The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Sub1Hour]

It would be decent but it requires 3 rotations, a little ridiculous. If you can find a way to reduce it to 1 or 0 then maybe it's worth it. But I'm sure @Owen Morrison would not enjoy doing 3 rotations.

 

[BlueAcidball]

It would be decent but it requires 3 rotations, a little ridiculous. If you can find a way to reduce it to 1 or 0 then maybe it's worth it. But I'm sure @Owen Morrison would not enjoy doing 3 rotations.

Understandable, but then again it wasn't really meant for speedsolving to begin with

 

[TipsterTrickster]

For reference I average around 4-5 seconds on clock, so here is my critique.
Looking at this method there are some clear flaws
The first is 3 flips, for any method you should be flipping at most 1 time, because the flip takes like half a second and in a 4-5 second solve that is pretty significant.
Another thing to add is that it is more moves then the Pochmann method because you end up breaking up all of your blocks and add moves.
Also just a tip, if after your first flip you move the cross to 12 you can completely avoid the last flip, and if you use the correct pins you can avoid breaking up the 2x2 block on the first side, but even when doing this, Pochmann is still better and simpler.
Lastly blockbuilding in clock is an interesting concept and something that can be used on your second side to force corner skips, but not something that should be used on the first side ever.

With clock methods there isn’t much room for completely new methods, as there is already a lot you can do with Pochmann, the only real thing you can do differently to cross flip cross corners is cross flip block build, but doing Pochmann is more ergonomic that blockbuilding, and they both end up being the same movecount. The real way to improve clock methods is to improve the Pochmann method which is something I have been doing over time. With Pochmann you can already competely avoid DR/DL moves (which are the slowest kind of move), you can do no flip (which is too risky to be worth it), you can force corner skips with blockbuilding and from inspection, and a lot of other influencing and preservation to reduce movecounts.

anyway novel idea, but not something that should be used in speedsolving

 

[PetraPine]

For reference I average around 4-5 seconds on clock, so here is my critique.
Looking at this method there are some clear flaws
The first is 3 flips, for any method you should be flipping at most 1 time, because the flip takes like half a second and in a 4-5 second solve that is pretty significant.
Another thing to add is that it is more moves then the Pochmann method because you end up breaking up all of your blocks and add moves.
Also just a tip, if after your first flip you move the cross to 12 you can completely avoid the last flip, and if you use the correct pins you can avoid breaking up the 2x2 block on the first side, but even when doing this, Pochmann is still better and simpler.
Lastly blockbuilding in clock is an interesting concept and something that can be used on your second side to force corner skips, but not something that should be used on the first side ever.

With clock methods there isn’t much room for completely new methods, as there is already a lot you can do with Pochmann, the only real thing you can do differently to cross flip cross corners is cross flip block build, but doing Pochmann is more ergonomic that blockbuilding, and they both end up being the same movecount. The real way to improve clock methods is to improve the Pochmann method which is something I have been doing over time. With Pochmann you can already competely avoid DR/DL moves (which are the slowest kind of move), you can do no flip (which is too risky to be worth it), you can force corner skips with blockbuilding and from inspection, and a lot of other influencing and preservation to reduce movecounts.

anyway novel idea, but not something that should be used in speedsolving

it would be interesting to see clock FMC and how low you could take the events ""move count""

 

[DNF_Cuber]

it would be interesting to see clock FMC and how low you could take the events ""move count""

It would be weird to see how the moves would be counted. Would pin moves count? would 1-3 hours be one move, and more be 2?

 

[TipsterTrickster]

It would be weird to see how the moves would be counted. Would pin moves count? would 1-3 hours be one move, and more be 2?

I've done clock FMC and average ~10.5 ish moves, basically just count every time you do a gear turn which is how you generally count moves in clock, so UR1+ is 1 move, UR5- ALL5+ is 2 moves etc...

 

[Platform_]

This is the guide of my method to I invented for the LL. Do not move to another thread because otherwise hardly anyone reads it.
Here there is file pdf.
Thank you for vision.

 

[Lilas ma]

Nice one!

 

[Ben Whitmore]

This is called line (step 2) and me and Jabari Nuruddin already learnt all the algs for it in 2014

 

[Platform_]

This is called line (step 2) and me and Jabari Nuruddin already learnt all the algs for it in 2014

Step two is line I know, but before in the past i discover that cases and since 2008 I solve LL with two steps. In 2014 my method was imperfect when i cant created my guide.

This is called line (step 2) and me and Jabari Nuruddin already learnt all the algs for it in 2014

I created my algo with my mind nothing computer.
My algo aren' t perfect when is a good work Line cases with algo.

 

[PapaSmurf]

I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.

