[Unofficial] Michael Womack's cubing videos

[Michael Womack]

Why don't you call this thread " I have a great idea for a 4x4 method, but I need some help" and then make an outline video that shows the basics, instead of making a video where you talk about stuff ~everybody knows about and stuff that is not even what is on the screen "if this piece was here instead of there" when you described the corners.

And please, run your sig through a spell checker!

Ok that sounds better but I can't change the name of the thread maybe Brest can change it for me.

What visual learner would watch a half-hour-long video when they could read one line of text?

Look at these videos allot of them are over 20 min long and there's allot of views on them http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperAntoniovivaldi/videos?flow=grid&view=0

 

[Sa967St]

Ok that sounds better but I can't change the name of the thread maybe Brest can change it for me.

I changed the title for you.

If you'd ever like a thread title changed, just report the post so that mods can see the request. Not all of us go through every thread, it your request might get missed, or not seen for a long time.

 

[qqwref]

Honestly, your method is just another "let's solve pieces in a random order" method, and there are hundreds of those. For speed, it's nothing special. A good method isn't just about people putting in work to find algs, it's about solving pieces in an order which makes sense and provides low movecounts and easy recognition. As far as I can see, this method doesn't have potential to be fast, and certainly doesn't have the potential to be competitive enough with Reduction or Yau that people will use it as their main or give it tons of attention.

Look at it this way. It includes pairing centers and edges, so let's compare it to reduction - where are you saving time over reduction? What part is faster? I don't see any step that couldn't be done faster by just solving those pieces with reduction. For instance, in the last 8 edges step, looking for pieces both on the top and bottom is really slow and since you can't see everything at once you are going to be very inefficient in a speedsolve. Also, having the E layers and corners solved means that you're basically restricted to commutators, which everyone agrees are slow. There is no freedom to just move pieces around (like how in the edges step of reduction you can move the outer layers without breaking anything) so you are pretty much using commutators and setups to do everything, which is incredibly move-inefficient. You might as well just use the Milan method at that point.

Also, 30 minute videos are ridiculous. Nobody is going to watch that just to learn a method that can be fully explained in a couple of paragraphs of text. And that's even if someone likes watching your videos, which I personally don't. Just for reference, you could include a full tutorial of Reduction or Yau, complete with fast sample solves, all necessary parity algorithms, and explanations of all the major variations, in well under 30 minutes. It's a lot of time. And your method doesn't have all that stuff developed yet, so you're just explaining the idea and maybe doing a solve, which shouldn't take anywhere near that long.

 

[Michael Womack]

Honestly, your method is just another "let's solve pieces in a random order" method, and there are hundreds of those. For speed, it's nothing special. A good method isn't just about people putting in work to find algs, it's about solving pieces in an order which makes sense and provides low movecounts and easy recognition. As far as I can see, this method doesn't have potential to be fast, and certainly doesn't have the potential to be competitive enough with Reduction or Yau that people will.

Look at it this way. It includes pairing centers and edges, so let's compare it to reduction - where are you saving time over reduction? What part is faster? I don't see any step that couldn't be done faster by just solving those pieces with reduction. For instance, in the last 8 edges step, looking for pieces both on the top and bottom is really slow and since you can't see everything at once you are going to be very inefficient in a speedsolve. Also, having the E layers and corners solved means that you're basically restricted to commutators, which everyone agrees are slow. There is no freedom to just move pieces around (like how in the edges step of reduction you can move the outer layers without breaking anything) so you are pretty much using commutators and setups to do everything, which is incredibly move-inefficient. You might as well just use the Milan method at that point.

Also, 30 minute videos are ridiculous. Nobody is going to watch that just to learn a method that can be fully explained in a couple of paragraphs of text. And that's even if someone likes watching your videos, which I personally don't. Just for reference, you could include a full tutorial of Reduction or Yau, complete with fast sample solves, all necessary parity algorithms, and explanations of all the major variations, in well under 30 minutes. It's a lot of time. And your method doesn't have all that stuff developed yet, so you're just explaining the idea and maybe doing a solve, which shouldn't take anywhere near that long.

