# Curvy Copter Discussion(New)



## Wish Lin (Aug 23, 2019)

*This is a thread to discuss anything related to the curvy copter puzzle. *

*Some threads about the curvy copter:*

*SALOW Notation(New): * https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/salow-notation-for-curvy-copter.74968/

*Move optiaml last 4 corner algs(New):* https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/curvy-copter-l4c-algorithms-new.74991/

*Curvy copter hardware small comparison*(New): https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/curvy-copter-comparison.74975/

Curvy Copter Discussion(Old): https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/curvy-copter-discussion.31844/

Curvy Copter(Non Jumbling) UWR(Old): https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-non-jumbling-curvy-copter-uwr-race.61144/

Last 4 Corner algs(Old): https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/curvy-copter-oll-and-pll-algorithms.45494/

Random alg discussion(Old): https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/curvy-copter-algs.32667/

Please don't reply to threads that are too old.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 23, 2019)

I'm going to put the method I came up with (and doubtless countless other people have) to solve it. It's not fast or advanced but it does the job.
1. Unjumble.
2. Solve the bottom corners+EO of F2L edges. 
3. Solve EO on U.
4. Solve 2 corners on U. 
5. Use a super long conjugate to orientate the last 2 corners.
6. Use non-junbling comms to solve as many centres as possible.
7. Use jumbling comms to solve the rest of the centres. 
I figure out the comms on the spot so I haven't written anything down. It'd be nice to see this speed-optimised a little bit, and yeah, I'd support it as an event although events would have to be removed or another solution found (such as limiting how many events someone can do or how many people can sign up to an event).


----------



## Sion (Aug 23, 2019)

The next big step would be to make a list of Center algorithms for Curvy Copter. 

CeOLL
CePLL


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 23, 2019)

Sion said:


> The next big step would be to make a list of Center algorithms for Curvy Copter.
> 
> CeOLL
> CePLL


By center, you mean the triangles ?


----------



## Sion (Aug 23, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> By center, you mean the triangles?




Yes.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 23, 2019)

Sion said:


> Yes.


But how about jumbling? That will raise the total alg by a lot count unless we can find some parity alg that can make any jumbled CeOLL/ CePLL into an unjumbled state.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 24, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> By center, you mean the triangles ?


Just for reference I’ve been calling the center pieces petals since they look like flower petals


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 24, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> Just for reference I’ve been calling the center pieces petals since they look like flower petals


I called it clover leaf because it looks like one. I call them triangles just because RedKB calls them triangles and he is probably the first one to name them.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 24, 2019)

Need some help here. What is the alg for this jumble CePLL case? (Switch the red and blue triangles that I pointed)


Ps: Is this even possible?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 24, 2019)

You can't swap only those 2 centers (easily) because the center permutation is even barring significant jumbling. You have to do a 3-cycle of centers, for example the misplaced red once and two blue ones.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 24, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> You have to do a 3-cycle of centers, for example the misplaced red once and two blue on


How can I do that? I couldn't cycle those 3 pieces.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 24, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> How can I do that? I couldn't cycle those 3 pieces.


Well generally you can do things like (UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-) to swap two pairs of centers, one within a single orbit and one pair of centers from different orbits. It is not so hard to use moves like this to get centers in appropriate orbits.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 25, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> Well generally you can do things like (UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-) to swap two pairs of centers, one within a single orbit and one pair of centers from different orbits. It is not so easy to use moves like this to get centers in appropriate orbits.


Thanks! Somehow my problem is fixed when I messed with it.


----------



## Sion (Aug 25, 2019)

I came up with a copter icon that could possibly be used if it becomes an event:


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 25, 2019)

What curvy copter should I get (Australia)? I can't seem to find anything but the lanlan one, is it ok? Like 20aud ok?
Btw wish Lin loving the new profile pic


----------



## Sion (Aug 25, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> What curvy copter should I get (Australia)? I can't seem to find anything but the lanlan one, is it ok? Like 20aud ok?




The lanlan is perfectly fine. It's actually easier to do jumbles on, which is preferential for a jumbling puzzle like Curvy Copter. 


Copter is a fairly old puzzle, but it's only being put into a more serious light recently. I'd still get one anyway, however.


Speed copters might become a thing if it turns out that this is a popular puzzle, which seems exciting. (I'm actually in the process of designing one now!)


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 25, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> Btw wish Lin loving the new profile pic


Thanks! That’s actually MY LanLan curvy copter’s image being cropped


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 26, 2019)

Sion said:


> Speed copters might become a thing if it turns out that this is a popular puzzle


And that’s what we are doing now Developing algs and notation to make it popular.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 26, 2019)

Anyone believing this? I don’t.




He got a 4 move “F2L” and a 2 move TLL!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 26, 2019)

Sion said:


> I came up with a copter icon that could possibly be used if it becomes an event:


This might prove to be very useful, but for our weekly competition we are using the icon set from the WCA (I am adding icons as we add non-official events), and they must be in SVG format. Do you have this in SVG format? Also, they need to match the general dimensions of the others in the set, based on a 500 x 500 grid. You can check the others out on github:
https://github.com/cubing/icons


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 26, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> This might prove to be very useful, but for our weekly competition we are using the icon set from the WCA (I am adding icons as we add non-official events), and they must be in SVG format. Do you have this in SVG format? Also, they need to match the general dimensions of the others in the set, based on a 500 x 500 grid. You can check the others out on github:
> https://github.com/cubing/icons


https://www41.online-convert.com/dl...7037/F27D5C40-F0E1-464A-92AA-D10032330011.svg

Here you go. @Mike Hughey please download it ASAP since I use a online conversion service.


----------



## Sion (Aug 26, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> This might prove to be very useful, but for our weekly competition we are using the icon set from the WCA (I am adding icons as we add non-official events), and they must be in SVG format. Do you have this in SVG format? Also, they need to match the general dimensions of the others in the set, based on a 500 x 500 grid. You can check the others out on github:
> https://github.com/cubing/icons




Hi! I can do this later today


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 26, 2019)

Sion said:


> Hi! I can do this later today


I already did....look above.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 26, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> https://www41.online-convert.com/dl...7037/F27D5C40-F0E1-464A-92AA-D10032330011.svg
> 
> Here you go. @Mike Hughey please download it ASAP since I use a online conversion service.


I guess I didn't get to it quickly enough:
"The file maximum downloads has been reached"

Sorry about that. Also I must admit that I probably will not have time to get it submitted to the WCA anytime soon; I would probably not get to that until it became an event in our weekly competition (if that indeed happens, which I hope will happen, but we have to wait and see how the voting turns out). If you would like to get it done faster, you could contact jfly about the possibility of submitting a pull request, and see what he says.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 26, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I guess I didn't get to it quickly enough:
> "The file maximum downloads has been reached"


Thatt’s all right I’ll do a more formal one after a couple days.


Mike Hughey said:


> you could contact jfly about the possibility of submitting a pull request, and see what he says.


Ehh, what do you mean by that? I am not quite sure since I don’t use GitHub much.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 26, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> Ehh, what do you mean by that? I am not quite sure since I don’t use GitHub much.


If you're in no hurry, don't worry about it. I'll try to get to it when I do new events at the end of the year. Even if curvy copter doesn't make it in, I can go ahead and submit it when I submit any others.

But if you want it in sooner than I can get to it, you'll need to learn about doing a pull request and submit it for possible inclusion, and wait for them to review it and make comments to improve it to meet their standards before they actually add it. And you should definitely contact jfly before you do any of that, to make sure you have permission before doing so.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 26, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> If you're in no hurry, don't worry about it. I'll try to get to it when I do new events at the end of the year. Even if curvy copter doesn't make it in, I can go ahead and submit it when I submit any others.
> 
> But if you want it in sooner than I can get to it, you'll need to learn about doing a pull request and submit it for possible inclusion, and wait for them to review it and make comments to improve it to meet their standards before they actually add it. And you should definitely contact jfly before you do any of that, to make sure you have permission before doing so.


Ok. Thanks for the information!


----------



## kadabrium (Aug 26, 2019)

I know very little about this puzzle and have never solved one. Just by looking at it, it looks like a 8-axis expansion of the mastermorphix, but retaining the 4-fold cutting around each of them, instead of increasing alongside, like for example a megaminx is to a 3x3 cube. My question here is really what its face turning equivalent would look like? Theres no simple platonic polygon with 4 edges per face and 3 faces per corner. 

going down that road i think for example a redi cube (which i dont have either) is also the 8 axis expansion of a pyraminx. Is it possible to solve the redicube "layer by layer" starting from one turning center and building around that, like a megaminx? my experience with the pyraminx suggest on the latter it is only not possible/not distinct from the regular method because the tetragon has both too few sides to maneuver pieces around, and also a unique symmetry not found in other platonic polygons in that its has no parallel faces but the face centers have the same symmetry as the corners.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Aug 26, 2019)

kadabrium said:


> I know very little about this puzzle and have never solved one. Just by looking at it, it looks like a 8-axis expansion of the mastermorphix, but retaining the 4-fold cutting around each of them, instead of increasing alongside, like for example a megaminx is to a 3x3 cube. My question here is really what its face turning equivalent would look like? Theres no simple platonic polygon with 4 edges per face and 3 faces per corner.


The face-turning equivalent of a edge-turning cube is a rhombic dodecahedron.


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 26, 2019)

kadabrium said:


> My question here is really what its face turning equivalent would look like?


I found this: https://www.thecubicle.com/products/mf8-3x3-curvy-copter 
LOL!


----------



## Wish Lin (Aug 28, 2019)

I found a couple problems to discuss about:

Fingertricks: For face turning puzzles, you can do flicks, for skewb, you can do sledges, what about curvy copter? I played with the idea a couple days but still have no clue to a universal fingertrick.


Jumble effects: Everyone knows that using RedKB's method(where I am sure 90+% people use), you have to deal with jumble effects in every step(unlike sq-1 where this all ONLY leads to a parity in the end). This not only SUCKS but also made alg making extremely difficult(F2L,TLL). So, I was thinking about if it's possible to shove all pieces back to it's orbit before the solution begins (after getting it back to cubeshape). The only similar idea I can think of is ZZ(correct me if I am wrong since I don't know ZZ much). Is this possible or not?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 28, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> I found a couple problems to discuss about:
> 
> Fingertricks: For face turning puzzles, you can do flicks, for skewb, you can do sledges, what about curvy copter? I played with the idea a couple days but still have no clue to a universal fingertrick.
> 
> ...



It’s certainly not ideal but the way I’m starting to try turning the last layer algs at least is but not turning the edges. This seems like a completely idiotic statement at first. However, I hold the edge, and turn the puzzle with the other hand. So it lets you flow between turning adjacent sides pretty well. It does get awkward when you need to turn two sides together though. Still working on fingertricks. Also Idk about jumbling. I’ve never done any of it as I knew it would complicate methodology and scramblers, etc.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 28, 2019)

OreKehStrah said:


> It’s certainly not ideal but the way I’m starting to try turning the last layer algs at least is but not turning the edges. This seems like a completely idiotic statement at first. However, I hold the edge, and turn the puzzle with the other hand. So it lets you flow between turning adjacent sides pretty well. It does get awkward when you need to turn two sides together though. Still working on fingertricks. Also Idk about jumbling. I’ve never done any of it as I knew it would complicate methodology and scramblers, etc.


I’m sure there is a way to do some sort of tracing like with CSP or something. It would be difficult to get fast though. Because you would have to consider how many edges are flipped, then track for a certain amount of side colors how many petals are in spots they normally wouldn’t reach, if that is even possible to do visually.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 28, 2019)

You'd have to blind trace the centers and see what orbit they're in. It's not necessarily the best or easiest and is definitely harder than CSP. Instead, just fix it throughout the solve. I don't think it should be something to be "scared of" and is much more easily fixed than parity on squan.


----------



## One Wheel (Sep 16, 2019)

This may be a stupid question, depending on the answer. My curvy copter has been scrambled for a while, now I’ve got it back to two corners swapped but oriented, and one edge flipped. This feels like it shouldn’t be a solvable position, but I’m not sure. Do I need to solve it with jumbling, or disassemble the puzzle?


----------



## whatshisbucket (Sep 16, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> This may be a stupid question, depending on the answer. My curvy copter has been scrambled for a while, now I’ve got it back to two corners swapped but oriented, and one edge flipped. This feels like it shouldn’t be a solvable position, but I’m not sure. Do I need to solve it with jumbling, or disassemble the puzzle?View attachment 10795


This can be solved with only simple jumbling. The only requirement for a state to be solvable with only non-jumbling moves that is not currently satisfied is that the parity of the center permutation in each orbit should mach the parity of the number of flipped edges along that orbit. This can be fixed with simple UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- type moves.


----------



## Wish Lin (Sep 16, 2019)

@whatshisbucket can you help check this thread out? I am not good at organizing and selecting stuff like these:

https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/curvy-copter-1-look-l4c-algorithms.75165/


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 16, 2019)

wouldn't it become like skewb where no one ever does it?


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 16, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> Anyone believing this? I don’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't believe it because he seems so certain at the beginning that he will get a wr


----------



## Wish Lin (Sep 16, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> wouldn't it become like skewb where no one ever does it?


Really? Skewb is as popular as 4x4 in Taiwan.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Sep 16, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> @whatshisbucket can you help check this thread out? I am not good at organizing and selecting stuff like these:
> 
> https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/curvy-copter-1-look-l4c-algorithms.75165/


What makes you think I am?


----------



## Wish Lin (Sep 16, 2019)

whatshisbucket said:


> What makes you think I am?


Oh, sorry.


----------



## KingCanyon (Nov 5, 2019)

Just an update, I plan to start practicing some curvy copter after my next competition. I just thought I would let you all know to revive this thread because I do think curvy copter could be a great official event some day.


----------



## Wish Lin (Nov 9, 2019)

KingCanyon said:


> Just an update, I plan to start practicing some curvy copter after my next competition. I just thought I would let you all know to revive this thread because I do think curvy copter could be a great official event some day.


Also just an update, I was planning on designing a (somewhat) speedsolvable curvy copter based on Lanlan's design, but I don't have a 3d scanner and my 123D design is clearly not good enough for the job. Waiting for my friend to lend me Solidworks.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 29, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> Thatt’s all right I’ll do a more formal one after a couple days.


Did this ever get done? If so, I'm sorry - I think I missed it.

I've about decided to go ahead and add all 4 events, since everything but Speed FMC was really easy to add (other than the scrambler, which I don't have to rush to integrate right now - I can generate those by hand for the first few weeks if necessary). I don't really have time to be creating the SVG file yet, though, so I'll probably just use the skewb icon for this event until I have time to make a better one. In fact, I will probably do that even if someone has an SVG file for the first week or two; it takes some effort even just to generate the icon font once I have the svg file, so I probably won't have time to even do that before Monday.

