down to 2 and the second step has almost instant recognition for advanced users.

Thank you to everyone for there concerns and I am more than happy to discuss the method further!

EDIT: Replying to next post here so it's not spam

I understand your sentiment and I will be sure to never state that one is better than the other. Only provide positives for this method and participate in intelligent discussion. HD advanced has much less algs than full EG+CLL and adding in LEG+TCLL, this has about a quarter of the algs and is capable of achieving similar times. I believe the methods are aproximately equal, but I understand all portions of the debate and am more than willing to discuss further!


----------



## Sajwo (Jun 27, 2017)

So intermediate version of your method has as many algs as CLL. And you can't really much expand it, unless you learn advanced with 59 algs, which is comparable to knowing CLL, half of EG-1 and anti-CLL. I don't buy it, sorry


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 3, 2017)

guys, this method is extremely easy onelooked. the amount of LOLS is low enough and the avg movecount for the V is 1. If you can see 1 move ahead, then you're set.
since there are only 15 LOLS, you can memorize fairly easily how each affects corner permutation of the last 5 corners, and since you don't need to track Orientation, you can figure out your NLL in inspection fairly trivially.


----------



## WACWCA (Jul 3, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I believe it should be noted that this is a method created for people who want to get fast with ought having to learn a stupid number of algs and is not intended to switch people from CLL.
> 
> The appeal of this is the low alg count while achieving similar times to CLL+EG. Lack of one looking can be a disadvantage, however V and LOLS can be predicted in inspection easily as well as being able to determine your NLL set so all you have to do is identify your NLL which all are extremely easy to recognize and even know as you are finishing LOLS.
> 
> ...


I don't believe this will achieve similar times though, two algs is much slower than 1 alg.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 3, 2017)

WACWCA said:


> I don't believe this will achieve similar times though, two algs is much slower than 1 alg.


but the point isn't to be similar to a method it doesn't compare well to(EG+TCLL+CLL). compare it to other methods that take as much effort to learn, such as CLL. it is the only one in it's advancedness that has the possibility to easily onelook.


----------



## WACWCA (Jul 3, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> but the point isn't to be similar to a method it doesn't compare well to(EG+TCLL+CLL). compare it to other methods that take as much effort to learn, such as CLL. it is the only one in it's advancedness that has the possibility to easily onelook.


Neuro said it would produce similar times, which I just don't believe is true, so I don't believe it's useful to learn this instead of CLL, because you are just setting yourself back if you want to get fast


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jul 7, 2017)

There's another variation on this method that was kind of forgotten, but has a lot of potential. I'm calling it HD-Guimond, or HD-G. Basically, it combines steps one and two by using a Guimond style orientation algorithm at the start, and tweaking it so it ends up in an NLL cube state. It has just as many algorithms and less moves. One-looking is feasible, usually, you only have to look ahead 5 or 6 moves to the NLL. Here are the example solves from the original post:


Sue Doenim said:


> Example solves:
> Scramble- F' U' F' U' R F' R2 U R
> V+CO- U R' U2 F R' (5/5)
> NLL- D R2 U' R2 B2 U' R2 U R2 (9/14)
> ...



And some more:
Scramble- F2 R' U R2 U' R F2 U2 R
V+CO- z' R2 U R' (3/3)
NLL- U' F2 U F2 U' R2 U F2 U' (9/12)

Scramble- U F R2 U R2 U R' F2 R
V+CO- z' y U' R U R' F' (5/5)
NLL- y U' R U' R F2 R2 U2 R U R' U2 (12/17)

Scramble- U' R2 F2 U' R F2 R F2 R'
V+CO- y' U' F R U' R' (5/5)
NLL- U2 F2 R2 U R2 U' F2 R2 U2 (9/14)

Scramble- R' F' U F2 R2 U R F2 R2
V+CO- x' y' L' U L F2 (4/4)
NLL- y R' F' R U R2 F2 R U R U' (11/15)

Scramble- U' F' R2 F R' U F' U2 F' U
V+CO- z y' U R2 U R' U L2 (6/6) 
NLL- U2 R2 U' F2 U R2 U' B2 U' (9/15)

14.6 average movecount . . . looks pretty close to EG's 12.35. And, NLLs have yet to be optimized, and the sample size was small. Including my previous example solves, average is 13.875.


----------



## efattah (Jul 9, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> And some more:
> 
> 14.6 average movecount . . . looks pretty close to EG's 12.35. And, NLLs have yet to be optimized, and the sample size was small. Including my previous example solves, average is 13.875.



