A perm (cw) In 0.47 seconds

[wlstjd2145]

9 HTM / 0.47 = 19.15 TPS

That's fast. I just did 3 A-perms - 2.34, 2.34, 2.40 with R2 D2 R U R' D2 R U' R. 9 HTM / 2.34 = 3.85 TPS.

And what cube?

Guhong Version 2 cube.

 

[wlstjd2145]

집에서 한번 더 하면 0.45도 뜨겠는데요 ㅋㅋ 저번에 0.46 떴으니께

어제 2.44+까진 해봤어요.. 가능성이 아직은 큰거같은뎀

Awesome: that's 3x faster than mine.

Can you edit that video and and a slowed down version after? Like 10% speed???

In slow motion.

 

[Godmil]

Agh! That's too fast! O_o

 

[Ickenicke]

My A-perms is like your in slow motion

 

[teller]

I don't understand how this is even possible.

 

[Kirjava]

9 HTM / 0.47 = 19.15 TPS

More like 16 TPS. Still fast though.

 

[Florian]

More like 16 TPS. Still fast though.

I'm pretty sure its 19

 

[NSKuber]

My A-perms is like your in slow motion

Definitely agree.

 

[Stefan]

I'm pretty sure its 19

You think my video analysis is so far off while his stackmat-starting/-stopping is accurate?

 

[Kirjava]

I'm pretty sure its 19

I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

 

[ThomasJE]

You think my video analysis is so far off while his stackmat-starting/-stopping is accurate?

9 HTM / 0.55 (Stefan's estimate) = 16.36. So it depends on whether you take Stefan's time or the Stackmat time.

 

[Mollerz]

9 HTM / 0.55 (Stefan's estimate) = 16.36. So it depends on whether you take Stefan's time or the Stackmat time.

And of course you take Stefan's time because it's a frame by frame analysis which is always more accurate than manual stackmat start-stop.

 

[Godmil]

And of course you take Stefan's time because it's a frame by frame analysis which is always more accurate than manual stackmat start-stop.

What's the error on frame counting? +/- 1/15th of a second? Does that make much of a difference? I don't have time to do the maths.

 

[Ickenicke]

He wrote in the second post .53-.57

 

[insane569]

I'm pretty sure its 19

It seems someone here wants to argue with stefan. You can totally win. Cause you know...stefan is always wrong.

 

[Stefan]

What's the error on frame counting? +/- 1/15th of a second?

At frame x he hadn't started the alg, at x+1 he had started, at x+16 he wasn't finished, at x+17 he was. So it's 15-17 but I think 16-17 is more realistic than 15, so I said 16-17. Probably should've said ~16, though, and will do so in the future.

frame by frame analysis which is always more accurate than manual stackmat start-stop.

Assuming that hardware, software and human did a proper job, yes. The camera could record non-linearly, the software could distort things (both his encoder and my viewer), and I could miscount. But yes, I do trust it more than stackmat start-stop.

It seems someone here wants to argue with stefan. You can totally win. Cause you know...stefan is always wrong.

Thank you so much for your support, I'm sure the arguments themselves wouldn't suffice.

 

[ThomasJE]

Basically, 16 TPS and 19 TPS are both correct. It all depends on whether 0.47 or ~0.55 is the time that you believe.

He wrote in the second post .53-.57

So I went in the middle with 0.55.

 

[qqwref]

Basically, 16 TPS and 19 TPS are both correct. It all depends on whether 0.47 or ~0.55 is the time that you believe.

I disagree. The time displayed on the stackmat doesn't represent the time taken to do all of the moves of the alg, so 19 TPS is not correct.

This is somewhere around 22 QTPS, though.

 

[ThomasJE]

I disagree. The time displayed on the stackmat doesn't represent the time taken to do all of the moves of the alg, so 19 TPS is not correct.

That's because you believe Stefan's time. Others MAY believe the Stackmat time. Although I have to say that I tend to lean towards Stefan's time.

 

[Stefan]

Basically, 16 TPS and 19 TPS are both correct. It all depends on whether 0.47 or ~0.55 is the time that you believe.

The calculations, not their results.

The two calculations are correct, but only one premise and only one result really is correct (or rather neither is correct, as neither can provide absolutely accurate measurement).

In other words:

Others MAY believe the Stackmat time

Believing something doesn't make it correct.