Ultimately, the icons have to fit some pretty strict guidelines to be accepted by the WCA as unofficial event icons. Please don't feel the need to make one for me if it's not convenient; I'd probably have to heavily modify it to meet those guidelines anyway, and they're not really documented anywhere - I've learned them through trial and error with my previous ones. (Some of the most obvious: grid must run 0 to 500 in x and y directions, spacing between pieces must be self-consistent and consistent with other similar icons already in the font, proportions must be reasonably correct with the real puzzle.)


----------



## Sion (Dec 29, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Did this ever get done? If so, I'm sorry - I think I missed it.



I did it just now; 500x500 copter image. I touched it up a bit so it looks more pleasing when reduced. 

Can I have an e-mail I can send it to?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 29, 2019)

Sion said:


> I did it just now; 500x500 copter image. I touched it up a bit so it looks more pleasing when reduced.
> 
> Can I have an e-mail I can send it to?


PMed.


----------



## KingCanyon (Dec 29, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Did this ever get done? If so, I'm sorry - I think I missed it.
> 
> I've about decided to go ahead and add all 4 events, since everything but Speed FMC was really easy to add (other than the scrambler, which I don't have to rush to integrate right now - I can generate those by hand for the first few weeks if necessary). I don't really have time to be creating the SVG file yet, though, so I'll probably just use the skewb icon for this event until I have time to make a better one. In fact, I will probably do that even if someone has an SVG file for the first week or two; it takes some effort even just to generate the icon font once I have the svg file, so I probably won't have time to even do that before Monday.
> 
> Ultimately, the icons have to fit some pretty strict guidelines to be accepted by the WCA as unofficial event icons. Please don't feel the need to make one for me if it's not convenient; I'd probably have to heavily modify it to meet those guidelines anyway, and they're not really documented anywhere - I've learned them through trial and error with my previous ones. (Some of the most obvious: grid must run 0 to 500 in x and y directions, spacing between pieces must be self-consistent and consistent with other similar icons already in the font, proportions must be reasonably correct with the real puzzle.)


Hey, I really appreciate your efforts to satisfy everyone’s wants for this weekly competition. You really help this community and I thank you for that.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 3, 2020)

Now that I have gotten a curvy copter and more or less know how to solve it, and have competed in it for the Weekly Competition this week, I have a question. Before asking the question, I should probably mention that people who have objected that scrambling the curvy copter is sufficiently daunting that it is a major barrier to this ever becoming a WCA event. It would be interesting to see how much optimization is possible to the scrambler; perhaps if the scrambles were much shorter, it might be more possible. But it seems to me after learning how to solve it that at the very least, quite a few jumbling moves are required just to get it fully scrambled, and the final portion of the current scrambles that takes it out of cubeshape are probably half the total scrambling time, for me at least. So I really have doubts that any significant time improvement can be made on the scrambling, if we allow full jumbling.

But just for fun, imagine that we somehow were able to justify having fiully-jumbled (non-cubeshape scrambles) curvy copter as an official event. Would it make sense to allow "forcing" moves that are not necessary to solve the puzzle? As a very simple example, imagine a scramble (on a solved puzzle) like: UR+ UF+2. Now after those two moves, should it be considered illegal to make the move UR-? Of course, this is a silly example, since it wouldn't help anything to solve it, but it was easy to set up and shows my point. There are certainly situations where it is easier (fewer moves, or at least less thinking) to solve to cubeshape by forcing a move that really isn't possible on a fully rigid puzzle, but such that currently available, somewhat nicely-turning puzzles today easily allow such forcing moves. And if the event were to become popular, it's easy to imagine speed curvy copters being developed which are even looser for faster turning, which would make such forcing moves even easier to perform - probably even effortless to perform.

I think it's easy to see that watching for such moves would be a nearly impossible task to expect a judge to follow and prevent. And even if it were possible, requiring judges to watch for such forcing moves would create a confrontational situation very different from anything we have now in competitions, and so I doubt there's any way we would want to introduce such a requirement on judges.

I have to admit that I personally would love the idea of a fully shapeshifting jumbling puzzle (beyond what square-1 does today) becoming an official event, but does this problem prevent curvy copter from ever being such? There are a couple of ways I could see to solve it:
1. Simply don't scramble beyond cubeshape - do jumbling for moving centers, but always restore the puzzle to a cube at the end of the scramble. Then while such moves would still be possible, they would rarely if ever give an advantage, and therefore could be ignored. I must admit though that I find this somewhat disappointing, since I really like the additional challenge of trying to get it to cubeshape. Although I'm really, really bad at it - it often takes me more than 10 minutes just to get to cubeshape, making it sometimes more than half the solve.
2. Simply allow any move you can do on your particular puzzle, and don't worry about "illegal" jumbling moves - consider moves such as my UR+ UF+2 UR- example above to be a legal move.

I'm very curious what other people think about this. Kit mentioned to me in a PM earlier this week that he is often tempted to make such forcing moves, and I actually then realized I was probably making them without knowing they were even improper forcing moves. But whatshisbucket's excellent scrambler is apparently capable of getting to any "legal" cubeshape while clearly NEVER making such forcing moves - at least, I've never seen an example scramble where such a forcing move is done. I'm very impressed that it does that so well; I assume that is due to the work he says he used that was done by Matt Galla.


----------



## KingCanyon (Jan 3, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> Now that I have gotten a curvy copter and more or less know how to solve it, and have competed in it for the Weekly Competition this week, I have a question. Before asking the question, I should probably mention that people who have objected that scrambling the curvy copter is sufficiently daunting that it is a major barrier to this ever becoming a WCA event. It would be interesting to see how much optimization is possible to the scrambler; perhaps if the scrambles were much shorter, it might be more possible. But it seems to me after learning how to solve it that at the very least, quite a few jumbling moves are required just to get it fully scrambled, and the final portion of the current scrambles that takes it out of cubeshape are probably half the total scrambling time, for me at least. So I really have doubts that any significant time improvement can be made on the scrambling, if we allow full jumbling.
> 
> But just for fun, imagine that we somehow were able to justify having fiully-jumbled (non-cubeshape scrambles) curvy copter as an official event. Would it make sense to allow "forcing" moves that are not necessary to solve the puzzle? As a very simple example, imagine a scramble (on a solved puzzle) like: UR+ UF+2. Now after those two moves, should it be considered illegal to make the move UR-? Of course, this is a silly example, since it wouldn't help anything to solve it, but it was easy to set up and shows my point. There are certainly situations where it is easier (fewer moves, or at least less thinking) to solve to cubeshape by forcing a move that really isn't possible on a fully rigid puzzle, but such that currently available, somewhat nicely-turning puzzles today easily allow such forcing moves. And if the event were to become popular, it's easy to imagine speed curvy copters being developed which are even looser for faster turning, which would make such forcing moves even easier to perform - probably even effortless to perform.
> 
> ...


Where does it say such forcing moves are illegal? I do understand however that these moves are not natural to the nature of the puzzle, but is there really any way for people to prevent this officially? Even if judges were assigned the task of looking for these unnatural forcing moves, there would be bound to be mistakes. Since jumbling is only a portion of the solve, I'm inclined to allow the forcing, as I don't really see anyway to prevent it effectively. That being said, it would be nice if puzzle manufacturers could find a way to prevent the puzzle from doing this. I think it may be pretty difficult to keep the curvy copter as a speed puzzle while preventing this unnatural move. I would like to be wrong about that though. Perhaps there is a cube mechanism that prevents these unnatural moves while still maintaining the puzzle's speed. If anyone has an example like this, I would love to here about it.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 3, 2020)

I'd also like to add that if this puzzle is ever considered to be added officially, scramble images of non-cube states seem almost impossible to print in 2D that are readable. It might be easiest to have all scrambles start as a cube.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 3, 2020)

I personally don’t find scrambling all that bad. Notation is actually pretty good, and I’m pretty sure I’m 2/2 for correct scrambles. 1/2 for solves, and that one took looking up last corner algs. Cubeshape still has me flummoxed on the second scramble. I’m not sure about the illegal moves, functionally it seems about like a corner twist, except I’m not sure about whether it would ever be an advantage.

As far as the WCA, I suspect that, like higher-order dodecahedrons, this could only be seriously considered for addition after a reliable and affordable mechanical scrambler is developed. This would of course require a standard for the exact angles of non-180 degree turns, and would answer @KiT Clement’s concern about checking scrambles.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 3, 2020)

One thing that I think would be a big improvement on the scrambler: when it's in the second phase of jumbling, I often get lost in the scramble as when I read the first two moves of a jumbling move, I know the next 3 exactly and don't look at the next moves, and often end up losing my place. I think that using some form of notation like RedKB's JR/JL plus cube rotations would be much easier to read than spelling out all 5 moves of the jumbling move. We could use something like J/J' or J+/J- to indicate that you do clockwise or counterclockwise moves to set up the jumble around the current UF edge. 

While not as clean, we could also do something like (UF J+) to indicate a clockwise setup to a jumbling move around UF, or (BR J-) to indicate a counter-clockwise setup to a jumbling move around the BR edge. This eliminates dealing with rotations, but I personally prefer the rotations.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jan 3, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> Now that I have gotten a curvy copter and more or less know how to solve it, and have competed in it for the Weekly Competition this week, I have a question. Before asking the question, I should probably mention that people who have objected that scrambling the curvy copter is sufficiently daunting that it is a major barrier to this ever becoming a WCA event. It would be interesting to see how much optimization is possible to the scrambler; perhaps if the scrambles were much shorter, it might be more possible. But it seems to me after learning how to solve it that at the very least, quite a few jumbling moves are required just to get it fully scrambled, and the final portion of the current scrambles that takes it out of cubeshape are probably half the total scrambling time, for me at least. So I really have doubts that any significant time improvement can be made on the scrambling, if we allow full jumbling.
> 
> But just for fun, imagine that we somehow were able to justify having fiully-jumbled (non-cubeshape scrambles) curvy copter as an official event. Would it make sense to allow "forcing" moves that are not necessary to solve the puzzle? As a very simple example, imagine a scramble (on a solved puzzle) like: UR+ UF+2. Now after those two moves, should it be considered illegal to make the move UR-? Of course, this is a silly example, since it wouldn't help anything to solve it, but it was easy to set up and shows my point. There are certainly situations where it is easier (fewer moves, or at least less thinking) to solve to cubeshape by forcing a move that really isn't possible on a fully rigid puzzle, but such that currently available, somewhat nicely-turning puzzles today easily allow such forcing moves. And if the event were to become popular, it's easy to imagine speed curvy copters being developed which are even looser for faster turning, which would make such forcing moves even easier to perform - probably even effortless to perform.
> 
> ...





KingCanyon said:


> Where does it say such forcing moves are illegal? I do understand however that these moves are not natural to the nature of the puzzle, but is there really any way for people to prevent this officially? Even if judges were assigned the task of looking for these unnatural forcing moves, there would be bound to be mistakes. Since jumbling is only a portion of the solve, I'm inclined to allow the forcing, as I don't really see anyway to prevent it effectively. That being said, it would be nice if puzzle manufacturers could find a way to prevent the puzzle from doing this. I think it may be pretty difficult to keep the curvy copter as a speed puzzle while preventing this unnatural move. I would like to be wrong about that though. Perhaps there is a cube mechanism that prevents these unnatural moves while still maintaining the puzzle's speed. If anyone has an example like this, I would love to here about it.


What if manufacturers made curvy copters that made illegal moves turn well and be part of the mechanism, thus making them legal.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 5, 2020)

Does anyone know if these “illegal moves” can result in a state that cannot be solved without the same kind of move? I got a shape state that stumped me for two days until I tried forcing a turn past a corner like the move @Mike Hughey was talking about. Once I forced that cube shape was trivial. I suspect I may have made one of those moves inadvertently.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 5, 2020)

I personally still stand by my view that it would be better to first experiment with curvy copter without using jumbling moves. The notation/scrambles would be cleaner, 2D images wouldn't be a problem, the solve would still be unique and non-trivial as an edge turning puzzle, and the problem of legal vs illegal moves is avoided.
Of course, the fact that jumbling uses all the puzzle's potential is great, but I think that if we really wanted to push for CC to get added officially, not using jumbling would imo drastically reduce the difficulty/headache, while not sacrificing too much solve complexity. The solve is still unique as an edge turning puzzle, and is still non-trivial without jumbling. I personally find jumbling to be annoying to deal with, which of course does bias my opinion here, but we're all biased to our opinions, and no one is right or wrong in that regard.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 5, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I personally still stand by my view that it would be better to first experiment with curvy copter without using jumbling moves. The notation/scrambles would be cleaner, 2D images wouldn't be a problem, the solve would still be unique and non-trivial as an edge turning puzzle, and the problem of legal vs illegal moves is avoided.
> Of course, the fact that jumbling uses all the puzzle's potential is great, but I think that if we really wanted to push for CC to get added officially, not using jumbling would imo drastically reduce the difficulty/headache, while not sacrificing too much solve complexity. The solve is still unique as an edge turning puzzle, and is still non-trivial without jumbling. I personally find jumbling to be annoying to deal with, which of course does bias my opinion here, but we're all biased to our opinions, and no one is right or wrong in that regard.


The problem with that is one of adjudication: since there are states that require jumbling to solve, if a competitor reaches such a state then how do you determine whether the puzzle was accidentally jumbled during scrambling (justifying an extra attempt in a competition, although not as significant for the WC where competitors typically scramble their own puzzles) or if the competitor introduced jumbling moves (in which case the competitor could choose between using jumbling moves to complete the solve or taking a DNF. It’s kind of like scrambling a 4x4 as a 3x3, except it’s a lot easier to introduce jumbling than to introduce parity accidentally.

Edit: plus jumbling is cool.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 5, 2020)

Eliminating jumbling as a whole seems drastic and takes out the part of the event that makes it unique. Without jumbling, curvy copter is honestly a fairly trivial puzzle with bad ergonomics. I think it's not much more difficult logistically to include jumbling in scrambles and have all scramble states in cubeshape.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 5, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> Eliminating jumbling as a whole seems drastic and takes out the part of the event that makes it unique. Without jumbling, curvy copter is honestly a fairly trivial puzzle with bad ergonomics. I think it's not much more difficult logistically to include jumbling in scrambles and have all scramble states in cubeshape.


That seems like a reasonable compromise, although fixing the shape is a fun step. Two possibilities: I mentioned above a mechanical scrambler, if that was readily available would it negate the need to check scrambles? I suspect that this would be at least a couple of years out, and the scrambles used now in the WC have three pretty clear phases, would it be feasible to draw scrambles in those three phases? 2-D for after the non-jumbling phase and after cube-shape-with-jumbling, and a rotatable 3-D computer model for after shape-shifting.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 5, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> The problem with that is one of adjudication: since there are states that require jumbling to solve, if a competitor reaches such a state then how do you determine whether the puzzle was accidentally jumbled during scrambling (justifying an extra attempt in a competition, although not as significant for the WC where competitors typically scramble their own puzzles) or if the competitor introduced jumbling moves (in which case the competitor could choose between using jumbling moves to complete the solve or taking a DNF. It’s kind of like scrambling a 4x4 as a 3x3, except it’s a lot easier to introduce jumbling than to introduce parity accidentally.
> 
> Edit: plus jumbling is cool.


