Curvy Copter Discussion(New)

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.
 
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!
 
OreKehStrah said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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--
 
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.
 
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
 
BDC333E9-0674-402B-88E1-380E34FC80D5.jpeg

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 said:
nice keyboards :cool:
unfortunately I can't tell what exactly you're trying to solve.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Deweyspunkis
[Help Thread] Curvy Copter Discussion
2 3
Replies
41
Views
18,397
Stanislas
S
speedsolvetheory
  • Poll Poll
ATTENTION All Curvy Copter Speedsolvers! Official Leaderboard Link
Replies
0
Views
300
speedsolvetheory
speedsolvetheory
speedsolvetheory
New Curvy Copter Tech (MUoN)
Replies
2
Views
540
speedsolvetheory
speedsolvetheory
Chris Choi
[Unofficial] 2-Man Non-WCA Puzzles on Speedsolving.com Weekly w/o Curvy Copter Relay WB: 1:55.00
Replies
3
Views
920
Chris Choi
Chris Choi
O
WTB ShengShou Mini 7x7 & mf8 Curvy Copter 3 Black
Replies
0
Views
568
old_cuber
O
Back
Top