IAssemble
Regular
To be fair it averages about 51... 
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have never been a big fan of 444fmc because I can really only do a very optimized reduction+avoidparity+333fmc. But I think my lowest ever was around 65 and most were much more like 80
nice PLL skip there!
y u no rite can u solve faster than this thingy cos i can
y u no rite can u solve faster than this thingy cos i can
Yes, I realise that many people can solve the 4x4x4 much faster than this robot. Even my average time is about the same as MultiCuber 3 and I do not consider myself to be a speedcuber!
I have been working on the software algorithm on and off for about the last year... and this is the first robot to use it.
Perhaps I should focus on making the mechanics faster now too?!?![]()
multicubestormer pls
you could write an insane solving program for people to use if you wanted to...
I'm talking about an application similar to acube for NxNxN cubes.
I feel rude just throwing this request at you, I should also say that I did enjoy the video![]()
if the cube were to lock up, would the machene break or would it stop turning?
also, the title of this thread reminded me of those tootsie pop commercials.
This mechanical design is geared down more than some of the others in order to be able to turn stiffer cubes (it has been used to solve some give-away cubes that typically are not as smooth to turn). However, it can still probably not apply enough torque to damage the cube or itself.
As with most of my designs, if the NXT senses that the motors have stalled for a short time while turning, it is programmed to try and recover by turning in the opposite direction by an appropriate amount. If that fails and it stalls again it will simply shut down the motors and report the failure. However, this is probably my most reliable design so far and has not jammed while turning the cube at all since I got it working.
Sorry about the title... but at least some of you decided it might be worth a look at the thread anyway!?! ;-)
the title is actually why i looked at it
i just counted 157. that is how i would do it in a speed solve. i didnt try to optimize.