# Orient and Position center squares



## GrittyRoughWare (Feb 23, 2013)

What do people think about the idea of having to properly *orient* and/or *position* the *center* *squares* of all the sides in order to solve a cube?

I actually thought it was such a cool idea that I decided to write an iPhone app that will do that exact thing. I have never seen any other cube solver that required center orientation/position. Out of the literally dozens of iPhone cube apps out there, none of them do this.

It also seems from my experience that current algorithms are insufficient for the orientation and position of center squares. I spent a lot of time thinking about how to solve a cube this way. I had to use some existing algorithms in different ways, or actually create some new move sequences to solve the centers.

I don't mean to be a shameless self promoter but I am really excited about this idea and it seems like something that would interest the cubing community.

Hope people enjoy this.

http://www.grittyroughware.com/Apps/nQubed.aspx
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nqubed/id599189508?mt=8

I tried inserting some images but couldn't seem to get them inline. Hmmm


----------



## qqwref (Feb 23, 2013)

That's just a supercube (you can find a lot more stuff about those by searching). I know of several simulators that do that (UltimateMagicCube, Gabbasoft, IsoSupercubeSim, qcube v2, etc.) and you can also buy real 4x4 or 5x5 supercubes (or make your own stickers, of course). I haven't bothered looking through iPhone apps but this is certainly an idea that has been explored before. The simulator itself looks cool, though.

As for your stickers, though, don't you think the (x,y) scheme is kind of awkward? There are certainly other ways to color the pieces that will be easier to use. In fact, with normal NxNxN turns, each piece can be determined only be the color and one of four orientations - so in fact it's enough to just put an arrow or something on each sticker. So your N stickering scheme is actually exactly the same difficulty to solve.


----------



## GrittyRoughWare (Feb 23, 2013)

qqwref said:


> That's just a supercube (you can find a lot more stuff about those by searching). I know of several simulators that do that (UltimateMagicCube, Gabbasoft, IsoSupercubeSim, qcube v2, etc.) and you can also buy real 4x4 or 5x5 supercubes (or make your own stickers, of course). I haven't bothered looking through iPhone apps but this is certainly an idea that has been explored before. The simulator itself looks cool, though.
> 
> As for your stickers, though, don't you think the (x,y) scheme is kind of awkward? There are certainly other ways to color the pieces that will be easier to use. In fact, with normal NxNxN turns, each piece can be determined only be the color and one of four orientations - so in fact it's enough to just put an arrow or something on each sticker. So your N stickering scheme is actually exactly the same difficulty to solve.



Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of the supercube or simulators that did that as well.

As far as the stickers go, there are different options for both orientation and position, so you can select either of those, or both, or neither. With just orientation, I do use a simple N label, but if position is selected there is no way to know which of the 4 center squares of a 4x4x4 cube goes where, which is why I decided to go with the coordinate labels for those situations. Solving for orientation is not the same as solving for position.

That seemed a natural solution to me, but others might disagree, and there are certainly multiple ways to implement that. I can always go back and make some updates, or add some features to the app, depending on what feedback I get.

Thanks for your input.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 23, 2013)

GrittyRoughWare said:


> With just orientation, I do use a simple N label, but if position is selected there is no way to know which of the 4 center squares of a 4x4x4 cube goes where, which is why I decided to go with the coordinate labels for those situations. Solving for orientation is not the same as solving for position.


Actually, it is the same. You can't change the position of a center piece without also changing its orientation, and you can't change the orientation of a center piece without also changing its position (at least with normal cube movements). Try to get a (2,2) piece in the (2,3) position with the same orientation as it originally had and you will see what I mean.


----------



## GrittyRoughWare (Feb 27, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Actually, it is the same. You can't change the position of a center piece without also changing its orientation, and you can't change the orientation of a center piece without also changing its position (at least with normal cube movements). Try to get a (2,2) piece in the (2,3) position with the same orientation as it originally had and you will see what I mean.



Yes, you are absolutely correct.

I think what I was trying to say is that it is actually easier to solve a cube labeled with position coordinates instead of just a symbol showing the orientation (at least in my opinion).

With just a label to show the orientation, it takes a little more effort to determine where a square should be placed. With a bunch of squares, all having the same symbol with different orientations, it isn't necessarily immediately obvious which square goes where.

With explicit coordinate labels, there is never any doubt where to place each square since they are all clearly marked with a unique label.

Although I did write the app and am intimately familiar with it so it is quite possible that I am too close to form an unbiased opinion. Regardless, the user has more than one label option so they can choose which they prefer.


----------