For the record I do not believe in the claimed 12.35 movecount for EG. I use EG all the time when I start my 3x3 LMCF solves and the average movecount seems more like 13.5-14. Not sure how/who calculated 12.35. It is not a matter of the number of moves to make a face and then the average algorithm count, you need to add in U-setup moves (0.75) and AUF. Furthermore on CLL solves you can technically save a move by building your face to avoid a U move setup, but this usually results in very poor finger tricks to make the face, so not realistic. In that sense a 14.6 move count for HD is really good.


----------



## Hazel (Jul 10, 2017)

How fast should I get with the simplest variant of HD (3/4 Layer -> inserting any corner in DFR oriented -> OLL -> 1 of 6 NLL cases) before I learn more NLL? Which NLL set should I learn next?
Also, the link to the 50 V example solves on the wiki doesn't work.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 10, 2017)

idk how fast that can get but maybe sub 5? I'd recommend going to the diag swap NLL next and then just progress from there. I'd learn LOLS ASAP though, it's really easy and it should help you significantly. Good luck!


----------



## Hazel (Jul 11, 2017)

WACWCA said:


> Neuro said it would produce similar times, which I just don't believe is true, so I don't believe it's useful to learn this instead of CLL, because you are just setting yourself back if you want to get fast


I think HD is mainly for people like me who currently use Ortega/LBL and want to get better at 2x2 but don't care about it enough to memorize 100+ algs to have potential to be world-class


----------



## Hazel (Aug 25, 2017)

Question, are there any 2x2ers who use HD that average pretty fast (~5 seconds or faster)? I kinda want to learn full LOLS/NLL but I'm not sure if it would be worth it to switch from ortega
Also, could anyone create trainers for LOLS and NLL?


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Question, are there any 2x2ers who use HD that average pretty fast (~5 seconds or faster)? I kinda want to learn full LOLS/NLL but I'm not sure if it would be worth it to switch from ortega
> Also, could anyone create trainers for LOLS and NLL?


I'm still learning NLLs, so maybe another couple months till I get there. Honestly if you learn how to one-look the solve sub-3 is achievable.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I'm still learning NLLs, so maybe another couple months till I get there. Honestly if you learn how to one-look the solve sub-3 is achievable.


That would be amazing, and I'd love to watch some averages on video with it for fun, just to see what the average speedsolve looks like


----------



## Hazel (Aug 25, 2017)

Sorry for double post, but I just got a 1.15 solve with HD, 1-looking everything except AUF. 1 Move V (permuted), LOLS skip and R2 U R2 U' R2 NLL! This method really is great, and will be even better once I know LOLS- and the other 30 NLLs


----------



## Miro (Aug 25, 2017)

Hi, thank you for very interesting method.

I think in LOLS- algorithm set is error. Case 3 and 6 are the same (Sledgehammer). And there missing mirror case with one yellow/white sticker on top, two yellow/white stickers on some side and yellow/white sticker on other side.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 25, 2017)

Miro said:


> Hi, thank you for very interesting method.
> 
> I think in LOLS- algorithm set is error. Case 3 and 6 are the same (Sledgehammer). And there missing mirror case with one yellow/white sticker on top, two yellow/white stickers on some side and yellow/white sticker on other side.


Are you using the right doc? I'm looking at mine and cases 3 and 6 are different, and that alg is there. I use this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uSyHp9G8Uwv-dJLMz1JCheIDdS-2-c8u9cX5Rf9lEWY/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Miro (Aug 25, 2017)

Thank you, this document is ok. I have one outdated, maybe.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 27, 2017)

Does anyone know of any LOLS or NLL trainers? I would use Chris Tran's for ZZ-CT on 2x2, but the scrambles are pretty long.


----------



## Martin Orav (Oct 31, 2017)

Nice method! I'll definitely learn it, but I'll wait that month or so until I become sub-20 on 3x3.


----------



## bren077s (Nov 3, 2017)

This method looks very promising. Currently I average about 6.5 with ortega and it sounds like a much better solution than learning EG1 + EG2 + CLL.


----------



## bren077s (Nov 3, 2017)

Just wondering are their any numbers on how this compares to just CLL? Cause CLL is only 42 algs and this is 59.


----------



## efattah (Nov 4, 2017)

Speaking from someone who started with Ortega and eventually learned CLL and EG1, I think the HD method's true advantage hasn't really been discussed. When I am solving with CLL and EG1, my times are faster than Ortega but not by that much-- if I am unable to 1-look the solve, the case recognition time for CLL/EG slows the solve down dramatically. On the fly recognition for CLL/EG is WAY slower than Ortega. If you can one look the solve then CLL/EG is way faster than Ortega. If not, they are only marginally faster and for the first few months you will even be slower with CLL/EG.

