Curvy Copter Discussion(New)

[One Wheel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I still prefer a 3-D rotatable model.

You mean an actual model on the computer screen?

 

[One Wheel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.