jms_gears1
Premium Member
sune and anti-sune = easy recog and execution
Useful aplication of vhf2l?
- Thread starter JeffDelucia
- Start date
sune and anti-sune = easy recog and execution
a small kitten
Veteran
This is probably a matter of opinion...I think that in order for the sune and antisune cases to be viable they would all need to be around 1ish. I personally find those cases to be a little slower (especially for OH) so they're not so valuable to me.
Escher
Babby
^Definitely agree with this.
Over all the PLLs I average about 1.2, so a 0.8-1.10s PLL isn't that amazing an improvement, and the added execution time of the COLLs over the OCLLs (not to say the added time with VHF2L) makes it not worth it.
Also, the recognition advantage in knowing I'll get an EPLL doesn't really apply to me since I already recognise CP with OLL 90% of the time anyway.
Robert-Y
Legend
And maybe big cubes...
waffle=ijm
Waffo
Weston
Premium Member
I think he means something more like this.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/roll-angl.html
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/roll-angl.html
Escher
Babby
Waffo reply to me?
Pretty much, I guess I do the 'complex' way that he describes.
eastamazonantidote
Veteran
I have found the iffy part of COLL is 3x3x3 two handed (2x2x2 use CLL, but it's the same principle). On almost every other type of solve it is the superior option to OCLL because EPLLs become much faster relative to your other PLLs. However, this debate will never end, as it is really personal preference.
@DavidWoner: I did make a rather broad claim. As stated in the paragraph above, 3x3x3 two handed is the type of solve that is most controversial as to the practicality of COLL. The difference between COLL+EPLL and OCLL+PLL at high speeds shouldn't be that big, though. A .3 second execution difference on PLL with much easier recognition becomes .5-ish second difference, which is probably the difference for most COLL cases to standard OCLLs at extreme speeds. So the weak point of the solve is VHF2L, not COLL (though the two go rather hand in hand).
rubiknewbie
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 593
I may be slow but I am currently learning these so I can add some of my experience.
The advantage of VHF2L is getting edge-orientation, which leads to any of these:
1. Easy edge-oriented OLL (OCLL) cases (VHF2L + OCLL)
2. Edge permuation PLL (VHF2L + COLL + EPLL)
3. Forced OLL skip (partial VHF2L + Winter variation).
4. General increased chance of OLL or PLL skip by a combination of edge-orientation during last slot (VHF2L), corner orientation during last slot (Winter), corner permutation during OLL (COLL).
I find achieving only 1. is generally not worth it due to the extra move and recognition time to get VHF2L. But if you don't let the recognition time hurt too much might be ok.
I guess achieving 2. may not be overly beneficial for 2-hand since the difference between EPLL and other PLL is not that large to justify the recognition time and extra moves for VHF2L/COLL. Have not tried for 2-hand yet so can't confirm.
But for OH (I am trying it) 2. may be useful as the time difference between OCLL and non-edge oriented OLL cases for OH is generally larger and the time difference between EPLL and other PLL cases is also generally larger to make it beneficial. Also for OH (especially for me cos I am slow), slower recognition time is more forgiving. However it is more beneficial for the cases where there's no super good algorithms (T, L, U, H) and not as beneficial for the cases for sune, anti-sune, and Pi. Although Niklas is not bad for execution but recognition for sune and anti-sune case is terrible for me to ever get to use it.
Achieving 3. is useful for some cases. Generally where you don't have to add many if any move to VHF2L to get into the Winter variation cases and where the Winter Variation algorithms themselves are easy (like U R U2 R'). Some VHF2L cases cannot be converted to Winter variation cases like those leading to R'FRF'.
Achieving 4. is a bonus to have and always nice but I won't learn so many algorithms solely for the purpose of getting skips since these depend on luck. But it's true you get a significant number of OLL or PLL skips if you know all of VHF2L, Winter variation and COLL. Although in some cases the means to achieve the skips are not worth it, for example if you have to add a few moves to VHF2L + a few moves to get Winter variation and the moves are not even 2-gen you might as well do a normal OLL.