The advantage of the HD method is you have:
(1) way faster recognition than CLL/EG, more similar to Ortega style
(2) great chance to easily 1-look the first V and the first algorithm

I find it very hard to 1-look in 15 seconds with CLL/EG. In fact I can only do it about 1 in 10 solves. I have not had the patience to practice 1-looking (it takes years to master and even the champions sometimes get solves they can't 1-look).

HD would allow you to hit world class times WAY FASTER than CLL/EG. While the ultimate times may be slightly worse than the limit with CLL/EG, the chance of actually getting world class at CLL/EG are pretty slim, and in my opinion you would probably enter the top 100 in the world faster, by using HD. Furthermore your times would be more consistent. If you look at the masters 2x2 times, you can easily see the solves they could not 1-look. They Ao5 looks something like 1.91, 1.78, 2.05, 3.52, 1.99. You can instantly see the solve that had a recognition time involved, it is usually a full second slower than the others.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Dec 14, 2017)

surely this is better. if there are only 23 lols cases and you memorise how they work with 1looking then it would be easier to 1look than eg as they have the same move count for the first step(s)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 14, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> surely this is better. if there are only 23 lols cases and you memorise how they work with 1looking then it would be easier to 1look than eg as they have the same move count for the first step(s)


This version is kinda outdated. It's probably the best way to first learn the method, but once you get more advanced, you'll want to learn HD-G (Guimond), where you solve the V and CO simultaneously. It's not super difficult, mostly, you just use the exact algs, but maybe tweak the last move, or cancel into or out of it. This version isn't quite as efficient as that or EG is, but it's a good stepping stone. It should be at least equal to EG when it gets better. At this point, the NLLs are kind of lacking in ergonomics.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Dec 14, 2017)

I think the method has a lot of potential, however the algs used are unfigertricky. And to get them to a better R U F move gen I think the length will go up. Making the method a decent bit less efficient.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Dec 20, 2017)

The thing killing it for me is the bad algs for NLL. I prefer 2 or 3 gen but things like (U') F2 U R2 U' B2 D R2 kill this. 5 gen with awkward moves  I think with better algs though it would be a good intermediate method.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 20, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> The thing killing it for me is the bad algs for NLL. I prefer 2 or 3 gen but things like (U') F2 U R2 U' B2 D R2 kill this. 5 gen with awkward moves  I think with better algs though it would be a good intermediate method.


Yeah, it's not great yet. Work needs to be done in fixing algs. I'm working on it, but it's going pretty slow. If we had a dozen people volunteer to do 2-3 algs each, we could get nice algs really easily. I started a few of these in the other thread about HD here. For example, 
(U') x' R' F' R U2 R' U R U2
y (U') R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2
y' (U') R U' R' U2 R U R' D R2
all work for that case.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Dec 20, 2017)

Yup. Are you generating them intuitively or with a computer program?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 20, 2017)

I'm just using cube explorer, but only using the corners. I asked and was told that K-solve for 2x2 would probably work better, but I looked at that, and decided that it would be more work to learn how to use it.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Dec 20, 2017)

Okay, Here goes. I think this method has a little bit of potential against Full EG. Just because of regonition and low alg count. However it says in the doc, it is hard to one look. A lot of people one look CLL, 2 steps, 1 look, Fast times. Or 3 steps, cant one look, slower times. The algs well, are pretty bad(and non fingertricky algs are harder to learn). I'm willing to help do whatever I can to get better algs for this(I know nothing, but Ill learn). I don't want to lose a great method. When I was doing solves with Neuro (in PM) He was doing V+CO in 1 step and was beating me in movecount [by 3ish moves(with CLL)] I think that has way more potential. Hopefully I am understanding everything correctly.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 6, 2018)

I have begun making a guide for HD, and have been redoing some algs. I also introduced a new algset similar to LEG where you can do your NLL with the D layer in any position. you can see it here.

EDIT: It's been a solid couple of years, and I'm cleaning out my Google Drive. I didn't want to just break the link by deleting the file, so I'll leave it here as a PDF. Note that it never quite got finished.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 5, 2018)

After seeing @WoowyBaby ‘s newly generated NLL algs I decided I’m going to learn HD  I already know lols and I’m wondering if I should go straight into NLL first or if I should work on learning how to do V+CO (HD-G) first?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Oct 5, 2018)

I would go ahead and just learn V+CO. I would recommend learning the 12 or so short algs from Guimond that are at the bottom of @WoowyBaby's algsheet and doing a bunch of practice, and it should get to be pretty easy and intuitive.