 

[Platform_]

I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.

but the step one is my work.

I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.

They didnt invented a method, they have classificated cases.

I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.

I create a method with two step. Step One is mine. Step two is Line.

 

[Athefre]

What others are referring to is just the Line LL subset. That isn't an LL method. What is presented in this topic is a complete LL method. On the wiki, there is already a way for achieving this Line state and it's called 1LLLL. However, your method is the first to do it using only the LL and algs.

If you wanted to further increase your options and reduce the number of cases for step 1, you could look into the union system in my signature.

 

[Platform_]

What others are referring to is just the Line LL subset. That isn't an LL method. What is presented in this topic is a complete LL method. On the wiki, there is already a way for achieving this Line state and it's called 1LLLL. However, your method is the first to do it using only the LL and algs.

If you wanted to further increase your options and reduce the number of cases for step 1, you could look into the union system in my signature.

When My work is useless. I'm not an inventor of anything. I'm depressed.

 

[Athefre]

When My work is useless. I'm not an inventor of anything. I'm depressed.

No. You are the first to create this as an actual LL method. That is great. 1LLLL on the wiki requires creating a couple of pairs using the last slot and LL. Yours is a true LL method and is likely better.

 

[Platform_]

No. You are the first to create this as an actual LL method. That is great. 1LLLL on the wiki requires creating a couple of pairs using the last slot and LL. Yours is a true LL method and is likely better.

Ah ok is a good news I understand. But improve this is very hard, very hard.

 

[qwr]

1LLLL? Have acronyms gone too far?

 

[zimlit]

big cube method:
the first two steps are like hoya
but for the third step you solve two cross edges and two random edges
then after you solve the last two centers you orient the edges and while preserving t he line made in step three the solve it as zz + parity

 

[The Pocket Cuber]

Alright I have a cool (may not be good), Pyraminx method I came up with when solving. It might be used to build up to intuitive top first solving. Hope you like

Step 1: Create a backbone whilst orienting the RD and LD edges. (2 corners around one edge Piece) in the back of the Pyraminx To form a backbone. More detail on this is on the speedsolving wiki backbone method. Except what is different is that whilst we do the backbone in this method, you orient the RD and LD edge pieces simultaneously. To orient an edge piece on a Pyraminx, it should be able to be solved with only L and R moves. The recognition for this is difficult at first, but becomes better as you practise. To orient an unoriented edge piece, you can do a U or B move.

Both creating the backbone and orienting the RD and LD edge pieces are very easy to do together and can be seen in inspection. Normally, I’m fairly certain (though this is approximate and not recorded) that it takes on average 2-3 moves to do this step. Not many moves, just a lot of thinking.

Step 2: Solve the RD and LD edge pieces and the centres. At this point, only the R and L layers are unsolved. Because we oriented the two edges needing to be solved in the previous step, this step can be done with only R and L moves!!! This makes this step quick and intuitive. Example solves will provide more insight. But this step only takes around 5-7 moves (not sure though)

Step 3: L3E! Very quick and very easy. All the centres are solved so there is very easy recognition and no need for AUF’s.

Example solves:

1. U B' U B' R B' U B r b' u
inspection: y z’ y
Backbone and LD and RD: L’ U R U (u’ b’)
Reduction to L3E (solve RD and LD and centres): L R L R L
Step 3: U’ R U R’ L R’ L’ R (l’)

Moves: 17 (if only not a bad L3E) excluding tips

2. U' R' U B' L R U' B' l' r' b
inspection: z’
Step 1: R’ U’ B’ U (u b’)
Step 2: L R L R’ L’
Step 3: U R U’ R’ (r)

Moves: 13

3. B' U' L' B' U R' B' L R' b'
inspection: z’ y’
Step 1 (this solution helps step 2 a little so a few more moves): U R U’ L U’
Step 2: R L R (cancel into L3E)
Step 3: U L U’ (l)

11 moves


Notice how this method has no Pyraminx rotations....and..... is very very fingertrickable due to an only L and R phase in stel 2 and very rare b moves only in step 1. The movecount is generally what was shown in the example solves, however, usually a little less for step 1, and a little more for step 2. I’d say the average movecount is around 13-14. This method could be one-lookable maybe..... but definitely can be two looked. Hope you like it and open to feedback and constructive criticism!!!!

edit: This may look really complicated and difficult...but please open you eyes to it and try it if you are a fellow Pyraminx Solver. Even if you don’t wanna switch methods (I don’t want to switch to this either ahaha) it gives deeper insight to the technical aspects of the cube.

 

[crazykitten499]

2x2 method:

make side skipping 1 piece

valk slot the final corner

pbl