viability of non cfop methods for big cubes

[genericcuber666]

so everyone knows that cfop is the only option for big cubes (if your using redux or yau) but after thinking about it there isnt really any negatives

for zz you could orient the f2l edges at the start or whilst solving the already oreintated ones, which is farely easy with yau

for roux you could solve to cross edges with yau or jsut do a roux cfop hybrid like tau yu showed.

you could argue that this adds unnecessary lookahead but you cant turn as fast with big cubes anyway.

so why dont the weird cubers use there weird methods on big cubes for me its because i average 1 second slower with cfop but for the people who average sub 12 there must be some big negatives to using your main method (unless you use that weird yau 4x4 method)

 

[Petro Leum]

I can confirm that ZZ is actually really good for 5x5x5 and upwards. it's really easy to just store the edges in an oriented fashion after pairing them, orient the last 4 while pairing by using 1-2 alternative algorithms. then ZZ 3x3 stage is obviously really comfortable for big cubes and makes for a quite nice last layer as well note however, that on even number cubes, ZBLL is really hard to use because of PLL Parity.

 

[GenTheSnail]

so everyone knows that cfop is the only option for big cubes (if your using redux or yau) but after thinking about it there isnt really any negatives

for zz you could orient the f2l edges at the start or whilst solving the already oreintated ones, which is farely easy with yau

for roux you could solve to cross edges with yau or jsut do a roux cfop hybrid like tau yu showed.

you could argue that this adds unnecessary lookahead but you cant turn as fast with big cubes anyway.

so why dont the weird cubers use there weird methods on big cubes for me its because i average 1 second slower with cfop but for the people who average sub 12 there must be some big negatives to using your main method (unless you use that weird yau 4x4 method)

so everyone knows that cfop is the only option for big cubes

What. Not true bro.

#Meyer #Z4 (but @AlphaSheep says Z4 isn't worth it)
I'm not into big cubes so I just cfop it cause I don't care, but I know @PenguinsDontFly uses Meyer on 4x4, and i think Waffo uses Meyer on 4x4-7x7+.
Yes, non-cfop methods are viable.

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

#Meyer #Z4 (but @AlphaSheep says Z4 isn't worth it)
I'm not into big cubes so I just cfop it cause I don't care, but I know @PenguinsDontFly uses Meyer on 4x4, and i think Waffo uses Meyer on 4x4-7x7+.
Yes, non-cfop methods are viable.

Kaijun Lin uses stadler on 4x4 and he's faster than me. For 5-7, all you can really do is redux and then roux. M slices arent actually hard. @maps600 has a video on it.

 

[GenTheSnail]

OH! and of course, K4. Can't forget that one.

 

[AlphaSheep]

I can confirm that ZZ is actually really good for 5x5x5 and upwards. it's really easy to just store the edges in an oriented fashion after pairing them, orient the last 4 while pairing by using 1-2 alternative algorithms. then ZZ 3x3 stage is obviously really comfortable for big cubes and makes for a quite nice last layer as well note however, that on even number cubes, ZBLL is really hard to use because of PLL Parity.

I'm not at all fast at big cubes but this matches my experience. Even without the alternative algorithms, it's easy to influence EO to guarantee 4 or fewer bad edges, and since you can see them forming, you don't need to pause to inspect EO. I try to position my line edges as I pair them, so I don't need to inspect for that either. With practice, the transition to the 3x3 stage can be really smooth.

On even cubes, I think COLL+EPLL is decent. The W cases aren't great, so PLL parity plus U perm is about as good as it gets (learn to one look it though). But adjacent parity is easy, and O perms are not bad if you're prepared to use M slices.

For 4x4, I've started experimenting with Hoya-ZZ, which I think has some potential.

 

[Shiv3r]

Meyer method all the way. the speed can definitely average sub-40 on 4x4, more if you can onelook opposite centers and first square.
I am definitely going to look at Z4.
for 5x5 and other odd cubes, I think That having double-layered blocks(lets say 5x5 for now) and leave just the 1 middle slice for LSE would be nice.

Also, Using OBLBL I have gotten decent times. I think that if you can get recognition fast enough, Direct solving methods can possibly get faster than redux methods.

 

[xyzzy]

for 5x5 and other odd cubes, I think That having double-layered blocks(lets say 5x5 for now) and leave just the 1 middle slice for LSE would be nice.

I've been doing a bunch of experimentation on 555 lately and this approach kind of sucks because you need to use comms or whatever to finish off the last ten T-centre pieces, and you still have ELL on the wing edges to deal with (even more comms and parity cases).

And OBLBL is cool, yeah. My average time on 555 with (a slightly modified version of) OBLBL is considerably better than what I get with other cage- or reduction-based methods.