----------



## FrickEG (Nov 25, 2018)

Im learning this method


----------



## spongybaaaaaaasdbasd (Nov 26, 2018)

I made my own alg sheet  its not good though. A lot of the algs are sub-par and hard to finger trick. I have found ways to do most of the algs without regrips. Unlike @WoowyBaby ‘ s algsheet I intend to make them move optimal. This is because I have slow tps. Later I might make videos of my performing the algs. Its still a work in progress, as two of the sets i'm still working on. The recog is the same as the first alg sheet( not woowybaby's) I believe in move count cause if one alg is like 12 moves long you could probably solve the whole cube with full eg in that amount of moves. Also I think that if you exclude Auf thingys from your alg from recog you will miss out on some good nll solutions that you could do be just aufing. You would probably have to Auf after orientation anyway. 

Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yq5oPm3XIPJ6umBwfPa_6nYC5Qc6kKE9oItZjnNJe_I/edit?usp=sharing

I think on thing commonly overlooked with HD-G is that it is not guaranteed to make a V when you orientate. You can do like 2 moves to make one but that would waist moves and make it harder to look ahead. This is important because one of the only reason this method is viable is being able to one look (like comparing it to EG or CLL+). A temporary solution to this is for some of G orientation when it ends on like an R' you can change it to a R and force the V. ( not guaranteed to work)

I disagree with the people who say that Nlls are easier to recognize than Cll/Eg cases Those have multi angle recog which is extremely difficult with Nlls. Also transitions from G orientation to Nlls sometimes require rotations or having to do an awkward Guimond orientation to compensate. 

I don't believe in the HD-G movecound of around 12 because Nlls are like 9 moves on average and it is lucky to get a 3 move orientation. That is not even including AUFs which are almost in every solve. There are 3 places where it is possible to have an AUF son i would say a more realistic movecount would be around 14-15. 

To get better I think that we should learn the easy SOAP cases( if better than guimond)

Contact me at [email protected] ( Btw im sub 5 guimond)


----------



## spongybaaaaaaasdbasd (Nov 26, 2018)

If you are having trouble I have some example solves 

Proof for unbiased scrambles is I got them from a video from Cameron named "
*2x2 example solves with Chris Olson and Jay McNeil"*
Some V+OA done from different angles to prevent rotations


Scramble: R F R' U R2 U R2 F' U' R' U'
V+CO: Z Y F2 U’ F’
NLL: U’ x R’ F’ R U2 R’ U R B2 U2 B2

2. Scramble: U' R' U2 F2 U' F U2 R' U' R' U'
V+CO: x2 y2U2 RU’R’
PBL: U R U R’ F2 R F’ R

3. Scramble: R2 F U' R' F U F2 R' U2 R2 U'
V+co: z y2 U R2 U’ R’
Nll: U B2 R2 U' R2 U R2 U

4. Scramble:R' F U2 F2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R' U
V+co: y’ x’U2 L’ U2 L
NLL: U2 F2 R2 U R2 U’ F2 R2 U

5. Scramble:U F U2 F2 R U' R2 F U2 R' U'
V+co: x’ y2 B R’ U’ R
Nll: R’ U R’ F2 R F’ R’ U’ R2

6. Scramble:R U2 F2 U' F R2 U' R' U' F' U'
V+co: x’ y’ U F U’ F
Nll: R’ U R’ F2 R F’ R’ U’ R2 U

7. Scramble:F' U' R' F U2 R2 F' U2 F R U'
V+CO:z y B’ R’ U’ R’
Nll: U R’ U R’ F2 R F’ R’ U’ R2 

8. Scramble:U F R' F U2 R2 F2 R' U' R2 U'
V+CO:x’ y2 R2 U’ R’
Nll: F R’ F R2 F’ U F U F2

9. Scramble:F U2 F' R U2 R' U R' U R' U'

V+OA:z’y’ R’ U2 B U’B’
Nll: U R U' R2 F R U' R U2 R' F2 U’