If the scrambles are done without jumbling correctly, then there shouldn’t be a need to perform jumbling moves during the solve.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 5, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> If the scrambles are done without jumbling correctly, then there shouldn’t be a need to perform jumbling moves during the solve.


That’s my point: if the cube does need to be jumbled to solve then whose fault is it? Plus what Kit said about non-jumbling Curvy Copter being trivial.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 5, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> That’s my point: if the cube does need to be jumbled to solve then whose fault is it? Plus what Kit said about non-jumbling Curvy Copter being trivial.


I think the point here is that the odds of a cube getting "accidentally" jumbled are probably substantially lower than, say, the odds of getting a twisted corner in a normal 3x3x3 solve. In fact I'd say the only way you could get an accidental jumble like that would be if the competitor submits the cube for scrambling in an already jumbled state. And if that's true, the competitor deserves whatever they get, and hopefully the scrambler notices - they should.

But I also very much agree with Kit that the jumbling is what makes this an interesting puzzle and worthy of consideration as a competition possibility. The jumbling takes this from being an otherwise rather trivial puzzle to being a rather surprisingly difficult puzzle. If we're not considering jumbling, we might as well be talking about the helicopter cube instead, and that one really wouldn't interest me much at all, personally. I realize others will have different opinions, but it is truly the jumbling which makes this an interesting puzzle for me.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 5, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> That’s my point: if the cube does need to be jumbled to solve then whose fault is it? Plus what Kit said about non-jumbling Curvy Copter being trivial.


In this hypothetical scenario, without jumbling the scrambles could be checked against a 2D printout to verify that it is scrambled properly, in which case it would become the competitor’s fault. I guess so long as the cube is ultimately solved it doesn’t really matter what moves were used during the solve.
I also don’t really agree with calling the curvy copter without jumbling to be trivial. Current methods are very similar to CFOP or CFCE with clover, ‘F2L’ OLL CPLL. So you could argue that it’s about as trivial as a normal 3x3 solve. 
Another thing that has bothered me is people comparing not using jumbling to keeping the square-1 in cube shape. There is a difference. You can technically solve the squan outside of cube shape, and then return it to cube shape last. No one does this but you can without limitations. With jumbling moves on CC you are physically limited in how you can permite the pieces which is a different comparison imo.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 5, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> In this hypothetical scenario, without jumbling the scrambles could be checked against a 2D printout to verify that it is scrambled properly, in which case it would become the competitor’s fault. I guess so long as the cube is ultimately solved it doesn’t really matter what moves were used during the solve.
> I also don’t really agree with calling the curvy copter without jumbling to be trivial. Current methods are very similar to CFOP or CFCE with clover, ‘F2L’ OLL CPLL. So you could argue that it’s about as trivial as a normal 3x3 solve.
> Another thing that has bothered me is people comparing not using jumbling to keeping the square-1 in cube shape. There is a difference. You can technically solve the squan outside of cube shape, and then return it to cube shape last. No one does this but you can without limitations. With jumbling moves on CC you are physically limited in how you can permite the pieces which is a different comparison imo.


There are cube shaped states on Curvy Copter that require leaving cube shape to solve, like square-1 parity. If the scramble never leaves cube shape then the solve never has to leave cube shape, and a competitor would not have to know how to use jumbling/parity.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 5, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> There are cube shaped states on Curvy Copter that require leaving cube shape to solve, like square-1 parity. If the scramble never leaves cube shape then the solve never has to leave cube shape, and a competitor would not have to know how to use jumbling/parity.


You’re right. I didn’t think about that. Do we know if we can explode CC, randomly assemble, and solve any resulting state?


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 5, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> You’re right. I didn’t think about that. Do we know if we can explode CC, randomly assemble, and solve any resulting state?


I have twice reached a state that had only two corners switched, and I had to remove an edge/center and manually flip it 180 degrees to reach a solveable state. In both cases I’m certain that it was caused by a pop, and not legal moves. I suspect but cannot prove that the kind of corner-cutting “illegal” jumbling moves that Mike mentioned also result in a state that requires “illegal” moves to solve.


----------



## Hazel (Jan 5, 2020)

What if the scramble images were less 2d like the skewb images? Somebody would have to make that possible, but it would eliminate that issue. I think full jumbling is something that the event should keep.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 5, 2020)

Aerma said:


> What if the scramble images were less 2d like the skewb images? Somebody would have to make that possible, but it would eliminate that issue. I think full jumbling is something that the event should keep.


The problem with a 2.5-D image is that Curvy Copter can have some really complicated shapes.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 6, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> The problem with a 2.5-D image is that Curvy Copter can have some really complicated shapes.


Can’t we just, like, make an actual CC model in computer, scramble and jumble it, and output orthographic projections of each face? 

No matter how complicated the cube shape is, it is technically still a cube with six faces so six projections should work.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 6, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> Can’t we just, like, make an actual CC model in computer, scramble and jumble it, and output orthographic projections of each face?
> 
> No matter how complicated the cube shape is, it is technically still a cube with six faces so six projections should work.


It should certainly be possible to do this. The issue would be that it would be quite a challenge to check well, as a scrambler, once you had it.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 6, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> It should certainly be possible to do this. The issue would be that it would be quite a challenge to check well, as a scrambler, once you had it.


I don't think it's that hard though. Since we are talking only about cubeshape, we could simply compare the *outline *of the cube and the scramble on the paper. 

Furthermore, if the color confuses the scrambler, we can have two scrambles on the paper in total: one as the one I say above and the second one is a scramble with outlines only, just to check cubeshape. I just tried doing some cubeshapes on my CC and it appears to be quite easy to check it simply by looking at the outline of the cube.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 6, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> I don't think it's that hard though. Since we are talking only about cubeshape, we could simply compare the *outline *of the cube and the scramble on the paper.
> 
> Furthermore, if the color confuses the scrambler, we can have two scrambles on the paper in total: one as the one I say above and the second one is a scramble with outlines only, just to check cubeshape. I just tried doing some cubeshapes on my CC and it appears to be quite easy to check it simply by looking at the outline of the cube.


Outlines would only require 3 drawings. I still prefer a 3-D rotatable model.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 6, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> I still prefer a 3-D rotatable model.


You mean an actual model on the computer screen?


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 6, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> You mean an actual model on the computer screen?


Precisely. It couldn’t be printed out, and I don’t think it would work exactly with the current software, but 3-D modeling software exists that could do that exist, and I’m sure could be integrated.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 6, 2020)

Additionally, consider running puzzles in an actual competition with a non-cube state. Square-1 is a non-cube, but there is a simple solution to ensure that it does not move when it is transported from the scrambling table to the stations. I don't see any practical way to transport a non-cube curvy copter without the state changing in transport.

We need to think practically here. If this is ever done officially (or unofficially in comps), we won't be able to have worldwide access to scrambling robots. (How could one possibly be made for curvy copter anyway, anticipating a multitude of possible shapes?) We have significant challenges in transporting the puzzles. While doable, printing scramble images for a non-cube state in a way that makes it easy to check seems daunting


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 6, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> We need to think practically here. If this is ever done officially (or unofficially in comps), we won't be able to have worldwide access to scrambling robots. (How could one possibly be made for curvy copter anyway, anticipating a multitude of possible shapes?) We have significant challenges in transporting the puzzles.



A scrambling robot as I envision it would be fairly expensive, but not that difficult. 12 edge/centers rotate in place, everything else rotated around them. It would take 12 step motors, each connected to a spring-loaded rod with a small right angle bracket at the end. The expensive part would be the motors, everything else could be fabricated for less than $50.


----------



## Hazel (Jan 6, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> Additionally, consider running puzzles in an actual competition with a non-cube state. Square-1 is a non-cube, but there is a simple solution to ensure that it does not move when it is transported from the scrambling table to the stations. I don't see any practical way to transport a non-cube curvy copter without the state changing in transport.


Square-1 puzzles are a lot more flimsy than Curvy Copters though, so I don't see this being a problem as long as the runners are careful. Although once we start getting speed Copters, this could get more difficult... maybe if there was a special container you could put a Curvy Copter in that prevented it from moving during transport that the competitor is responsible for opening during inspection time?


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 6, 2020)

Aerma said:


> maybe if there was a special container you could put a Curvy Copter in that prevented it from moving during transport that the competitor is responsible for opening during inspection time?


I was thinking about something like this


Redirect Notice


Maybe this can do the job? It can match the cubeshape if we have a box like this. Though I doubt using it at any comp worldwide LOL.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 6, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> A scrambling robot as I envision it would be fairly expensive, but not that difficult. 12 edge/centers rotate in place, everything else rotated around them. It would take 12 step motors, each connected to a spring-loaded rod with a small right angle bracket at the end. The expensive part would be the motors, everything else could be fabricated for less than $50.



And if this is to become a worldwide WCA event, $50 is not a reasonable expense for every local community across the world.



Aerma said:


> Square-1 puzzles are a lot more flimsy than Curvy Copters though, so I don't see this being a problem as long as the runners are careful. Although once we start getting speed Copters, this could get more difficult... maybe if there was a special container you could put a Curvy Copter in that prevented it from moving during transport that the competitor is responsible for opening during inspection time?



Even current copters have many states that would move pieces when placing it upon a flat surface. There's no simple fix like a business card for sq-1 that locks all possible turning in place.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 6, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> And if this is to become a worldwide WCA event, $50 is not a reasonable expense for every local community across the world.


It may be possible to bring the price down, and probably wouldn’t cost significantly more than a timer and display. How much do you think a reasonable figure would be for something like this?




Kit Clement said:


> Even current copters have many states that would move pieces when placing it upon a flat surface. There's no simple fix like a business card for sq-1 that locks all possible turning in place.



This is a serious issue, I agree with you that it’s a problem and I’m not sure there is a better solution than ending all scrambles in a cube shape. I want a different solution, though.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 8, 2020)

Is it possible to solve all jumbling after doing cubeshape? So the rest of the solve will be jumble-move free. Otherwise it would be really hard to come up with algs for the rest of the cube.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 8, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> Is it possible to solve all jumbling after doing cubeshape? So the rest of the solve will be jumble-move free. Otherwise it would be really hard to come up with algs for the rest of the cube.


Well, it's definitely possible. All you need to do is make sure that each orbit has exactly one of each color. But I'm not sure how practical it is to try to see that. Still, it's an interesting idea. I might just try a solve that way now. 

Edit: Well, that actually went surprisingly well. It's an incredible pain trying to pay attention to all 4 orbits like that, but once you get them all solved, it makes for an easy helicopter-cube-like solve from that point forward. You still need to do jumbles at the end to handle cases where you need to change a 2-cycle into a 3-cycle, but other than that, it works very nicely and makes the rest of the solve very easy.

I kept track of the orbits by starting on the white side (as judged by the edge pieces, which can't move), and then going in order looking at the orbits of each of the white pieces in a predetermined order (blue-red, red-green, green-orange, orange-blue was the order I used). Once you get the first two orbits, "solving" the third orbit means you automatically also solve the fourth.

I still have my doubts that anyone who was really good at the puzzle would find this faster than a more layer-by-layer solve. But it is an interesting alternative, and a lot better than I expected it to be.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 8, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> Well, it's definitely possible. All you need to do is make sure that each orbit has exactly one of each color. But I'm not sure how practical it is to try to see that. Still, it's an interesting idea. I might just try a solve that way now.


I believe it is possible to have all center pieces in the correct orbits (or at least appear so) and still require jumbling to solve: if a single edge/center is flipped it can be fixed with UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR+ UL+ UF UL- FR- UF. I don’t know another way to flip a single edge piece, but I’ve reached that position several times.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 8, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> I believe it is possible to have all center pieces in the correct orbits (or at least appear so) and still require jumbling to solve: if a single edge/center is flipped it can be fixed with UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR+ UL+ UF UL- FR- UF. I don’t know another way to flip a single edge piece, but I’ve reached that position several times.


I think you mean UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR- UL- UF UL+ FR+ UF.

But I wouldn't really consider that flipping the edge. That's swapping two sets of centers, plus an extra UF move. I say that because as is, you've also swapped two corners. If you leave off the UF, you have 4 centers that have swapped, and all the corners and the edge are still unchanged.

And dealing with those is as easy as doing that algorithm to fix it. And that is just a variant of what I was talking about before, where you have to convert a 2-cycle into a 3-cycle. Doing that algorithm essentially bypasses the need for it by swapping both. So technically, you were completely right - you do need jumbling to solve at the end. But it sure makes it easier to handle the end of the solve, at least from my perspective. Putting the pieces in the correct orbits at the beginning gives you a lot less restrictions so it's pretty easy to move them in. The only thing that makes it of questionable value is that it's hard to keep track of keeping all six colors in each orbit at the beginning.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 8, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think you mean UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR- UL- UF UL+ FR+ UF.
> 
> But I wouldn't really consider that flipping the edge. That's swapping two sets of centers, plus an extra UF move. I say that because as is, you've also swapped two corners. If you leave off the UF, you have 4 centers that have swapped, and all the corners and the edge are still unchanged.
> 
> And dealing with those is as easy as doing that algorithm to fix it. And that is just a variant of what I was talking about before, where you have to convert a 2-cycle into a 3-cycle. Doing that algorithm essentially bypasses the need for it by swapping both. So technically, you were completely right - you do need jumbling to solve at the end. But it sure makes it easier to handle the end of the solve, at least from my perspective. Putting the pieces in the correct orbits at the beginning gives you a lot less restrictions so it's pretty easy to move them in. The only thing that makes it of questionable value is that it's hard to keep track of keeping all six colors in each orbit at the beginning.


But all the centers are in the same orbits that they were in before that algorithm. You’re right about switching two corners. My point is that I don’t believe there is a way to fix this position without jumbling:


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 8, 2020)

What if we do non-cubeshape scrambles, but with the bottom half staying in cube shape and only changing the top half’s shape. This would allow the puzzle to have a flat bottom for transportation’s sake, and reduce some of the annoying attributes of going into cube shape while still maintaining a decent amount of non-cube shape fun


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 9, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> But all the centers are in the same orbits that they were in before that algorithm. You’re right about switching two corners. My point is that I don’t believe there is a way to fix this position without jumbling:


I agree with your basic point (and I agreed with that in my previous post). But it still seems like there's a possible benefit to putting all the pieces in the right orbit before doing the rest of the solve, since the jumbling necessary at the end is pretty straightforward and easy. But I still doubt it would actually help someone who's really good at the puzzle.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Jan 9, 2020)

It may be possible to, durimg inspection, at least identify a few jumbled centers. Maybe not all but... Id imagine that you could probably find a few.

What this would do for you, I don't exactly know. But... Maybe there is a way to determine how those pieces could be switched correctly to ensure correct orbit placement?
Thats all I can say, as I have limited knowledge on the puzzle as of late.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 9, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> My point is that I don’t believe there is a way to fix this position without jumbling.


