Etotheipi
Member
No it does nothing to EO.Doing M' U2 M ruins EO
No it does nothing to EO.Doing M' U2 M ruins EO
@Etothepi is correct, but at least how I do Petrus F2L, you shouldn’t get into that situation.What if one of the F2L edges is where the cross edge normally goes? How do I take that out without disturbing EO/The pair already there? Doing M' U2 M ruins EO
Just curious, why?I'm naming my method Petrus-W
Just curious, why?
I edited the creator’s post.A huge thanks to the person who did the Wiki page ! However, there is a slight mistake. since EO is said to be done petrus style and then FU for two pairs. EO is meant to be done ZZ-style (Key sticker being the FUD centers) and Both pairs with RUL. Check out woowybaby's example solve. Thanks anyway!
Thanks ! Just wondering, how do you edit on the wiki ?I edited the creator’s post.
You can create an account using the button in the top right corner of the homepage, then you have freedom to edit and post.Thanks ! Just wondering, how do you edit on the wiki ?
What ? I know FU isn't fast, see the edited wiki page. If you didn't misunderstand that, petrus EO also has FU during EO.@WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
<F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?
If you got this from the wiki page, somebody accidentally misunderstood the method, it does ZZ style EO with block in back, then use RUL gen to solve two pairs, followed by COLL and L5EP.@WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
<F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?
What ? I know FU isn't fast, see the edited wiki page. If you didn't misunderstand that, petrus EO also has FU during EO.
If you got this from the wiki page, somebody accidentally misunderstood the method, it does ZZ style EO with block in back, then use RUL gen to solve two pairs, followed by COLL and L5EP.
Also I made some other minor changes, like correcting permuting four edges to permuting five edges, etc.
I made a mistake in the previous post. Also, L5EP is barely worse than EPLL, you still only have to look at the top layer.Unless an edge or corner is stuck in slot on the other layer, most of the pairing still remains 2 gen - you may do a couple L moves to put an edge in position, then do RU pairing, then swap round to LU pairing. And also, ZBLL is not for everyone . (Though recognition for L5EP is still worse than EPLL)
Quick question for the person who edited in the Pros and Cons - didn’t it have 12 more algorithms than EPLL, according to previous posts?
(Though recognition for L5EP is still worse than EPLL)
When PapaSmurf told you in your quest for sub-8 petrus that you should do your 223 in the back, I thought he meant to do something like this, by putting in the cross edge with F2. But when I critiqued you, you were a little confused, so I realised it wasn't the case. So, I decided to propose this here, without putting in the cross edge with F2.Also, how exactly did you come up with the method? I might put a history section in.