Well think of it this was. Do you think reaching sub 6 secs on 3x3 was passable 3-4 years ago? No, that's because we improved CFOP over the last 3-4 years to make it better for OLL & PLL to be faster. So this method could be used better in the next year or so.

I think your method would be much better if it had a good name.

Same, that's one reason I need your help.

 

[yoshinator]

Honestly, your method is just another "let's solve pieces in a random order" method, and there are hundreds of those. For speed, it's nothing special. A good method isn't just about people putting in work to find algs, it's about solving pieces in an order which makes sense and provides low movecounts and easy recognition. As far as I can see, this method doesn't have potential to be fast, and certainly doesn't have the potential to be competitive enough with Reduction or Yau that people will use it as their main or give it tons of attention.

Look at it this way. It includes pairing centers and edges, so let's compare it to reduction - where are you saving time over reduction? What part is faster? I don't see any step that couldn't be done faster by just solving those pieces with reduction. For instance, in the last 8 edges step, looking for pieces both on the top and bottom is really slow and since you can't see everything at once you are going to be very inefficient in a speedsolve. Also, having the E layers and corners solved means that you're basically restricted to commutators, which everyone agrees are slow. There is no freedom to just move pieces around (like how in the edges step of reduction you can move the outer layers without breaking anything) so you are pretty much using commutators and setups to do everything, which is incredibly move-inefficient. You might as well just use the Milan method at that point.

Also, 30 minute videos are ridiculous. Nobody is going to watch that just to learn a method that can be fully explained in a couple of paragraphs of text. And that's even if someone likes watching your videos, which I personally don't. Just for reference, you could include a full tutorial of Reduction or Yau, complete with fast sample solves, all necessary parity algorithms, and explanations of all the major variations, in well under 30 minutes. It's a lot of time. And your method doesn't have all that stuff developed yet, so you're just explaining the idea and maybe doing a solve, which shouldn't take anywhere near that long.

Thank you! You said what I wanted to say better than I could say it!

Now somebody, please just lock the thread already.

 

[Edward]

Even with a comprehensive breakdown of the problems (which is what you wanted) you're still arguing? Do you even want help?

 

[yoshinator]

Michael, people are trying to help you, except all you're doing is covering your ears. Either listen up, of shut up! Stop with the BS examples and listen to us trying to help you! Qqwref gave you a complete breakdown as to what you need to do to have a good method, and all you're doing is saying that he's wrong. Shut up and try to make your method good, instead of just telling us we're wrong. Because we're not. You are.

 

[uniacto]

Well think of it this was. Do you think reaching sub 6 secs on 3x3 was passable 3-4 years ago? No, that's because we improved CFOP over the last 3-4 years to make it better for OLL & PLL to be faster. So this method could be used better in the next year or so.

have you seen an average that's sub-6?

 

[Michael Womack]

have you seen an average that's sub-6?

No but some that are very close to it.

Michael, people are trying to help you, except all you're doing is covering your ears. Either listen up, of shut up! Stop with the BS examples and listen to us trying to help you! Qqwref gave you a complete breakdown as to what you need to do to have a good method, and all you're doing is saying that he's wrong. Shut up and try to make your method good, instead of just telling us we're wrong. Because we're not. You are.

All I hear is this is not a good method

 

[Sa967St]

This thread is going nowhere. :/

[closed]

 

[Michael Womack]

My best and worst puzzles of 2012

Sorry for the long video

 

[bluecloe45]

Cool

 

[Michael Womack]

Cool

Thanks

 

[Michael Womack]

V-cube 6x6 mod

I did some of the Pi mod along with the Konsata+Florian mod

 

[rubixwiz031]

Funny. I was just beginning to wonder where you were.

 

[Michael Womack]

Funny. I was just beginning to wonder where you were.

Ya I just wanted to take a break and not making much videos that I would think SpeedSolving forms would like to see.

 

[rubixwiz031]

Ya I just wanted to take a break and not making much videos that I would think SpeedSolving forms would like to see.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Michael Womack]

Harlem Shake (Cube Edition) Stop-motion.

Here's my take on the Harlem Shake craze.
I hop you all like this video. I know i'm a bit late on making a Harlem Shake video.