You’re right. Switching two corners can only be done with jumbling so you don’t see that in my pure PL4C alg list(corner aren’t effected by jumbling)


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 9, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> You’re right. Switching two corners can only be done with jumbling so you don’t see that in my pure PL4C alg list(corner aren’t effected by jumbling)


I think I may have misunderstood your initial question.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 9, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> I still have my doubts that anyone who was really good at the puzzle would find this faster than a more layer-by-layer solve.


I actually wonder if such people exist right now XD. If such people do exist though, I would like to know whether my points are correct.

@Mike Hughey I know that dealing with jumbling in every step (like RedKB) is very annoying to me, but should be quite easy after a lot of practice, just like everything else in the cubing community.

But my main concern about getting rid of jumbling(making center into wrong orbit ones to be precise) before solving is because I am currently trying to develop a speed solving method for CC with complete alg sets for every step except cross like CFOP, and jumbling makes generating the algs ridiculously difficult. Some steps that has less than 20 algs when not jumbled has well over 100 algs when jumbled, and the algs are much longer and messier with jumble moves all over the place.

So far the only alg set I finish is L4C because corners have nothing to do with jumbling.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 9, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> I think I may have misunderstood your initial question.


No you haven’t. You are talking about exactly what I am asking for, which is center pieces effected by jumbling moves. I am asking that if there is a way to correct all center orbits, or even better, getting rid of all jumbling moves(you just proved that impossible)before solving the cube after cubeshape.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 9, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> No you haven’t. You are talking about exactly what I am asking for, which is center pieces effected by jumbling moves. I am asking that if there is a way to correct all center orbits, or even better, getting rid of all jumbling moves(you just proved that impossible)before solving the cube after cubeshape.


This site recommends correcting all center orbits before the rest of the solve: https://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/helicopter.htm

In principle I’m sure it would be possible to predict and fix odd edge orientation at the same point, but in practice I think it would be comparably difficult to predicting 6x6 parity after solving the centers and before edge pairing.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 9, 2020)

For what it's worth, I have tried several solves now with the approach of first (after cubeshape) putting pieces in their proper orbits, then solving without having to worry about swapping centers until the very end, and I am finding I am at least as fast that way as I am by solving the way I was previously solving (which is basically pretty similar to what RedKB taught on YouTube years ago for solving it).

It might just be because I'm so bad at solving it that way, though. But I am finding it's not too bad to look for the four orbits and fix them - when you don't have to worry about edges or corners at all while solving the orbits, it's usually pretty quick and easy to make the changes. And then the rest of the solve requires so much less thought, for me at least. Even the end is really straightforward - all the hard cases just go away this way. Again, though, that's probably just because I'm so bad at it. But it seems like it might be a really logical choice for a beginner's method to do it this way. I seem to be getting sub-8 solves most of the time now, which is seemingly respectable for a slow turner like me who's still new to the puzzle.


----------



## Rav_123 (Jan 23, 2020)

Hi, I'm new to the community. I have a problem with my first solve of the curvy copter and need a pll for two corners. The situation is weird and maybe you'll have a solution for this.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 23, 2020)

Rav_123 said:


> Hi, I'm new to the community. I have a problem with my first solve of the curvy copter and need a pll for two corners. The situation is weird and maybe you'll have a solution for this.


Do you have a flipped edge center(the piece with two small triangles on it) somewhere else on the cube?


----------



## Rav_123 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> Do you have a flipped edge center(the piece with two small triangles on it) somewhere else on the cube?


No, but during my solve one edge center fell out and I've put it back. Maybe I made a mistake there (I think it was the orange-white center piece).


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 23, 2020)

Rav_123 said:


> No, but during my solve one edge center fell out and I've put it back. Maybe I made a mistake there (I think it was the orange-white center piece).


Yes, that's the problem. Can you take the edge center DIRECTLY BETWEEN those two wrong corners out and FLIP it and stick it back?


----------



## Rav_123 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wish Lin said:


> Yes, that's the problem. Can you take the edge center DIRECTLY BETWEEN those two wrong corners out and FLIP it and stick it back?


Of course, done. What's the next step?


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 23, 2020)

Rav_123 said:


> Of course, done. What's the next step?


Now just watch this video at 12:32 and this is the exact alg you need:





Just solve the rest of the cube normally.


----------



## Rav_123 (Jan 23, 2020)

That helped and the cube is completed. Thank's for your quick support!


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 23, 2020)

Rav_123 said:


> That helped and the cube is completed. Thank's for your quick support!


You're welcome!


----------



## Wish Lin (Jan 24, 2020)

I made a simple algorithm set of top 4 triangles of the last layer:








Curvy Copter T4T algorithms(move optimal!)


This is an easy algorthm set used to solve the top 4 triangle pieces (T4T) of the curvy copter when solving the last layer. They can only work on jumble-move-free curvy copters. #Note that I didn't consider its effect on the small edge centers becuase of the inevitable edge-center flip case...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## TheDubDubJr (Jan 26, 2020)

Here is a video of a sub-2 Curvy Copter Average with Jumbling and Cubeshape!

Let see if you can pick up on some of my tricks I have been figuring out in the last week!  

Generated By csTimer on 2020-01-26
avg of 5: 1:57.11

Time List:
1. (1:38.47)
2. (2:38.71)
3. 2:01.18
4. 1:56.76
5. 1:53.38


Scramble is in the Description of the video.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Jan 26, 2020)

Is there a updated Curvy Coter tutorial, that walks through all the steps, from the beginning to end? I watched RedKB's, but I was just curious if there is a new one from the last year or so.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Jan 29, 2020)

I just got a 56.92 non jumbling single, not on cam though. I think thats WB, but I'm not sure.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 29, 2020)

TipsterTrickster said:


> I just got a 56.92 non jumbling single, not on cam though. I think thats WB, but I'm not sure.


@qqwref claimed a 46.85 single here: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-non-jumbling-curvy-copter-uwr-race.61144/page-3

I thought I remembered seeing a video of somebody getting sub-30, but I’m not finding that right off.


----------



## YouCubing (Jan 30, 2020)

Where can I find a Curvy Copter scrambler? I can't find one on CSTimer, and I looked all over the forums and Google for one, but I can't find it.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 30, 2020)

YouCubing said:


> Where can I find a Curvy Copter scrambler? I can't find one on CSTimer, and I looked all over the forums and Google for one, but I can't find it.


Go to the helicopter cube scrambles. It works for curvy copter. It just won’t jumble


----------



## YouCubing (Jan 30, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Go to the helicopter cube scrambles. It works for curvy copter. It just won’t jumble


I found that, but I'm looking for one that'll jumble, if it exists.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 30, 2020)

YouCubing said:


> I found that, but I'm looking for one that'll jumble, if it exists.











SALOW Notation for Curvy Copter.


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.




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## TheDubDubJr (Jan 31, 2020)

Yea the Thread Kit linked is pretty nice for Jumbling Scrambles through Python. 

I also have only done ~20 non-jumbling solves (and 150 Jumbling solves), but my best non-jumbling solve is this.

(43.96) BL DR FL BR DR FR DB UB DR DB BR UF DR DB FR UL BL UB FL UR BR UL BL UF FL DR UB DB DR DL UR UB UF DF BR DB UB BR UR BL


I don't have a sub-1 Ao5 though. Just a good single.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Feb 1, 2020)

PB single and ao5!
avg of 5: 1:54.38

Time List:
1. (1:33.43) 1 UL UF UL UB UL UF UB UR UB UR UF UR UF UR LB RF UR UF UL RF UF UR UF UR UB UL UB LB RB UB UR UF LF UF UL UF UR UB UL UF RB UB DF DR RF UR UB DR RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- RF DL UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UF UR LB UB+ RF+ UR UB- RF- RF DR LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- DL UR+ DB+ RB UR- DB- UL+ DB+2 DR RF-2 DB 
2. 1:53.07 2 UF UR UF UB UR UL UB UL UF UB UR UB UR UB UL UF LB RF UF UR UL UB RF UF UR UL UF LB RF UF RB UR UF UL UF UR UB LF UL LF UL UF LF UF UR RB DB DL LB DL DR RB UB DB UB- LF- UL UB+ LF+ UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- LB RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- LB DL UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UL UB UF+ DR+ RF UF- DR- UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ UR UR+ UF UR+2 UB+2 LF- UL+ UB+ UL UB RB DF DR+ DB+2 DR DB DR+2 DB+ RB DB RB+ DR+2 RB- DF 
3. 1:58.10 3 UR UL UF UR UB UL UF UB UL UF UR UF UR LB UL UF UB UR UF RF UR UF UL UB UL LB UL UF RB UR UF UL UF UR RB UB LF UF UR UB UR DL LF DF DL DR UB- LF- UL UB+ LF+ UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- RF+ DL+ DF RF- DL- DR RB+ DF+ DR RB- DF- DF DL UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UF UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UR LF UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UF+ DR+ RF UF- DR- DF UF+ UL UF+2 LB DR+2 DF DR DF+ 
4. 1:51.97 4 UB UR UL UF UR UL UB UR UB UL UB UL UB LB UL UB UR UL UB UL UF LB RF UF RB UB UR LB LF UL UF UB UR LB RB UB RB DL DB LB DL DR RB UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB- UB UR UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- LF DF UR+ UF LF+2 DF+ LF+ DF+2 DL+2 DB RB+2 DL+ 
5. (2:03.93) 5 UR UF UL UF UL UB UR UB UL UB UR UF UR UF LB UB RF UF UL UB UL UF UR UB UL LB UL UF RF RB UR UB RB UR UB RB LF UF UL UF UR LF UL UB LF DB DL LB UL UB DB DF LF UL UF- RB- UR UF+ RB+ UB+ RF+ UR UB- RF- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- RB DB UL+ DF+ LF UL- DF- UF DL LB UB+ RF+ UR UB- RF- RF DR UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UB- DR- RB UB+ DR+ UB+ UR UB+2 UL+2 RF- UF+ UL+2 DR RF


----------



## Wish Lin (Feb 2, 2020)

TheDubDubJr said:


> Here is a video of a sub-2 Curvy Copter Average with Jumbling and Cubeshape!
> 
> Let see if you can pick up on some of my tricks I have been figuring out in the last week!
> 
> ...


Do you use full COLL?


----------



## Wish Lin (Feb 3, 2020)

A small curvy copter ranking competition if anyone has free time:









Curvy Copter unofficial ranking competiton


This is a small ranking competition on curvy copter. You can choose which catagory to attend or just attend both. All scrambles are generated by whatshisbucket's scramble program. Video proof is not necessary, but it's just good to have one. Non-jumbling: UL UB UR UF UR UB UL UB UR UF UR UL...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 4, 2020)

I got a curvy copter for Christmas, and I figured out how to solve it without jumbling the day after or so, but it took until today for me to solve it with jumbling. I have a loose rule to try and learn how to solve any new puzzles I get without help, but now that I can solve it completely by myself, I can learn better techniques with help. So yay.


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 4, 2020)

I did my first timed copter solve, and got a 12:26.81 with jumbling, faster than I expected lol.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 14, 2020)

I am improving pretty consistently but what is really giving me a hard time is cubeshape. Is there a general method I can follow, every cubeshape that has a certain deepness seems really difficult to solve for me :/


----------



## EngiNerdBrian (Jul 7, 2020)

Is this some sort of jumbling "parity"? I was able to intuitively figure out the non jumbling solution to this puzzle, coming up with corner 3 cycles and an alg to orient corners but during a solution where i hand scrambled with jumbling moves i am totally stumped (puzzle was super ugly and bandaged all over the place, i jumbled by turning only 1 side at a time leading to lots of shape shifting). No matter what i do i keep getting back to states that seem unsolvable with 180° turns, all my attempts to switch the triangle/clover pieces seems to just lead me back to some other quirky state i can't handle with "standard" moves. 

Is this state solvable without jumbling moves? How can you tell? Any tips on a process to solve this?


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 7, 2020)

EngineeringBrian said:


> Is this some sort of jumbling "parity"? I was able to intuitively figure out the non jumbling solution to this puzzle, coming up with corner 3 cycles and an alg to orient corners but during a solution where i hand scrambled with jumbling moves i am totally stumped (puzzle was super ugly and bandaged all over the place, i jumbled by turning only 1 side at a time leading to lots of shape shifting). No matter what i do i keep getting back to states that seem unsolvable with 180° turns, all my attempts to switch the triangle/clover pieces seems to just lead me back to some other quirky state i can't handle with "standard" moves.
> 
> Is this state solvable without jumbling moves? How can you tell? Any tips on a process to solve this?
> 
> View attachment 12808


The two orange centers are in the same orbit, and the green center on the orange face is in the same orbit as the lower right green center. That position requires jumbling to solve. Unfortunately, while I can definitively say that it does require jumbling, my strategy at that point of the solve is not much better than trial and error, so I can't quite tell you how to jumble it.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 8, 2020)

EngineeringBrian said:


> Any tips on a process to solve this?



If you aren't sure about the idea of orbits, try tracing where the triangle pieces can go by only 180 degree turns. You should find that it's not possible in your current cubeshape to solve many of your triangle pieces. Next, try to identify moves that can be done (which will need to break cubeshape temporarily) that put triangles in positions that couldn't be obtained by 180 degree turns alone. This will be the key to making sure you can solve all your triangles before solving all of the other piece types you have solved.


----------



## qwr (Jul 17, 2020)

I solved one on my own today (without jumbling) after having only three corners left for a while.

My basic strategy was to solve the bottom half intuitively, inserting centers and corners into slots. Then at the last layer I try to get all corners oriented correctly (yellow on top).
I came up with two last layer algorithms: One moves around two pairs of centers and flips both edges: (UF UR)3; the other performs a 3-cycle of centers, one on F, one on U, and one on R: (UF FR UR FR)2. These don't affect any corners. These were enough to solve the puzzle just by messing with the top layer and sometimes one side edge. On top layer, first corners are solved intuitively, then edges using (UF UR)3, then 3-cycle of centers.

Tomorrow I'll try it with jumbling.


----------



## qwr (Jul 18, 2020)

I found this nice diagram of the orbits here https://fan2cube.fr/curvycopter1.php




If enough algs are created, what do you guys think about getting a wiki page going? (You can take credit for algs you add  )


----------



## qwr (Jul 22, 2020)

Ok it's been more than a day because I forgot about it but I solved the puzzle with jumbling!

After scrambling I got it back to cube shape intuitively and solved the first layer by intuitively swapping orbits.
For the last layer, normally I would solve the corners and edges first, but this time I tried fixing all the center orbits.
(Here I use the notation where + means CW to first cut, ++ means CW to second cut, and CCW for - and --.)

