The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

Here's another method that might exist and/or might have like 267,876 algs
1) Solve the cross (the cross edges don't have to match with the centers)
1688840469208.png

2) Do F2L to sole the middle layer but not the 1st layer
1688840682354.png

3) OLL
1688840839321.png

4) Solve Corners and/or Edges using U and D (Optional I think)
1688841026520.png

5) PBL
1688841061255.png

This could bee a good method for FMC.
I will call it cfOPL(Not a typo. Pronounced see-eff-op-l. C and F are lowercase because it is not completely solved. The PL stands for PBL or Permute layers.)
Tell me if there are any problems or if you have a better name. I was bored
It is more of a belt method variation than something completely original
 

Attachments

  • 1688840631635.png
    1688840631635.png
    19.2 KB · Views: 1
  • 1688840754767.png
    1688840754767.png
    20.1 KB · Views: 1
THE_V01DL0RD said:
Here's another method that might exist and/or might have like 267,876 algs
1) Solve the cross (the cross edges don't have to match with the centers)
View attachment 25191
2) Do F2L to sole the middle layer but not the 1st layer
View attachment 25193
3) OLL
View attachment 25195
4) Solve Corners and/or Edges using U and D (Optional I think)
View attachment 25196
5) PBL
View attachment 25197
This could bee a good method for FMC.
I will call it cfOPL(Not a typo. Pronounced see-eff-op-l. C and F are lowercase because it is not completely solved. The PL stands for PBL or Permute layers.)
Tell me if there are any problems or if you have a better name. I was bored
It is more of a belt method variation than something completely original
Click to expand...
This has been suggested before, I proposed the same method, and @Jorian Meeuse suggested that variation.

www.speedsolving.com

My Method Proposal (FT Method)

So as some of you know, i've been developing a method for quite some time, and I wanted to publish it but because of lack of time I didn't. I felt the need to post this as some other cubers had similar idea and I wanted to register the idea I had some time ago. I didn't think too much on a name...
www.speedsolving.com www.speedsolving.com

Jorian Meeuse said:
At least solve the side and the middle layer simultaneously, like F2L but you don't care what corner you use. This even makes for faster F2L on average because you have more options.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
THE_V01DL0RD said:
Here's another method that might exist and/or might have like 267,876 algs
1) Solve the cross (the cross edges don't have to match with the centers)
View attachment 25191
2) Do F2L to sole the middle layer but not the 1st layer
View attachment 25193
3) OLL
View attachment 25195
4) Solve Corners and/or Edges using U and D (Optional I think)
View attachment 25196
5) PBL
View attachment 25197
This could bee a good method for FMC.
I will call it cfOPL(Not a typo. Pronounced see-eff-op-l. C and F are lowercase because it is not completely solved. The PL stands for PBL or Permute layers.)
Tell me if there are any problems or if you have a better name. I was bored
It is more of a belt method variation than something completely original
Click to expand...

The issue with these types of methods is that while F2L in theory is a bit faster, PBL has a lot of algs and many are very unergonomic. You also have the potential of OLL “parity” which makes everything more annoying and slower
 
Filipe Teixeira said:
This has been suggested before, I proposed the same method, and @Jorian Meeuse suggested that variation.

www.speedsolving.com

My Method Proposal (FT Method)

So as some of you know, i've been developing a method for quite some time, and I wanted to publish it but because of lack of time I didn't. I felt the need to post this as some other cubers had similar idea and I wanted to register the idea I had some time ago. I didn't think too much on a name...
www.speedsolving.com www.speedsolving.com
Click to expand...
Hey you're back!
 
Is this original?: I made an entire thread on this, all the pros and conns and stuff are explained in the article. Someone did post about this idea before me, it was not ripped off from them, I never saw their post until I already made my post, and I made all the algorithms, they never made any.

This method is called 3BL, and is a variant of CFOP. Instead of solving your cross, you still solve it, but only solve the white part to the white center, not the other side of the edge. You solve all the way up until PLL. Instead of a PLL algorithm, you do 1 of 132/68 (you’ll understand if you read the doc) PBL algorithms to solve the cross and the PLL stage!

