A new method - PPW method

[presley]

can you make example solves with ppw?

This video I just made have PPW example and simple instructions

 

[LukasCubes]

This video I just made have PPW example and simple instructions

no i meant like on the website

 

[mencarikebenaran]

CFOP will always the best and the fastest method

 

[presley]

no i meant like on the website

This example scramble are white top / green front.
R' L' U2 D F2 D' B' U D' F2 R' F U2 R2 U' D' L' D2 F2 U2 R U' B R' B2

PPW solution example here use yellow top / orange front.
The total solution move sequence is
D' B' L U D2' F' L U L' D' U2 R' D U2 R2 D R D U R' U R2 U R' U' R D' R2' D R' U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U S2' U' S2' U R2' D R D2' R' D S2' D2' S2' R' D' R2 D R' U R'

The following instructions use some terms on the PPW website. You must know the meaning of these terms. There are explanations on the PPW website.

1. D' B' L U D2' F' L U L'
Do EO and EOEdge

2. D' U2 R' D U2 R2 D R D U R' U R2
Bundle into Base 4PAIRs

3. U R'
Place Base 4PAIRs only the shape is required to observe the corners on the U layer.
Observe the permutation parity of Base 4PAIRs, permutation parity of the other 3 corners on the U layer excluding Hub Corner, and the No Twist Required Corner.
Here the permutation parity of Base 4pairs is odd,
and the permutation parity of the 3 corners on the U layer excluding Hub Corner is even,
, so the similarities and differences of permutation parity is difference.
And the No Twist Required Corner here is the Hub Corner.

4. U' R D' R2' D R'
After this move sequence, adjust the similarities and differences of permutation parity to be the same, and get the relative position of the Hub Corner and the Dog Tail Corner to be correct at the same time.
Because the properties of the No Twist Required Corner, the No Twist Required Corner will not change after this move sequence, so the No Twist Required Corner will still be the Hub Corner.

5. U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R'
Twist the orientation of the corners on the U layer excluding the No Twist Required Corner to adjust the orientation to make it correct.

6. U S2' U' S2'
Continue to bundle into 2 more pairs

7. U R2' D R D2' R' D S2' D2' S2' R' D' R2 D
Bundle into one 2x2x1 block and one 2x3x1 block.

8. R' U R'
The blocks guide you to the end.

 

[IsThatA4x4]

CFOP will always the best and the fastest method

It's not just about what the fastest method is, methods like this are really cool and show off very unique ways to solve the cube. If you're only ever concerned about what's fastest or "objectively" the best, then you will never get to appreciate methods like this.

 

[Triangles_are_cubers]

CFOP will always the best and the fastest method

why are you so narrow minded lol, you're directly hating on this person for making a method just because another method (which has been more widely used, well studied, well documented, has more tutorials and has been made more efficient over the years) is faster. imagine you find a new way to play a sport, like playing on the perimeter as a center in basketball, or playing both wr and rb in american football, or playing the now known as "sweeper keeper" in football back when it wasnt as popular, and instead of being heard out, you get shat on because that is not how you're supposed to play the sport traditionally.

tl;dr: open up ur mind.

 

[LukasCubes]

CFOP will always the best and the fastest method

when 95% of cubers are using it and trying to improve it, its rigged to be the best method. For too long have people been using it and they need to move on.

who said anything about CFOP here for you to post here, this is a PPW thread, not a debate thread

 

[Silky]

This seems to be very similar to 2GB. It's steps are 2x2x3 + EO + CP => 4 pairs => solved stated. Both of these methods outline what I see as an intuitive 2GLL which is amazing. This is much clearer on the final steps which is very helpful

 

[GodCubing]

This seems to be very similar to 2GB. It's steps are 2x2x3 + EO + CP => 4 pairs => solved stated. Both of these methods outline what I see as an intuitive 2GLL which is amazing. This is much clearer on the final steps which is very helpful

There is no 2x2x3 or CP as the solve is RUD gen

 

[Silky]

There is no 2x2x3 or CP as the solve is RUD gen

For 2GB

 

[presley]

This seems to be very similar to 2GB. It's steps are 2x2x3 + EO + CP => 4 pairs => solved stated. Both of these methods outline what I see as an intuitive 2GLL which is amazing. This is much clearer on the final steps which is very helpful

Well, I am not familiar with the 2GB method, but according to the introduction of the 2GB method, the 2GB method is similar to the RUP method.
And the RUP method is also my work four years ago.
The last 4 pairs in the R,U layers in RUP now have strict definitions and names on the PPW website,
call it DIPODL(Double Interchangable PAIRs on Different Layers).
The original idea of the PPW method is to extract the last 4 pairs of RUP, not only the R,U layers will have DIPODL, but also the R,D layers will have DIPODL.
But the process of making the PPW method from the RUP method is actually quite slow and has gone through a lot of intuitive choices.
Moreover, the PPW method already has many new concepts that the RUP method does not have.