I solved the last layer by observing the result of the center swapping move. Performed on the UF edge this is [FL+ UR+ : UF] (setup FL and UR edges, do 180 deg UF rotation, then undo setup). This move flips UF edge piece, swaps U face bottom left center with F face top right center, swaps L face top left center with R face top right center (directly across from each other), and rotates UFL corner CW and UFR corner CCW. The important part is the two centers on L and R sides swap since this changes orbits.

Another useful alg is performing the center swapping move and then its mirror: [FL+ UR+ : UF] [FR- UL- : UF]. This swaps two pairs of centers adjacent to UF just like doing one UF move but leaves the corners and edges unchanged.

The other variation is [FL+ UR-- : UF]. This changes orbits by swapping L face top right corner with U face top right corner. It can be mirrored too.

After solving the centers, I proceeded to solve like in my non-jumbling solution. I didn't have any weird corners or edges parity but I don't know if that is possible.


----------



## qwr (Jul 22, 2020)

EngineeringBrian said:


> Is this some sort of jumbling "parity"? I was able to intuitively figure out the non jumbling solution to this puzzle, coming up with corner 3 cycles and an alg to orient corners but during a solution where i hand scrambled with jumbling moves i am totally stumped (puzzle was super ugly and bandaged all over the place, i jumbled by turning only 1 side at a time leading to lots of shape shifting). No matter what i do i keep getting back to states that seem unsolvable with 180° turns, all my attempts to switch the triangle/clover pieces seems to just lead me back to some other quirky state i can't handle with "standard" moves.
> 
> Is this state solvable without jumbling moves? How can you tell? Any tips on a process to solve this?
> 
> View attachment 12808



I will assume that these are the only pieces unsolved. The U face orange center and R face green center are in the wrong orbits. Therefore setup these centers then swap these two centers with a center swapping move I mentioned in the last post.

I think in this case you can do UF UR y which sets up orange center on R face top left green center on U face top left. Then [FR- UL++ : UF] to swap


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 5, 2020)

So, I just started doing some solves again and I feel like there is no good way of intuitively solving CubeShape, when the case has certain depth. Is there any kind of help to this? I feel like an event that you cant learn because there are almost no resources should not be Part of the weekly comp


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 5, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> So, I just started doing some solves again and I feel like there is no good way of intuitively solving CubeShape, when the case has certain depth. Is there any kind of help to this? I feel like an event that you cant learn because there are almost no resources should not be Part of the weekly comp


More intuitive solving is good. There's still plenty of room to develop resources, but there's enough out there that anybody can, with a little dedication and intuition, solve the cube. The biggest reason I don't compete in curvy copter more is just that the scrambles are hard to read, so it takes a long time to scramble (and I also need to learn more CO and center algs).


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 25, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> More intuitive solving is good. There's still plenty of room to develop resources, but there's enough out there that anybody can, with a little dedication and intuition, solve the cube. The biggest reason I don't compete in curvy copter more is just that the scrambles are hard to read, so it takes a long time to scramble (and I also need to learn more CO and center algs).


I am not that much into competing because I have a hard time solving some cubeshapes. For a certain depth I just cant solve them at all and there is no help with that.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 25, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> I am not that much into competing because I have a hard time solving some cubeshapes. For a certain depth I just cant solve them at all and there is no help with that.


I don't know if this is what you're dealing with, but a little trick that Walker Welch showed me is that when you have an edge that's not aligned, align that edge and misalign two corner-center pairs, then solve from there.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 25, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> I don't know if this is what you're dealing with, but a little trick that Walker Welch showed me is that when you have an edge that's not aligned, align that edge and misalign two corner-center pairs, then solve from there.


Dont quite know what u mean. I asked Walker for advice once, but he never came back at me and at some point just ignoried or missed my messages


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Dont quite know what u mean. I asked Walker for advice once, but he never came back at me and at some point just ignoried or missed my messages



Don't try to solve from this position: 


Solve from this position: 



The other thing I got from Walker was when he did something like UF- UR-2 FR UR+2 UF+ and I said "but that's an illegal move" he said "says who?"


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 26, 2020)

I actually know that. I just have problems when there are like 3 of these.
That alg does not work. Not even if you ignore illegal moves.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> I actually know that. I just have problems when there are like 3 of these.
> That alg does not work. Not even if you ignore illegal moves.


I had no end of trouble with that, especially with 2 of those for some reason, until I tried thinking about it that way. Now I can usually isolate two corner-center pairs and solve them, and get it without much trouble from there. The step that gets me is moving the last couple of centers from the top to their respective side spaces.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 26, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> The other thing I got from Walker was when he did something like UF- UR-2 FR UR+2 UF+ and I said "but that's an illegal move" he said "says who?"


Try that algorithm and I think you will discover that "something like" that algorithm must have been something different from that algorithm. I don't think even the loosest imaginable puzzle could execute those moves. That third FR move looks completely impossible.

I'm wondering if instead you were thinking of some kind of move sequence that passes through a shape like the one when you do UF- UR-2 UF+ ? That is a shape that probably should be considered illegal, but is relatively easy to turn into, even with a cube that has as little give as mine does.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> Try that algorithm and I think you will discover that "something like" that algorithm must have been something different from that algorithm. I don't think even the loosest imaginable puzzle could execute those moves. That third FR move looks completely impossible.
> 
> I'm wondering if instead you were thinking of some kind of move sequence that passes through a shape like the one when you do UF- UR-2 UF+ ? That is a shape that probably should be considered illegal, but is relatively easy to turn into, even with a cube that has as little give as mine does.


I may be using the notation wrong. I think what Walker showed me, and what I've been doing, is this:


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 26, 2020)

Okay, that looks like UF- UR-2 *UF* UR+2 UF+. And that makes sense as a "somewhat illegal move". A potentially useful algorithm, but it doesn't help much with getting to cube shape.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 26, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> Okay, that looks like UF- UR-2 *UF* UR+2 UF+. And that makes sense as a "somewhat illegal move". A potentially useful algorithm, but it doesn't help much with getting to cube shape.


Lol. Yep, I was wrong, that's correct. It's not useful for cube shape, mostly for switching centers from U to F faces.


----------



## qwr (Nov 7, 2020)

I've been playing with my curvy copter again, and the great thing about this puzzle is that it is has a lot of depth, and effectively two modes: easy/non-jumbling and hard/jumbling. Anyone want to take a stab at a "superflip" type pattern? Normally there are 4 orbits with 6 colors each, but you could totally screw with that and put four of the same color in one orbit


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Nov 18, 2020)

Every weekly competition, I seem to win Curvy Copter with a mid-3:00 average?

Where did all of the fast CC-solvers go? I remember when I started someone had a sub-1:00 single?? 

.....did the curvy copter hype die?


----------



## qwr (Nov 18, 2020)

VIBE_ZT said:


> Every weekly competition, I seem to win Curvy Copter with a mid-3:00 average?
> 
> Where did all of the fast CC-solvers go? I remember when I started someone had a sub-1:00 single??
> 
> .....did the curvy copter hype die?


I'll believe a 1 minute solve when I see one


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Nov 18, 2020)

qwr said:


> I'll believe a 1 minute solve when I see one


....hey ima keep it real with you, I mixed up another event with Curvy Copter... lol.

....current WB single is 1:36.53 by Aeden Bryant... Lol.

Still though, crazy times is what I mean.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 18, 2020)

qwr said:


> I'll believe a 1 minute solve when I see one


Several years ago I uploaded what I believe to be the first sub-minute single on youtube. This was without jumbling though


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 18, 2020)

Curvy copter blindfolded is quite hard, even with no jumbling moves.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 18, 2020)

Once I finish all my finals in a couple days, I’m planning on actually getting fast at curvy copter again lol. Optimal algs have been found in the time I stopped so I’ll just learn all the new algs.


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 18, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Once I finish all my finals in a couple days, I’m planning on actually getting fast at curvy copter again lol. Optimal algs have been found in the time I stopped so I’ll just learn all the new algs.


Optimal algs are found using ksolve++?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 18, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> Optimal algs are found using ksolve++?


I don’t remember off the top of my head. I’m not the one who found them. If you go through this thread I think you’ll find the program


----------



## qwr (Nov 18, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Several years ago I uploaded what I believe to be the first sub-minute single on youtube. This was without jumbling though


yes ofc I meant with jumbling. I can readily believe a 1 minute single without jumbling.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Nov 18, 2020)

qwr said:


> yes ofc I meant with jumbling. I can readily believe a 1 minute single without jumbling.


The last SS Weekly Comp spit out some scrambles with really easy jumbling so.... A solve like that, combined with maybe a skipped trio.... maybe some L4C luck.... You never know. If someone were to do it, it'd be Aeden Bryant or Walker Welch.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 21, 2020)

So today I relearned all the basic OLL and PLL algs for CC and practiced it for the first time in a couple years. I got a pretty decent solve on cam, which I believe is YT UWR.






I’m pretty sure people have gotten faster solves, myself included, but it’s not bad for one of the first few solves after a couple years.


----------



## qwr (Nov 21, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> So today I relearned all the basic OLL and PLL algs for CC and practiced it for the first time in a couple years. I got a pretty decent solve on cam, which I believe is YT UWR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nice solve
do you do black instead of orange? i thought people did black instead of yellow


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 21, 2020)

qwr said:


> nice solve
> do you do black instead of orange? i thought people did black instead of yellow


I replaced orange with yellow, and yellow with black so it’s black op white and yellow op red.


----------



## Dylan Swarts (Nov 21, 2020)

Where did you get those stickers? They look much better than the standard. Also nice solve!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 21, 2020)

Dylan Swarts said:


> Where did you get those stickers? They look much better than the standard. Also nice solve!


Thanks. I got these from theCubicle several years ago. Idk if they still make them since they aren’t listed anymore. I’m planning on getting a couple more CCs to mod so I’m probably going to email them and ask if they can make stickers for them.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Nov 21, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> So today I relearned all the basic OLL and PLL algs for CC and practiced it for the first time in a couple years. I got a pretty decent solve on cam, which I believe is YT UWR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah that is definitely non-jumbling YTUWR haha. Nice one! I should practice non-jumbling solves more often.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 21, 2020)

VIBE_ZT said:


> Yeah that is definitely non-jumbling YTUWR haha. Nice one! I should practice non-jumbling solves more often.


Thanks! Once I get fast to the point where I feel like improving will be much slower and learn all the advanced LL algs, I'm planning on learning how to solve it jumbled!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 21, 2020)

There were a couple of cases we had where people had put in sub-1 singles because they didn't understand how to properly scramble the puzzle with jumbling. They were doing unjumbled solves. I corrected those; the current record single on our Weekly Competition is 1:36.53 by Aedan Bryant.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Nov 21, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Thanks! Once I get fast to the point where I feel like improving will be much slower and learn all the advanced LL algs, I'm planning on learning how to solve it jumbled!


Jumbled is a whole different monster, let me tell you. But once you learn it, it's actually a lot of fun. A lot more satisfying in my opinion.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 22, 2020)

I just finished Florian modding my curvy copter!


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 22, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I just finished Florian modding my curvy copter! View attachment 14050


Now just figure out how to magnetize it.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 22, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> Now just figure out how to magnetize it.


I'm not actually sure that there is room for magnets, at least in this one. I'll look into it in the next couple week though


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 22, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I'm not actually sure that there is room for magnets, at least in this one. I'll look into it in the next couple week though


Is that the LanLan version? I pulled mine partially apart this morning to see. I'm not sure about fitting the magnets in, the puzzle might have to be redesigned around them. I think to get jumbling to line up correctly you would have to have very precisely placed magnets in the triangle centers and the edge-centers. 144 magnets, I think? 2 in each center and 4 in each edge?

Edit: I can't do arithmetic. That's 96, not 144. I'll look more closely at the puzzle when I have a chance.


----------



## qwr (Nov 22, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I just finished Florian modding my curvy copter! View attachment 14050


do you have a tutorial? I'm not a speedsolver but it could be fun to try


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 22, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> Is that the LanLan version? I pulled mine partially apart this morning to see. I'm not sure about fitting the magnets in, the puzzle might have to be redesigned around them. I think to get jumbling to line up correctly you would have to have very precisely placed magnets in the triangle centers and the edge-centers. 144 magnets, I think? 2 in each center and 4 in each edge?
> 
> Edit: I can't do arithmetic. That's 96, not 144. I'll look more closely at the puzzle when I have a chance.


I believe this is the meffert's.



qwr said:


> do you have a tutorial? I'm not a speedsolver but it could be fun to try



Are you asking about for solving the CC in general or florian modding? I'm thinking about making a tutorial for solving the CC, as well as speedsolving tricks and algs.


----------



## qwr (Nov 22, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I believe this is the meffert's.


The lanlan's performance actually isn't bad. It locks up much less than their FTO and even has a small amount of corner cutting (no reverse cutting)



OreKehStrah said:


> Are you asking about for solving the CC in general or florian modding? I'm thinking about making a tutorial for solving the CC, as well as speedsolving tricks and algs.


The modding. A few pages ago I posted my own method I figured out.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 22, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I believe this is the meffert's.


I have the LanLan. FWIW here are some pictures of how I think it would need to be magnetized. Magnets need to go about on the gray dots, because the triangle centers need to be attracted to the edge centers both "right side up" (cube shape) and "upside down" (jumbling). The magnets in the edge centers might actually work, just barely. The triangle centers have obnoxious posts right in the way, though.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 22, 2020)

qwr said:


> The lanlan's performance actually isn't bad. It locks up much less than their FTO and even has a small amount of corner cutting (no reverse cutting)
> 
> 
> The modding. A few pages ago I posted my own method I figured out.


I can make a video on it if you want. I’m still not satisfied with how it’s performing currently. I think I need to do some solves to smooth out the pieces and find better tensions.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 23, 2020)

Just thought I would post an update on the modded CC:

After several solves and a lot of turns, the modded pieces are finally starting to smooth out and not catch as much. I'm pretty sure I overmodded it though since there are times the corner moves into the hole in the center of each side and can catch, but it's not too bad. I think I still need to just get used to how the puzzle turns now, as well as find the ideal tensions.

Now for what I was hoping to see: Fingertricks are now starting to become viable! I was able to do them before I modded them, but the puzzle caught too much to be worth using over wrist turns. Now, I'm starting to experiment with using the fingertricks I've been working on on the side, and I've gotten some pretty fast alg executions with them!

Edit: I think if I could add 3 magnets into each corner and an magnet to connect them to the center triangles, the catching issue would be greatly reduced.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 23, 2020)

I've diagnosed what's causing a lot of the major catching/lockups, and it looks like I'm going to have to do some more modding to the edge centers. Yay ( sweats in sarcasm)


----------



## qwr (Nov 23, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> There were a couple of cases we had where people had put in sub-1 singles because they didn't understand how to properly scramble the puzzle with jumbling. They were doing unjumbled solves. I corrected those; the current record single on our Weekly Competition is 1:36.53 by Aedan Bryant.



can you add a non jumbling category? we can just use a random move scrambler.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 23, 2020)

I would love a non-jumbling category to compete in until I start jumbling solves too!