Method Document: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1X36fviqTDq4BV1ZY1udoPfikENzc4tLdZ-LfknV8QcU/edit?pli=1
 
Duncan Kimmett said:
Is this original?: I made an entire thread on this, all the pros and conns and stuff are explained in the article. Someone did post about this idea before me, it was not ripped off from them, I never saw their post until I already made my post, and I made all the algorithms, they never made any.

This method is called 3BL, and is a variant of CFOP. Instead of solving your cross, you still solve it, but only solve the white part to the white center, not the other side of the edge. You solve all the way up until PLL. Instead of a PLL algorithm, you do 1 of 132/68 (you’ll understand if you read the doc) PBL algorithms to solve the cross and the PLL stage!

Method Document: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1X36fviqTDq4BV1ZY1udoPfikENzc4tLdZ-LfknV8QcU/edit?pli=1
Click to expand...
I posted this without seeing the method posted above lol.
 
THE_V01DL0RD said:
Here's another method that might exist and/or might have like 267,876 algs
1) Solve the cross (the cross edges don't have to match with the centers)
View attachment 25191
2) Do F2L to sole the middle layer but not the 1st layer
View attachment 25193
3) OLL
View attachment 25195
4) Solve Corners and/or Edges using U and D (Optional I think)
View attachment 25196
5) PBL
View attachment 25197
This could bee a good method for FMC.
I will call it cfOPL(Not a typo. Pronounced see-eff-op-l. C and F are lowercase because it is not completely solved. The PL stands for PBL or Permute layers.)
Tell me if there are any problems or if you have a better name. I was bored
It is more of a belt method variation than something completely original
Click to expand...
There should be around as many algorithms as Square-1 full PBL, which I can’t remember too well right now but I think 996 or 967 algorithms.
 
ProStar said:
The issue with these types of methods is that while F2L in theory is a bit faster, PBL has a lot of algs and many are very unergonomic. You also have the potential of OLL “parity” which makes everything more annoying and slower
Click to expand...
It would not have OLL parity because of the way that he says you solve it. Only possibly PLL parity.
 
Sorry for so many posts in a row, but I’m curious; Is there an already existing roux variant where you solve F2B, CMLL, L & R Edges, and M-Slice? I mad e a few algs for it with cube explorer when I thought of it. If you think I just described roux, roux has EO, I’m saying drop EO and solve the entire M-Slice at the end. This could also use a 2 look M-slice method too It should be around 32 algorithms for full M slice i think.
 
Duncan Kimmett said:
Sorry for so many posts in a row, but I’m curious; Is there an already existing roux variant where you solve F2B, CMLL, L & R Edges, and M-Slice? I mad e a few algs for it with cube explorer when I thought of it. If you think I just described roux, roux has EO, I’m saying drop EO and solve the entire M-Slice at the end. This could also use a 2 look M-slice method too It should be around 32 algorithms for full M slice i think.
Click to expand...
The thing is, if EO is already done, you don't need to break up L and R in order to solve the M Edges.
If EO isn't done, those edges need to be taken out and reinserted again.

So you essentially change steps for the worse in every way.
 
Twisted101 said:
I have an idea for a method

Xcross(pair in dbl)

make the last 3 pairs but they don’t have to be inserted into proper slots

OLL

PLL+misplaced pairs (105 algs including normal PLL)
Click to expand...
110 if I'm not wrong, since you have to add the 5 Cases where PLL is done but the Slots are wrong.

So you gain 3 U moves(at most) for 5 times the PLL?
 
Thom S. said:
The thing is, if EO is already done, you don't need to break up L and R in order to solve the M Edges.
If EO isn't done, those edges need to be taken out and reinserted again.

So you essentially change steps for the worse in every way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a problem I had with it when I came up with it. I just wanted to suggest it, plus, if you get L & R already oriented, instead of doing EO, Just do L & R and then M-Slice. I dunno, I just thought of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
The physics of Rubik's Cube to Substep Method Platform
2
Replies
33
Views
1,786
Christopher Mowla
Christopher Mowla
D
Incomplete Substep Method LL Megaminx
Replies
2
Views
299
Deleted member 27249
D
Dane man
Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency
2
Replies
27
Views
8,640
brododragon
brododragon
M
What method is this?
2
Replies
24
Views
6,121
~Adam~
~Adam~
AK51
2.51 world record used 33 moves, it shall be 28 moves using AK-cubie method
Replies
0
Views
224
AK51
AK51
Back
Top