Keeping everything constant, I find it is more satisfying solving the cube with COLL + EPLL or Winter Variation + PLL than with the normal OLL + PLL because:
1. Getting OLL and PLL skips not by pure luck is satisfying!
2. Doing 2-gen solves even if they are more moves is satisfying!
3. Being knowledgeable and having more control of the last layer is satisfying!
VHF2L is not difficult to practice and can be quite intuitive like F2L. Out of the 16 VHF2L cases, I find 14 of them quite easy to do intuitively or with ZBF2L algorithms to convert to 4 edges-oriented cases. The only 2 cases that I don't like are the dot cases which I convert to 2 edges-oriented cases which are generally still better than dot cases.
COLL and Winter are more difficult and is like learning last layer algorithms though you may already have some reference if you know full OLLs and PLLs. Some algorithms are exactly the same.
The advantage of VHF2L is getting edge-orientation, which leads to any of these:
1. Easy edge-oriented OLL (OCLL) cases (VHF2L + OCLL)
2. Edge permuation PLL (VHF2L + COLL + EPLL)
3. Forced OLL skip (partial VHF2L + Winter variation).
4. General increased chance of OLL or PLL skip by a combination of edge-orientation during last slot (VHF2L), corner orientation during last slot (Winter), corner permutation during OLL (COLL).
I find achieving only 1. is generally not worth it due to the extra move and recognition time to get VHF2L. But if you don't let the recognition time hurt too much might be ok.
I guess achieving 2. may not be overly beneficial for 2-hand since the difference between EPLL and other PLL is not that large to justify the recognition time and extra moves for VHF2L/COLL. Have not tried for 2-hand yet so can't confirm.
But for OH (I am trying it) 2. may be useful as the time difference between OCLL and non-edge oriented OLL cases for OH is generally larger and the time difference between EPLL and other PLL cases is also generally larger to make it beneficial. Also for OH (especially for me cos I am slow), slower recognition time is more forgiving. However it is more beneficial for the cases where there's no super good algorithms (T, L, U, H) and not as beneficial for the cases for sune, anti-sune, and Pi. Although Niklas is not bad for execution but recognition for sune and anti-sune case is terrible for me to ever get to use it.
Achieving 3. is useful for some cases. Generally where you don't have to add many if any move to VHF2L to get into the Winter variation cases and where the Winter Variation algorithms themselves are easy (like U R U2 R'). Some VHF2L cases cannot be converted to Winter variation cases like those leading to R'FRF'.
Achieving 4. is a bonus to have and always nice but I won't learn so many algorithms solely for the purpose of getting skips since these depend on luck. But it's true you get a significant number of OLL or PLL skips if you know all of VHF2L, Winter variation and COLL. Although in some cases the means to achieve the skips are not worth it, for example if you have to add a few moves to VHF2L + a few moves to get Winter variation and the moves are not even 2-gen you might as well do a normal OLL.
Keeping everything constant, I find it is more satisfying solving the cube with COLL + EPLL or Winter Variation + PLL than with the normal OLL + PLL because:
1. Getting OLL and PLL skips not by pure luck is satisfying!
2. Doing 2-gen solves even if they are more moves is satisfying!
3. Being knowledgeable and having more control of the last layer is satisfying!
VHF2L is not difficult to practice and can be quite intuitive like F2L. Out of the 16 VHF2L cases, I find 14 of them quite easy to do intuitively or with ZBF2L algorithms to convert to 4 edges-oriented cases. The only 2 cases that I don't like are the dot cases which I convert to 2 edges-oriented cases which are generally still better than dot cases.
COLL and Winter are more difficult and is like learning last layer algorithms though you may already have some reference if you know full OLLs and PLLs. Some algorithms are exactly the same.
Last edited:
Similar threads