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 23, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I would love a non-jumbling category to compete in until I start jumbling solves too!


Jumbling is better, just do jumbling. Curvy Copter without jumbling is like Square-1 without cube shape.


----------



## qwr (Nov 23, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> Jumbling is better, just do jumbling. Curvy Copter without jumbling is like Square-1 without cube shape.


no I'm pretty sure in squan you solve cubeshape at beginning and then never leave cubeshape. in curvy copter you can fix orbits along the way although there still may be a weird two swap center at the end.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 23, 2020)

qwr said:


> no I'm pretty sure in squan you solve cubeshape at beginning and then never leave cubeshape. in curvy copter you can fix orbits along the way although there still may be a weird two swap center at the end.


You fix parity in square-1 by leaving cube shape. Curvy Copter is more complex than square-1, but it's actually a pretty good analogy.


----------



## qwr (Nov 23, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> You fix parity in square-1 by leaving cube shape. Curvy Copter is more complex than square-1, but it's actually a pretty good analogy.


no you solve both during cubeshape parity


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Nov 23, 2020)

qwr said:


> no I'm pretty sure in squan you solve cubeshape at beginning and then never leave cubeshape. in curvy copter you can fix orbits along the way although there still may be a weird two swap center at the end.


 most sq1 algs leave cubeshape(pbl at least)


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 23, 2020)

qwr said:


> no you solve both during cubeshape parity



And you can solve orbits at the start before making any blocks. A "CSP" for Curvy Copter to solve all orbits directly is theoretically possible but probably too difficult to be worth it for 15 seconds of inspection.

Point is that the Square-1 analogy was pretty accurate. Almost every analogy can be broken down into minute differences across cases, and if these differences didn't exist, it likely wouldn't be a very meaningful or insightful analogy.

FWIW, I also agree that non-jumbling curvy copter makes the event incredibly bland. Even if there were good hardware, the ergonomics for speedsolving are incredibly poor and the solve has no characteristics that set it apart from other events.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 23, 2020)

qwr said:


> no you solve both during cubeshape parity


You can also solve orbits while solving CC cube shape. Seriously, if you're not jumbling you're not fully using the puzzle. Just jumble it, it's really not that hard.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 23, 2020)

Really the only thing holding me back from doing jumbling solves now is just getting my hardware fully adjusted and set up. I’m in the process of modding it again as I write this.


----------



## qwr (Nov 23, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> And you can solve orbits at the start before making any blocks. A "CSP" for Curvy Copter to solve all orbits directly is theoretically possible but probably too difficult to be worth it for 15 seconds of inspection.


To my knowledge (I'm not at squan solver) cubeshape is solved using one algorithm and then that's it. While curvy copter orbit solving is too complex to be solved with one alg. 



One Wheel said:


> You can also solve orbits while solving CC cube shape. Seriously, if you're not jumbling you're not fully using the puzzle. Just jumble it, it's really not that hard.


I already said if you go like two pages back you can see I solved with jumbling using my own method. 
I think the puzzle is still quite interesting without jumbling. We've only scratched the surface of finger tricks and algs.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 24, 2020)

Welp, I'm pretty sure I overmodded my CC into being essentially useless for speedsolving, so that's unfortunate.

Oh well, I was planning on ordering a Meffert's and a Lanlan this week to compare the two, both at a base level and with modding, anyway.

I might make a video showing off the pieces and what it looks like if anyone is interested in seeing it. I can still solve on it though, so I'll probably use the time between ordering the new CCs and their arrival to learn how to solve with jumbling and improve my solve efficiency!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 24, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Welp, I'm pretty sure I overmodded my CC into being essentially useless for speedsolving, so that's unfortunate.


This is a big power move.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 24, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is a big power move.


Lol, I figured I was gonna end up over modding it, but I did it anyway to test the boundaries.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 26, 2020)

Still waiting for the new CCs to arrive but today I jumble-scrambled my overmodded CC and solved it with jumbling for the first time! 
It was more enjoyable than I expected lol. It took a while to figure out how to do it, but yeah I think the solves are more enjoyable after just one. 
I suppose I concede that jumbling is pretty great.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 27, 2020)

I got the new CCs in today, which is 5 days earlier than expected lol.
My first impressions before setting up either of them is that even poorly tensioned, the LanLan is the superior CC. It feels like the internal tracks are smoother/better designed, although the mechanism is still quite rudimentary compared to wca event hardware.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 30, 2020)

I’ve had to take a few days off from cubing since life is life, but today I started setting up and breaking in the LanLan CC and got a new best non-jumbling single of 44.04 which was nice. Gonna start looking into practicing jumbling scrambles more once I get these two CCs fully setup and broken in!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 5, 2020)

Are there any good videos out that show how to solve a lot of different jumbling situations? There are a lot of common cases I don't see any algs posted online for, and I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel if there are already algs/good solutions to them!


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Dec 6, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Are there any good videos out that show how to solve a lot of different jumbling situations? There are a lot of common cases I don't see any algs posted online for, and I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel if there are already algs/good solutions to them!


RedKB has some stuff on it!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 6, 2020)

VIBE_ZT said:


> RedKB has some stuff on it!


I've already seen those videos lol. I was looking for more specific content with the direct intent for speedsolving!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 6, 2020)

12/5/20 Update:

I started an unexpected internship with my town's water treatment plant, so my time to cube got cut pretty strongly as a result, but I started to do some jumbling solves and got a sub-3 min single, which I would consider respectable for only a couple hours of solving with jumbling.

I'm also planning on starting the first magnetic CC tests this weekend.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 6, 2020)

The standard jumbling move with Walker's jumbling move (UF- UR-2 UF UR+2 UF+) and mirrors/inverses are pretty much all you need.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 6, 2020)

Finished magnetizing a CC for the first time today. It went surprisingly well. Now all I have to do is let the glue dry and test later.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 6, 2020)

Kit Clement said:


> The standard jumbling move with Walker's jumbling move (UF- UR-2 UF UR+2 UF+) and mirrors/inverses are pretty much all you need.


I had always avoided Walker's move because it's "illegal". But now that I look at it again, I see how incredibly useful it can be. And clearly claiming that it's "illegal" is pretty silly, considering how easy it is to make the move even on what is pretty bad hardware.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 6, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> I had always avoided Walker's move because it's "illegal". But now that I look at it again, I see how incredibly useful it can be. And clearly claiming that it's "illegal" is pretty silly, considering how easy it is to make the move even on what is pretty bad hardware.


Of course it depends on a person’s perspective, but in my mind any move a puzzles hardware can pull off should be allowed or considered legal.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 6, 2020)

One caveat - any move *that was intended *should be legal.

Means popping and reassembling isn't counted in that.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 7, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Of course it depends on a person’s perspective, but in my mind any move a puzzles hardware can pull off should be allowed or considered legal.


So by that definition, wouldn't it be valid on 3x3x3 with everything solved but twisted corners to just twist them in place to solve it? You can do that on almost any modern 3x3x3. (Note this is not allowed by current WCA rules.) And presumably you'd even allow that for BLD?

Walker's move is not quite as obviously abuse as twisting corners of a 3x3x3, but clearly it would not be possible on a puzzle that was unable to stretch at all.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 7, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> So by that definition, wouldn't it be valid on 3x3x3 with everything solved but twisted corners to just twist them in place to solve it? You can do that on almost any modern 3x3x3. (Note this is not allowed by current WCA rules.) And presumably you'd even allow that for BLD?
> 
> Walker's move is not quite as obviously abuse as twisting corners of a 3x3x3, but clearly it would not be possible on a puzzle that was unable to stretch at all.


That’s true. I suppose I should’ve specified something more along the lines of any moves possible from any amount of rotation of a collection of pieces around any of a puzzle’s axis’s should be consider legal to avoid your corner twist example.
Now with the specific case of CC, I really do suspect that if a company hypothetically made a speed-oriented CC, the hardware would probably be different enough that previously impossible or illegal moves would be possible, which would likely force a debate on move legality.


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 9, 2020)

On an entirely different note, I got new stickers for my curvy copter. I got some extras, any votes for a color scheme? White, black, light yellow, yellow, signal yellow, orange, red, fluorescent green, grass green, euro blue, glacier blue, fluorescent pink. For some reason I can't upload a picture.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 9, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> On an entirely different note, I got new stickers for my curvy copter. I got some extras, any votes for a color scheme? White, black, light yellow, yellow, signal yellow, orange, red, fluorescent green, grass green, euro blue, glacier blue, fluorescent pink. For some reason I can't upload a picture.


I would do white opposite black, fluro green op a light blue, and then the fluro pink op signal yellow, with white green pink being in the standard spots of white green red on a 3x3. That’s the color scheme I’m using now for all my stickered mains and it looks good and has crazy good color recog.


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 9, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I would do white opposite black, fluro green op a light blue, and then the fluro pink op signal yellow, with white green pink being in the standard spots of white green red on a 3x3. That’s the color scheme I’m using now for all my stickered mains and it looks good and has crazy good color recog.


I have glacier blue and euro blue, not light blue. I just noticed that the glacier blue and black are not full fitted, but the other colors are. Hmmph. SCS! My feet cube and 4x4 scheme has black instead of orange and pink instead of red. I tried black opposite white on 4x4 once, and it messed me up. I think it might work on CC though, now that you mention it. I'll probably go with yellow instead of signal yellow, the signal yellow just looks a little dingy to me.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 12, 2020)

I just got a pb single and average for non-jumbling solves. 43.65 single and 59.22 average, which is my first sub-1 average. I wish I was recording but I was just doing casual solves while waiting for some food to cook lol.

The ao5 was (1:01.65), 1:00.25, 59.17,(43.65),58.25 so it was nearly pure sub-1! 

I'm also working on my jumbling solves too! I'm making some progress but I'm still really slow. I need to do a lot of slow solves to figure out all the best ways to solve cases, especially in the initial return-to-cubeshape step. I really hate it lol.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Dec 12, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I'm also working on my jumbling solves too! I'm making some progress but I'm still really slow. I need to do a lot of slow solves to figure out all the best ways to solve cases, especially in the initial return-to-cubeshape step. I really hate it lol.



Good luck! I average around 50 seconds for cubeshape... Lol


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 12, 2020)

VIBE_ZT said:


> Good luck! I average around 50 seconds for cubeshape... Lol


I feel ya on that. I've had cs take the same amount of time as an entire solve lol


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 16, 2020)

I’ve been thinking about what good CC hardware could look like recently, and I’m starting to think that it might be good to have dimples in each center triangle to facilitate fingertricks.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 18, 2020)

Hey all,

I've been thinking about ways to improve curvy copter scrambling and have a couple ideas to share.

1. Jumbling Notation: I think the current notation for indicating a jumbling move is needlessly long. Take (UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-) for example.
I propose we replace this long notation with something like: J(UR,LF)+ instead. I think anyone who is scrambling a CC would be able to understand this notation if they could read the long form version and not need UF or the setup and unsetup moves. This would make the scrambles more compact and save ink over time if people were printing scrambles.

2. Final Verification of Scrambles: I was also thinking about the fact that it would be pretty difficult and/or take up a lot of space to have a visual verification of the puzzle's final state after it is scrambled beyond cubeshape. Instead I propose a very simple system that can be done to check the shape verification.

Since each edge of the puzzle has 6 positions, we can simply label each position with a number, and at then end of the scramble, have a box that lists the final position of each edge.

For standardization, for each U edge, the U sticker would be the sticker tracked, equator edges would track the F or B edge stickers (IE, with white top green front, the green stickers would be tracked for FL and FR and blue stickers for BL and BR), and for D edges, the D color sticker would be the sticker tracked for positioning.

As a potential example, for UF, Solved would be position 1, UF+ pos 2, UF++ pos 3, 180 rotation from solved would be pos 4, UF-- pos 5, and UF- pos 6.

With a notation along these lines, after the puzzle is finished scrambling, it could have a box below the verification image of the cube pre-shape-jumbling that would have something like:

UF: 1 FR: 2 DF: 1
UR: 4 FL: 3 DR: 6
UB: 3 BR: 5 DB: 3
UL: 5 BL: 6 DL: 4

This would allow complete verification of the puzzle's fully scrambled state and prevent any possible ambiguity or confusion on what the puzzle should look like after the scramble is complete!

I apologize if any of that was confusing. If anyone wants I could make a quick video that could visually show the idea, but I think most people would get the general idea.

Let me know what you guys think! I've always really enjoyed the puzzle, and want to see things related to it get better and better!


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 18, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I've been thinking about ways to improve curvy copter scrambling and have a couple ideas to share.
> 
> ...


The only problem with your jumbling notation is that it isn't as intuitive to somebody who doesn't already know how to scramble a CC. Otherwise I think it's a great improvement. It would also be helpful for not losing your place in the scramble as easily. 

I'm confused by your scramble checking description. Pre-shape-jumble, wouldn't a standard diagram work? Shape would require a 3-D diagram, I think, to be in any way intuitive.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 18, 2020)

When I get to jumbling moves, I pay more attention to the actual edge that is performing the jumbling move and the direction of the setup moves, I don't even read the setup moves other than the +/-. I think that (UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-) is actually better to condense as JUF+, as it's a jumble around UF with a clockwise setup move. 

That being said, this is really only helpful for conciseness and those who are already experienced with Curvy Copter, I think that it would be better to just standardize the use of parentheses around jumbling moves for clearness to those who don't know how to solve a CC and need to scramble one (say for an SEE event) and for ease of learning the notation for beginners.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 18, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> The only problem with your jumbling notation is that it isn't as intuitive to somebody who doesn't already know how to scramble a CC. Otherwise I think it's a great improvement. It would also be helpful for not losing your place in the scramble as easily.
> 
> I'm confused by your scramble checking description. Pre-shape-jumble, wouldn't a standard diagram work? Shape would require a 3-D diagram, I think, to be in any way intuitive.


I do see the argument that the jumbling notation is confusing if you don't know how to scramble the CC, but look at other WCA events. Things like Squan, Skewb, and Clock are not something most people can look at and scramble if they don't know how either. Like these events, people would just need to learn how to read the notation properly so I wouldn't think that would be an issue.

For the scramble checking thing, check this website:






Training ▪ Curvy Copter ▪ Extra Events







speedcubingextraevents.org





It has a diagram showing the cube that you verify against before doing more scrambling to take the cube out of cubeshape. What I'm proposing is a system to track which of the 6 position each edge is in, and have a box below the diagram used for verifying the cube, that would have the final position of each edge. This way instead of having to visually show the shape of the whole puzzle, the scrambler could just check what position each of the edges is in.



Kit Clement said:


> When I get to jumbling moves, I pay more attention to the actual edge that is performing the jumbling move and the direction of the setup moves, I don't even read the setup moves other than the +/-. I think that (UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-) is actually better to condense as JUF+, as it's a jumble around UF with a clockwise setup move.
> 
> That being said, this is really only helpful for conciseness and those who are already experienced with Curvy Copter, I think that it would be better to just standardize the use of parentheses around jumbling moves for clearness to those who don't know how to solve a CC and need to scramble one (say for an SEE event) and for ease of learning the notation for beginners.