10. Scramble:F2 U' F' R2 F' R U' R' U2 R2 U'
V+OA: z’ y2 U2 B R’U’ R
Nll: U2 R2 U' R2 U F2 U' R2 U2

11. Scramble:U' F R2 U2 R' F R U' F R' U'
V+Oa: x2 U’ R U’ R
Nll:U2 R U' R F2 R2 U2 R U R' U

12 Scramble:F' R F2 R' F U2 F2 R2 F' R' U'
V+OA:y2 x’ R U’ R U’ R
Nll: Y R2’ D R2 U' R2 U R2 U B2 U2


Avg movecounts of these solves: Around 13.6


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 28, 2018)

spongybaaaaaaasdbasd said:


> I don't believe in the HD-G movecound of around 12 because Nlls are like 9 moves on average and it is lucky to get a 3 move orientation. That is not even including AUFs which are almost in every solve. There are 3 places where it is possible to have an AUF son i would say a more realistic movecount would be around 14-15.


I went through and actually did the math a while ago, and the average movecount I calculated, using the really old algs, was 13.53 moves. You can check out a post I made about it here. I feel like that's pretty much what the optimized movecount would look like. The only big problem with the method is how it doesn't have really good algs yet. Generating algs is hard.


----------



## spongybaaaaaaasdbasd (Jan 12, 2019)

I finished my new alg doc. New improved algs and pictures now. Includes Guimond orientation. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bv8BhEKr-vnkjAOVC3O6mSenLJkRJJ5GJwX4zzGukYQ/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Hazel (Oct 18, 2019)

I'm interested in trying out HD again, after all this time - however I still don't really understand how to solve the V and orient all corners at the same time with HD-G. I'm looking at the spreadsheet linked in the post above me.
How do I change a few moves of the Guimond CO alg to preserve the V?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Oct 18, 2019)

Basically, you just do the Guimond alg, but a lot of the time you can cancel out of the alg in a way that gets you a V. When you can't, you just add a move or two to make the V's. There are a bunch of examples that I've done in the past in the 2×2 example solve thread, if you can be bothered to find them.


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 18, 2019)

I can't see any images on the sheet that contains the NLL algs
edit: some of them are showing now, some aren't, maybe server issue?


----------



## Zarxrax (Nov 8, 2019)

For the HD-G variation, is there any good way to force the V other than just trying different starting positions and trying to invert the last move of the orientation algorithm? It seems like you could frquently get unlucky and not find an easy V during the limited inspection time.

Also is there a reason that the V separation case is used rather than one of the other cases? Was it just decided on because of this evolving from VOP or something, or is the V case statistically better for some reason?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 8, 2019)

Basically, to make the V, you do orientation just like in Guimond, then you do R2/L2/F2/B2/U/D moves to make the V's. A lot of the time, the second part is done or it can just be cancelled into. It's pretty intuitive, with supplements from mini-algs from Guimond. V's pretty much ended up being the way it was done because of VOP, but I think they're also the most common case after CO.


----------



## fortissim2 (Nov 8, 2019)

The pictures in the alg sheet aren't loading for me. Can you fix this?


----------



## Zarxrax (Nov 8, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> Basically, to make the V, you do orientation just like in Guimond, then you do R2/L2/F2/B2/U/D moves to make the V's. A lot of the time, the second part is done or it can just be cancelled into. It's pretty intuitive, with supplements from mini-algs from Guimond. V's pretty much ended up being the way it was done because of VOP, but I think they're also the most common case after CO.



I mean, I understand that I can just do extra moves after the orientation to make a V, but those extra moves would kill my ability to look ahead to predict the next step.

If there is no particular reason for the V case, I might do some more research into the other cases.

*Update*: I did 60 guimond solves and the V case came up 32 times, checkerboard/bar was 17 times, bar/bar and checkerboard/checkerboard were 5 each, and there was 1 skip. So the V case was indeed the most common, coming up about half of the time.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 9, 2019)

fortissim2 said:


> The pictures in the alg sheet aren't loading for me. Can you fix this?


I think maybe that there's some issue with the website that hosts the pictures. I would just look at the written case descriptions. With the D-layer corner in the UBL position, you can either have a bar on F, a bar on R, a bar on both (solved), opposite on F, opposite on R, or opposite on both (diagonal).


----------



## Zarxrax (Nov 9, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> I think maybe that there's some issue with the website that hosts the pictures.


You should save the pictures to files and import those into the spreadsheet, so its not having to generate images on that server every time. Or if you split the NLL up into 2 or 3 different pages so its not trying to load them all at once, that might help too.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 9, 2019)

I don't have editing access to the sheet, so I can't change it. At any rate, I don't think it makes a big difference. Recognition is pretty simple, as long as you remember that the D-layer corner is in the UBL spot.


----------