JUF+ would also be fine with me, but I think J(UR,LF)+ is a good compromise between how concise the notation is, and how beginner-friendly the notation is. Anyone scrambling/solving would need to know the basic jumbling move, so I think a notation indicating which two edges the jumbling move uses is a bit more intuitive to learn compared indicating which edge jumbling occurs around, but I think either notation would be fine.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 19, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> JUF+ would also be fine with me, but I think J(UR,LF)+ is a good compromise between how concise the notation is, and how beginner-friendly the notation is. Anyone scrambling/solving would need to know the basic jumbling move, so I think a notation indicating which two edges the jumbling move uses is a bit more intuitive to learn compared indicating which edge jumbling occurs around, but I think either notation would be fine.



I don't see the purpose of having concise notation that is trying to also be beginner friendly. We have beginner friendly notation already, and that is what should be used for any competition that may require scramblers that need to be trained. Concise notation can be used for practicing by experienced solvers if they want to learn that for easier reading, but isn't necessary, and if we want to be more concise, JUF+ makes a lot more sense than J(UR,LF)+ for that purpose to me since it tells you exactly how to align/rotate the puzzle for the jumbling move right away, rather than have to identify two edges of the setup move to figure out where the jumbling turn is.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 19, 2020)

Today I finally got my custom stickers for the CC from SCS and the first solve was a 48, and then two solves later I got a 44 while recording, so expect a new YTUWR video of it later!
Edit: Non-jumbling. This was during my warm-up solves


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 19, 2020)

Here's the video! A pretty lucky 44.29 second non-jumbling single!
You can skip to around 0:44 to skip the scrambling and a self-note about fingertricks not being worth it for L4C


----------



## qwr (Dec 20, 2020)

I still think there should be a nonjumbling category for the weekly comps


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 20, 2020)

qwr said:


> I still think there should be a nonjumbling category for the weekly comps


It would be nice! I’m starting to get more sub3min jumbling solves so I’ll prolly start competing in it soon.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 20, 2020)

I REALLY wish I was recording a couple minutes ago. I just got a 1:27.86 fullstep jumbled curvy copter solve! It was a ridiculously easy scramble. Maybe the fastest CC w/Jumbling single off-cam? Obviously it's not as impressive or as believable since it's not on cam, but hopefully I've got a decent amount of credibility that at least some will believe it lol

Here's the scramble in case anyone wants to try it:

UL UB UL UF UR UF UL UF UR UB UR RF UF UR UL LB UB UL LB RF UR UF UB UR UL RF RB UR UB LF UL UB UR UB LF UF UL UF UL DB DR RB UR UF LF DF (UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+) (UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-) (UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB-) LB RB (UF+ LB+ UL UF- LB-) UF LB (UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-) LF DF (LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR-) LB [verify] DF+ LF+ DR--


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 22, 2020)

Lol just got a pb non-jumbling single of 42.6 out of nowhere. I was just doing some solves to practice and got it. It took a second for me to process it was a fast time lol. 

I think I'm gonna make a personal progress thread tomorrow so I'm not constantly dropping little fast time posts here.


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 22, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I think I'm gonna make a personal progress thread tomorrow so I'm not constantly dropping little fast time posts here.



Those are annoying. These posts are fine.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 22, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> Those are annoying. These posts are fine.


If it's not bothering anyone then I'll just continue to post here lol. I also hate those personal progress threads myself.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 23, 2020)

Just got a non-jumbling 55.51 Ao5. I think that's a record? Idk lol

Generated By csTimer on 2020-12-22
avg of 5: 55.51

Time List:
1. (52.54) FR FL DL DB UR DR BR FL FR DF UL FR UF DF BL UL BL FL UB BR FR DF FL UR UF UB UL UR UB DR UL DL UB DF FL DB DF UR UL FR 
2. 54.85 DL UR BL DB UB UR FL FR DR BL UF UR DL BL DL UL UF FR DR UL UR BR BL DL DB UF DF UB BL UB UL DR UF FL DF BL UR UB UL DL 
3. 52.86 UR FL FR UR BR DF BL DL UB UR DR DB FL BR DB DL BL BR UR BR UB UF FR BL UB DB UR UL FR BL DL UB UL UF BL FL DB DF FL BL 
4. 58.83 UB DR UL FL DB BL UF FL UB DF UR UF UL FL UB UR UL FL FR UL UB BR BL UF UL UR BL FL UL DL BL UF FR DL UF BL UB DR DL FR 
5. (1:06.47) DL DR DF UF BL FR DF UB DR FR BL UR DR DL UB UF DB DF BL BR DB FR DR UF BR DR FL UF FR BL FL UF FR DB DL BL FL DB UB UR


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 30, 2020)

I don’t know why it got rotated, but is there a known best solution or alg for this particular case? I can solve it, but I’m 99% sure the way I do it is suboptimal.


----------



## qwr (Dec 30, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> View attachment 14372
> I don’t know why it got rotated, but is there a known best solution or alg for this particular case? I can solve it, but I’m 99% sure the way I do it is suboptimal.



nice keyboards 
unfortunately I can't tell what exactly you're trying to solve.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 30, 2020)

qwr said:


> nice keyboards
> unfortunately I can't tell what exactly you're trying to solve.


Thanks lol. It’s the UF edge that I’m referring to. All the other sides are solved. Usually what I do is swap the UFL and UFR center triangles, solve the UF edge, and then have to resolve a side or two which is pretty slow/bad, but I haven’t figured out any better solutions or seen any online yet.


----------



## qwr (Dec 30, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Thanks lol. It’s the UF edge that I’m referring to. All the other sides are solved. Usually what I do is swap the UFL and UFR center triangles, solve the UF edge, and then have to resolve a side or two which is pretty slow/bad, but I haven’t figured out any better solutions or seen any online yet.


the black and blue edge? it looks solved to me. can you draw a circle on the picture or something lol


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 30, 2020)

qwr said:


> the black and blue edge? it looks solved to me. can you draw a circle on the picture or something lol


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 30, 2020)

I usually do UL UR JUB+ UL UF UB UR UB. I'm guessing you want something that doesn't flip edges, I just always do edges after triangles and permute corners while I flip edges.


----------



## qwr (Dec 30, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> View attachment 14381



ohh it's the case where two centers are in each other's orbits. yeah I don't have a good method for solving it other than trying to exchange with a buffer piece.
This alg I made up does one edge flip, preserving triangle centers and rotating corners: [FL+ UR+ : UF] [FR- UL- : UF] UF



Kit Clement said:


> I usually do UL UR JUB+ UL UF UB UR UB. I'm guessing you want something that doesn't flip edges, I just always do edges after triangles and permute corners while I flip edges.


what is JUB+?

I usually fix edges after getting all triangle centers into their correct orbits.


----------



## qwr (Dec 30, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Welp, I'm pretty sure I overmodded my CC into being essentially useless for speedsolving, so that's unfortunate.
> 
> 
> I might make a video showing off the pieces and what it looks like if anyone is interested in seeing it. I can still solve on it though, so I'll probably use the time between ordering the new CCs and their arrival to learn how to solve with jumbling and improve my solve efficiency!



I plan on making a video on trying to mod my curvy copter. Idk how you can overmod it but I hope I don't.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 31, 2020)

qwr said:


> I plan on making a video on trying to mod my curvy copter. Idk how you can overmod it but I hope I don't.


Here’s my advice from a few different tests and observations:

1. Don’t Florian mod the centermost part of the triangles, at least not too much. Otherwise the corners will try to move into the newly formed space and catch.

2. 100% Do NOT mod the edge pieces. That was the main thing that caused issues with my original modded CC.

3. After testing and checking, I found the main thing that causes catching is the corners and the two points of each center triangle that surround a corner. I’m planning on doing more modding tests soon. Idk if it would be better to round off the corners or the centers. I think only one should be modded. If I were to guess, I would say it’s better to mod the corners
Edit: I hope I don’t come off as a know it all or something, I just figured I would put my recommendation out after essentially wasting several hours on my first one


----------



## qwr (Dec 31, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Here’s my advice from a few different tests and observations:
> 
> 1. Don’t Florian mod the centermost part of the triangles, at least not too much. Otherwise the corners will try to move into the newly formed space and catch.
> 
> ...



ok I really have to ask you for your terminology. I was planning on modding the center edges (the ones with orbits) of the triangles but how will the corners move into it? the corners are opposite of the triangles. edit basically I want to mod all 3 corners of the centers.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 31, 2020)

qwr said:


> ok I really have to ask you for your terminology. I was planning on modding the center edges (the ones with orbits) of the triangles but how will the corners move into it? the corners are opposite of the triangles. edit basically I want to mod all 3 corners of the centers.


Here you can see an stock vs overmodded center triangle. You don’t want to mod the pointed part like I did. If you do, it will create a large florian hole at the center of each side. This is where the corner catches. When you turn an edge 90 degrees, the corner will try to slide into that gap. 
this is the position where the corner will slide into the Florian holes.
As for the part of the edge that is connected to the core, I really recommend leaving that piece alone. The puzzle was fine when I modded just the petals/center triangles, but when I modded the parts of the edge that are screwed to the core, I started to run into stability issues where you couldn’t turn it without it popping


----------



## qwr (Dec 31, 2020)

what gap? I dont see how the corner is sliding into any gap


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 31, 2020)

qwr said:


> what gap? I dont see how the corner is sliding into any gap


I'll reassemble my modded one. Give me a few minutes


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 31, 2020)

qwr said:


> what gap? I dont see how the corner is sliding into any gap


This was before I modded the edge pieces connected to the core, and you can still see a fairly large hole at the center of the side that isn’t there on a stock puzzle.


----------



## qwr (Dec 31, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> View attachment 14385This was before I modded the edge pieces connected to the core, and you can still see a fairly large hole at the center of the side that isn’t there on a stock puzzle.


so when you turn 90 degrees the corner goes into the center gap? doesn't the edge stop it?


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 31, 2020)

qwr said:


> what is JUB+?



Jumble around UB edge with clockwise setup moves: UL+ RB+ UB RB- UL-


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 31, 2020)

qwr said:


> so when you turn 90 degrees the corner goes into the center gap? doesn't the edge stop it?


Nope! You would think so, but it still slips into the gap enough to cause a lot of catches and lockups.

Also, I just finished setting up a new curvy copter for speedsolving and I just got a non-jumbling pb Ao5 of 53.12 so that's cool


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 4, 2021)

I've been playing around with different ways to handle the final permutation of center petals of the top and sides before solving the corners when the cube is jumbled, and I might have found an approach to help avoid the bad cases that can come up when just solving a side at a time. I'll need to do some tests to see if it's any faster than just doing a solve what you see approach.

Also I started learning whatever you want to call the set of algs that solves the corners in one alg ( CC 1LLL/COLL/ZBLL for CC not really sure what to call it lol).

Also, how many people still keep up with this thread/speedsolve CC anymore? It seems like most people have kinda quit, likely in favor of FTO.


----------



## qwr (Jan 4, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> Also, how many people still keep up with this thread/speedsolve CC anymore? It seems like most people have kinda quit, likely in favor of FTO.


I don't know if there was ever much of a speedsolving scene. To me it always seemed like FTO was much larger. I've personally never learned speed solving algorithms and I always solve intuitively which can sometimes take me up to 15 minutes for orbit swapping.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 4, 2021)

I never got into the CC speedsolving, although I was intrigued. But yes, now I'm on FTO.
Don't get me wrong, CC is a very cool puzzle (and is better than 7x7) but FTO is cooler.


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 4, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> Also, how many people still keep up with this thread/speedsolve CC anymore? It seems like most people have kinda quit, likely in favor of FTO.



I get frustrated with hardware and scramble length, so I don't solve CC as much as I would like to. I should be getting a shipment from thecubicle today or tomorrow, that has contact paper to make it easier to resticker my CC and also an FTO in it.


----------



## carcass (Feb 4, 2021)

Where can I find new stickers for a curvy copter?


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 4, 2021)

carcass said:


> Where can I find new stickers for a curvy copter?


Speedcubeshop. You might put a note in asking them to be careful about fitted vs. Full-fitted: when I got them some colors were smaller, and some were cut too deep. Overall not a great job of making the stickers, but they were curvy copter stickers.


----------



## carcass (Feb 4, 2021)

One Wheel said:


> Speedcubeshop. You might put a note in asking them to be careful about fitted vs. Full-fitted: when I got them some colors were smaller, and some were cut too deep. Overall not a great job of making the stickers, but they were curvy copter stickers.



Thank you, I love your dedication to the curvy copter. I am used to the cubicle, but I can't say one is better without trying both right?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 4, 2021)

carcass said:


> Thank you, I love your dedication to the curvy copter. I am used to the cubicle, but I can't say one is better without trying both right?


The stickers SCS has made for my 4 CCs have all been about the same quality as the ones theCubicle used to make so you don’t have to worry about that.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 4, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> The stickers SCS has made for my 4 CCs have all been about the same quality as the ones theCubicle used to make so you don’t have to worry about that.


The sticker material quality is the same, I only had issues with how they were cut. I ordered about 12 different colors, so I could choose a color scheme, and 8 or 9 of the sheets were perfect.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 5, 2021)

One Wheel said:


> The sticker material quality is the same, I only had issues with how they were cut. I ordered about 12 different colors, so I could choose a color scheme, and 8 or 9 of the sheets were perfect.


The only issue I’ve had with the cuts was one set was on the absolute edge of the sticker backing paper and got partially cut of as if it was removed with a hole puncher. It was weird.


----------



## carcass (Feb 5, 2021)

How do you make your own stickers out of sticker sheets?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 5, 2021)

carcass said:


> How do you make your own stickers out of sticker sheets?


You need a sticker template and a vinyl cutter. Although this is the curvy copter thread. Not the how to make stickers thread.


----------



## hi870169 (May 19, 2021)

https://superphluous.github.io/curvycopterl4c.html. 
This comes from an old (maybe not that old) thread, which talks about COLL algorithms for curvy copter, but I have a question.
I just can't avoid X perm after using the algorithms (most of the time).
Can someone help me???


----------



## OreKehStrah (May 19, 2021)

hi870169 said:


> https://superphluous.github.io/curvycopterl4c.html.
> This comes from an old (maybe not that old) thread, which talks about COLL algorithms for curvy copter, but I have a question.
> I just can't avoid X perm after using the algorithms (most of the time).
> Can someone help me???


If you're willing to learn like 7 algs, you can always avoid the X perm


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> 7 algs


Sorry, I can't understand???


----------



## OreKehStrah (May 20, 2021)

hi870169 said:


> Sorry, I can't understand???


You should be using move optimal OCLL every time. If you want to avoid X Perm, you learn an extra 7 algs, one for each OCLL, that will orient them differently to not give you an X perm


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> an extra 7 algs


oh really? how can i find them?


----------



## OreKehStrah (May 20, 2021)

hi870169 said:


> oh really? how can i find them?


CC L4C Avoid X perm with optimal movecount OCLL

S: UB UL UR UB UL UF UL UF UR UF UR UB UL UR UB UF
*Std angle, UFR permuted, UFL goes to UBR, UBR goes to UBL, UBL goes to UFL

A: UB UF UL UR UF UL UB UL UB UR UB UR UF UL UR UF
*Sune angle so UFL is orientated, UBL permuted, UFL goes to UBR, UBR goes to UFR, UFR goes to UFL

T: UF UR UB UL UR UF UL UR UB UL UF UL UF UR
*Flipped cnrs in front, UFL permuted, UFR to UBR, UBR to UBL, UBL to UFR

U: UB UF UL UF UR UF UR UB UR UB UL UB UF UR
*HL on Right, UBR flipped and permuted, Front corner side bar that matches left side color, UBL goes to UFR,
UFR goes to UFL

L: UL UB UF UR UF UL UF UL UB UL UB UR UB UF
*Std Angle, Front left corner permuted and flipped, UFR Ori and goes to UBR, UBL corner goes to UFR

H: UR UF UR UF UL UF UL UB UL UR UF UL UR UB
*F triple sexy angle, HL on front and back, Top front are op colors, Top back are matching color and matches right side color,
UBR is permuted, UFR goes to UFL, UFL goes to UBL, UBL goes to UFR
The alg is just the mirror of the standard lol

P: UL UF UR UB UF UR UB UL UB UR UB UF UR UF
* Diag Pi COLL set, HL on left, Top left Color matches left side color, Right T shape of corners has op colors on top, Right side should be a solid color
E perm of corners with standard angle, UFL swaps with UBL, UFR swaps with UBR

As long as you are using the movecount optimal OCLLs posted at the start of the thread, these should allow you to avoid xperm and get a CPLL skip so you only need to do one alg for LL


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

but if the algorithms are for "solving last layer in one alg", isn't it not good enough to use extra algs?


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

omg thank you


----------



## OreKehStrah (May 20, 2021)

hi870169 said:


> omg thank you


No problem.

Here is a link to full Curvy Copter CLL, which will let you solve all the corners of the last layer with just one alg:



https://superphluous.github.io/l4c_3x3view.html


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> with just one alg


Thanks, I'll try them.


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

Wait, I use those algs but I still can't avoid X perm.
Is it my problem?
Am I wrong with the recognition or something else?


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

hi870169 said:


> recognition


Probably this problem, I think.
How to fix it?


----------



## OreKehStrah (May 20, 2021)

hi870169 said:


> Probably this problem, I think.
> How to fix it?


what I would do is set up an x perm, then do each OCLL in reverse and memorize what the LL looks like and learn to recognize it. If you don't already know how to do CP recognition for something like 3x3 or 2x2, go learn that first.


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

And after I recognize there will be a X perm, what should I do? Can I also find algs in the alg sheet you gave me?
Btw, I've learned CP recognition, but I can't predict there will be a X perm. I should learn a new one, right?


----------



## OreKehStrah (May 20, 2021)

hi870169 said:


> And after I recognize there will be a X perm, what should I do? Can I also find algs in the alg sheet you gave me?
> Btw, I've learned CP recognition, but I can't predict there will be a X perm. I should learn a new one, right?



Yes all the algs you need are on that sheet. If you look at the set of algs I sent earlier, just do the moves in reverse order and it will show you what the case will look like that the standard move optimal OCLL will give X Perms. Just practice recognizing those cases. When you see those cases, use the alternate algs I gave to solve it and not have X perm. Good luck


----------



## hi870169 (May 20, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> Yes all the algs you need are on that sheet. If you look at the set of algs I sent earlier, just do the moves in reverse order and it will show you what the case will look like that the standard move optimal OCLL will give X Perms. Just practice recognizing those cases. When you see those cases, use the alternate algs I gave to solve it and not have X perm. Good luck


Thank you. I'll do my best.


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 4, 2021)

Figured I'd post this here. Super proud of my Curvy Copter results in the Weekly Competition this week! It's my first time holding site record (for both single and average); I've been going for that for a while. Does anyone know of any faster (jumbling) solves outside of the weekly competition?


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Aug 4, 2021)

DGCubes said:


> View attachment 16535
> Figured I'd post this here. Super proud of my Curvy Copter results in the Weekly Competition this week! It's my first time holding site record (for both single and average); I've been going for that for a while. Does anyone know of any faster (jumbling) solves outside of the weekly competition?


Oh wow someone finally beat my record, congrats, that single especially is insane!! I stopped practicing after the first few weeks it was in the weekly comp and I expected my records to be taken shortly after, but it took almost a year in a half. Now that there is some competition I might try getting back into it, although I'm a bit too focused on FTO at the moment to try now. IDK any faster times, I think these were my PBs but I can't say for sure because it was so long ago.


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 4, 2021)

TipsterTrickster said:


> Oh wow someone finally beat my record, congrats, that single especially is insane!! I stopped practicing after the first few weeks it was in the weekly comp and I expected my records to be taken shortly after, but it took almost a year in a half. Now that there is some competition I might try getting back into it, although I'm a bit too focused on FTO at the moment to try now. IDK any faster times, I think these were my PBs but I can't say for sure because it was so long ago.


Thank you! You're killing it with FTO so I understand ignoring Curvy Copter for a while, haha. I'd love to see you get back into it someday and have some competition for the records.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 4, 2021)

I’ve been thinking about getting back into CC so I’m think I will now!


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 25, 2021)

Figured I should post this here! Beat my PB by about 6 seconds, on camera too. Hoping for a sub-1 soon!


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 30, 2022)

Got site record average two weeks in a row! My previous average was 1:41.24. Really happy with these results, it felt like a matter of time until I got a few good solves in a row. I haven't actually been practicing much, but I may start ramping up practice again now - sub-1:30 feels imminent at this rate. 

Also, let's see some more Curvy Copter participation! It's such a fun event but the leaderboards are still pretty small. If you haven't been competing in it, give it a try - take my record while you're at it! Healthy competition is fun.


----------



## One Wheel (Aug 30, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> View attachment 20566
> 
> Got site record average two weeks in a row! My previous average was 1:41.24. Really happy with these results, it felt like a matter of time until I got a few good solves in a row. I haven't actually been practicing much, but I may start ramping up practice again now - sub-1:30 feels imminent at this rate.
> 
> Also, let's see some more Curvy Copter participation! It's such a fun event but the leaderboards are still pretty small. If you haven't been competing in it, give it a try - take my record while you're at it! Healthy competition is fun.


I like solving Curvy Copter, it just feels like scrambling it takes about 10 minutes each time. I guess I should work on a CurvyCopterScramblerBot, but honestly it's a low priority right now.


----------



## abunickabhi (Sep 1, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> View attachment 20566
> 
> Got site record average two weeks in a row! My previous average was 1:41.24. Really happy with these results, it felt like a matter of time until I got a few good solves in a row. I haven't actually been practicing much, but I may start ramping up practice again now - sub-1:30 feels imminent at this rate.
> 
> Also, let's see some more Curvy Copter participation! It's such a fun event but the leaderboards are still pretty small. If you haven't been competing in it, give it a try - take my record while you're at it! Healthy competition is fun.


Woah dope stuff.

All the best for pushing sub-1:30 man!


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 1, 2022)

One Wheel said:


> I like solving Curvy Copter, it just feels like scrambling it takes about 10 minutes each time. I guess I should work on a CurvyCopterScramblerBot, but honestly it's a low priority right now.


Fair, scrambling definitely improves with practice though. If you want to get faster at it, I'd recommend working on your intuitive understanding of the jumbling moves - instead of looking at all five moves one at a time, I basically treat them like a single move.


----------



## One Wheel (Sep 1, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> If you want to get faster at it, I'd recommend working on your intuitive understanding of the jumbling moves - instead of looking at all five moves one at a time, I basically treat them like a single move.


I already do that, it's just a lot of moves total and the shape-shifting moves trip me up sometimes.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 1, 2022)

I think scrambling it takes me about 3 minutes, not 10. But I could see how that 3 minutes can feel like 10 minutes. It doesn't help that it physically hurts my hands to turn it.  Ah, to have one that turns nicely. 

I think a stock FTO hurts more than a curvy copter, though.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 2, 2022)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think scrambling it takes me about 3 minutes, not 10. But I could see how that 3 minutes can feel like 10 minutes. It doesn't help that it physically hurts my hands to turn it.  Ah, to have one that turns nicely.
> 
> I think a stock FTO hurts more than a curvy copter, though.


The white plastic LanLan ones are smoother turning than the black ones. I took one apart and put the black outer caps on white internals and it is very smooth to turn and fingertrick


----------



## qwr (Sep 2, 2022)

OreKehStrah said:


> The white plastic LanLan ones are smoother turning than the black ones. I took one apart and put the black outer caps on white internals and it is very smooth to turn and fingertrick


At least for 3x3 we're (hopefully) past the stage where different colored plastic feels different


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 6, 2022)

OreKehStrah said:


> The white plastic LanLan ones are smoother turning than the black ones. I took one apart and put the black outer caps on white internals and it is very smooth to turn and fingertrick


Whoa, I'd be curious to try this. My black LanLan is alright after a lot of breaking in and some lubing, but it definitely gets lockups pretty often.



DGCubes said:


> sub-1:30 feels imminent at this rate


And on another note, sub-1:30 shockingly happened way earlier than I expected! I have an 89-solve session in csTimer from the past week after not doing any serious practice for months so it's very satisfying to see the practice pay off. 



Technically it's on video but it's very low quality and mostly out of frame. Click here if you're interested anyway!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 6, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> Whoa, I'd be curious to try this. My black LanLan is alright after a lot of breaking in and some lubing, but it definitely gets lockups pretty often.
> 
> 
> And on another note, sub-1:30 shockingly happened way earlier than I expected! I have an 89-solve session in csTimer from the past week after not doing any serious practice for months so it's very satisfying to see the practice pay off.
> ...


Do you think you'd ever be interested in learning the 1-Look L4C algs? 
I've got a very WIP sheet I haven't been motivated to work on in a long time. If you were interested, I could start working on it again.


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 6, 2022)

OreKehStrah said:


> Do you think you'd ever be interested in learning the 1-Look L4C algs?
> I've got a very WIP sheet I haven't been motivated to work on in a long time. If you were interested, I could start working on it again.



Thanks for offering! I currently do 1-look L3C (except for ~2 cases), and since it's usually pretty easy to force at least one corner to be solved, L4C algs would only come in handy for me on occasion. That said I'd definitely be curious to see what you've got! I'm sure there are some efficient/useful cases in there that I should learn.

For reference, my current LL method goes like this:
1. Solve inner centers (mostly intuitively, but with a couple basic algs for cases that require jumbling).
2. Orient edges using (UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR-) (UL+ FR+ UF FR- UL-) UF. While doing this step, I try to solve as many corners as possible. Often I can solve all of them, or end up with 2 corners twisted.
3. Solve L4C - most frequently by orienting 2 or 3 corners, sometimes with an L3C alg, and occasionally with an L4C case (where I try to reduce it to an L3C case with one alg).


----------



## White KB (Dec 26, 2022)

Alright, you all know I'm not "new" here but I have a problem with getting my curvy copter I got yesterday solved. I need to get 1 center solved but none of the pieces are in the right path for solving it. Basically it's the blue Fdl center and all the others are at Fur, Fdr, and Ufr. I've checked many times which ones work and also rescrambled, looked at many tutorials and looked for the right alg online but the information is... lacking. The center just won't solve and it looks like I need a jumbling alg even though I scrambled it without jumbling. Here's a picture (with the center I want to solve highlighted) if you need help:

If anyone could provide some help I would be very grateful. Thanks!


----------



## unirox13 (Dec 26, 2022)

White KB said:


> Alright, you all know I'm not "new" here but I have a problem with getting my curvy copter I got yesterday solved. I need to get 1 center solved but none of the pieces are in the right path for solving it. Basically it's the blue Fdl center and all the others are at Fur, Fdr, and Ufr. I've checked many times which ones work and also rescrambled, looked at many tutorials and looked for the right alg online but the information is... lacking. The center just won't solve and it looks like I need a jumbling alg even though I scrambled it without jumbling. Here's a picture (with the center I want to solve highlighted) if you need help:View attachment 21521
> 
> If anyone could provide some help I would be very grateful. Thanks!



From my POV either you don't quite get what the jumble moves are and made a few of them during the scramble, or you've got a friend/family member who got their hands on the puzzle and did them for you. Just because the puzzle remained in cube shape during the scramble doesn't mean that no jumble moves were made. If you turn two edges, UR and FL for example, to their first clockwise jumbling position and then do a full 180° turn of the UF edge you can easily undo those first two edge moves and still have a perfectly cubic puzzle. However, doing that sequence will have taken two center pieces out of their original orbits. The two remaining blue center triangle pieces are in the same orbit. There's no way to move either of them into another orbit, which is what you need to do, without doing a single jumble.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 26, 2022)

<Deleted wrong statements >
Oops sorry. I see now that there are 2 blue pieces in the same orbit - the ones at Ufr and Lfd.


----------



## White KB (Dec 26, 2022)

unirox13 said:


> From my POV either you don't quite get what the jumble moves are and made a few of them during the scramble, or you've got a friend/family member who got their hands on the puzzle and did them for you. Just because the puzzle remained in cube shape during the scramble doesn't mean that no jumble moves were made. If you turn two edges, UR and FL for example, to their first clockwise jumbling position and then do a full 180° turn of the UF edge you can easily undo those first two edge moves and still have a perfectly cubic puzzle. However, doing that sequence will have taken two center pieces out of their original orbits. The two remaining blue center triangle pieces are in the same orbit. There's no way to move either of them into another orbit, which is what you need to do, without doing a single jumble.


It's possible I did a few jumbling moves to be honest even if it is in the cube shape, but even with jumbling I haven't been able to switch it back. I decided to switch to solving the blue side first since this is the only one I've had problems with and just need to switch these two pieces at this point, marked A and B. What's an algorithm that fixes this? (Obviously this would require jumbling.)
EDIT: figured it out myself from watching RedKB's jumbling tutorial. So I don't leave anyone who needs this information in the dark, here's the alg: x UR UL UR+ FL+ UF UR UL


----------



## unirox13 (Dec 26, 2022)

White KB said:


> It's possible I did a few jumbling moves to be honest even if it is in the cube shape, but even with jumbling I haven't been able to switch it back. I decided to switch to solving the blue side first since this is the only one I've had problems with and just need to switch these two pieces at this point, marked A and B. What's an algorithm that fixes this? (Obviously this would require jumbling.)View attachment 21523



Made a quick video that'll hopefully help you out a little bit.


----------



## White KB (Dec 29, 2022)

unirox13 said:


> Made a quick video that'll hopefully help you out a little bit.


Thanks!


----------

