#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
I just got an FTO the other day and was wondering why there aren’t scramblers for it in a more megaminx style scramble? I think it might be easier to do some reduction of R+-, U+-, and L+- moves instead of having to deal with each face. I don’t know much about the puzzle yet, so idk if it’s possible to achieve random state scrambles with such a method but I thought I would throw out the idea since I haven’t seen it mentioned yet.

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
Equally, hold with a corner in UF and do R±, D± or F±. I'll write a bit of python in a bit to do this.

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
Equally, hold with a corner in UF and do R±, D± or F±. I'll write a bit of python in a bit to do this.
With the current state of hardware, I think RUL might be better since it would probably be easier to turn quickly than RDF. That would be my guess though.

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
Have some code.
Python:
import numpy as np
n=0
b=[]
c=0
a=0
u = np.array(['0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'])
m=0
d=0
e=0

while n<30:
a = np.random.randint(1,3)
n = n+1
if a == 1:
c = '+'
else:
c= '-'
b = np.append(b, c)

while m<10:
d = np.random.randint(1,3)
m = m+1
if d == 1:
e = ''
else:
e= "'"
u[(m-1)] = e

print('D' + b[0] + ' R' + b[1] + ' F' + b[2] + ' U' + u[0] + ' D' + b[3]
+ ' R' + b[4] + ' F' + b[5] + ' U' + u[1] + ' D' + b[6] + ' R' + b[7]
+ ' F' + b[8] + ' U' + u[2]  + ' D' + b[9] + ' R' + b[10] + ' F'
+ b[11] + ' U' + u[3] + ' D' + b[12] + ' R' + b[13] + ' F' + b[14]
+ ' U' + u[4] + ' D' + b[15] + ' R' + b[16] + ' F' + b[17] + ' U'
+ u[5] + ' D' + b[18] + ' R'  + b[19] + ' F' + b[20] + ' U' + u[6]
+ ' D' + b[21] + ' R' + b[22] + ' F' + b[23]  + ' U' + u[7] + ' D'
+ b[24] + ' R' + b[25] + ' F' + b[26] + ' U' + u[8] + ' D' + b[27]
+ ' R'  + b[28] + ' F' + b[29] + ' U' + u[9])

#### qwr

##### Member
Have some code.
Python:
import numpy as np
n=0
b=[]
c=0
a=0
u = np.array(['0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'])
m=0
d=0
e=0

while n<30:
a = np.random.randint(1,3)
n = n+1
if a == 1:
c = '+'
else:
c= '-'
b = np.append(b, c)

while m<10:
d = np.random.randint(1,3)
m = m+1
if d == 1:
e = ''
else:
e= "'"
u[(m-1)] = e

print('D' + b[0] + ' R' + b[1] + ' F' + b[2] + ' U' + u[0] + ' D' + b[3]
+ ' R' + b[4] + ' F' + b[5] + ' U' + u[1] + ' D' + b[6] + ' R' + b[7]
+ ' F' + b[8] + ' U' + u[2]  + ' D' + b[9] + ' R' + b[10] + ' F'
+ b[11] + ' U' + u[3] + ' D' + b[12] + ' R' + b[13] + ' F' + b[14]
+ ' U' + u[4] + ' D' + b[15] + ' R' + b[16] + ' F' + b[17] + ' U'
+ u[5] + ' D' + b[18] + ' R'  + b[19] + ' F' + b[20] + ' U' + u[6]
+ ' D' + b[21] + ' R' + b[22] + ' F' + b[23]  + ' U' + u[7] + ' D'
+ b[24] + ' R' + b[25] + ' F' + b[26] + ' U' + u[8] + ' D' + b[27]
+ ' R'  + b[28] + ' F' + b[29] + ' U' + u[9])
it was going pretty well until that last line

#### qwr

##### Member
You need a specific type of 3d printing. And fdm doesn't work for twisty puzzles.
why not? i've seen plenty of 3d printed puzzles.

#### abunickabhi

##### Member
Ben has made really high quality videos on the FTO, and it feels good that such good videos resources exist on the internet. Sadly, I live in India and buying a new FTO is a bit of a hassle for me.

qwr

#### qwr

##### Member
Ben has made really high quality videos on the FTO, and it feels good that such good videos resources exist on the internet. Sadly, I live in India and buying a new FTO is a bit of a hassle for me.
can you get cheap/free shipping from chinese stores like cubezz/ziicube/hknowstore?

#### TipsterTrickster

##### Member
A few notes:
I was in a group chat with some cubing friends and I made the same comment ("remember when puzzle modding was a thing")
I wonder if there's a market for modded FTOs or 3D printed ones yet. Cube manufacturers like qiyi should honestly make a decent FTO just to get it popular and give credibility in the push for WCA.
I think the cubicle has 3d printers and probably has the resources to semi mass produce 3d printed designs like a FTO, although it would be noticeably more expensive (maybe selling for $30-40) I've been thinking there may be a market for semi mass produced twisty puzzles in between the original designer printing at home and cube manufacturers with large scale injection molding. However many puzzles already have decent enough mass produced versions that it wouldn't be worth 3d printing, FTO being an exception. Ben Streeter has a 3D printed fto and used it for a while, but retired it because it became too worn down. From what I know it worked better than the lan lan, popped less, and had less corner twists. You need a specific type of 3d printing. And fdm doesn't work for twisty puzzles. You can use FDM for 3D printed puzzles it just requires more post processing than SLS, and either method would probably take way too much time to be practical, and they would probably end up costing$100+

I just got an FTO the other day and was wondering why there aren’t scramblers for it in a more megaminx style scramble? I think it might be easier to do some reduction of R+-, U+-, and L+- moves instead of having to deal with each face. I don’t know much about the puzzle yet, so idk if it’s possible to achieve random state scrambles with such a method but I thought I would throw out the idea since I haven’t seen it mentioned yet.
We don’t use megaminx style scrambles because
a) assigning a letter to each face is easy enough and is fast enough to be practical b) it’s easier to make a random state scrambler, and random move scrambles are more efficient and effective. Also fto definitely needs a random state scrambler whereas megaminx doesn’t really, I haven’t done the math, but using megaminx style scramblers will reach much less states than the scramblers we currently use (megaminx is ~3% iirc) and with the kinda luck fto has I think we should be able to reach all the states, also this is why the fto community recently switched from 25 to 30 move scrambles.

#### qwr

##### Member
either method would probably take way too much time to be practical, and they would probably end up costing \$100+
why do you say this? is it the labor in assembling the pieces? because I don't think it would be that much in raw materials.
AFAIK when Chris Tran was at the cubicle they 3d printed a lot of tools and experimented with selling a custom clock.

#### TipsterTrickster

##### Member
why do you say this? is it the labor in assembling the pieces? because I don't think it would be that much in raw materials.
AFAIK when Chris Tran was at the cubicle they 3d printed a lot of tools and experimented with selling a custom clock.
With the outer casing for the angstrom clock it takes like an hour to print depending on your settings (when I printed a replacement for mine it took an hour and a half, but that was using a shorter layer height than what they used), when printing a puzzle, due to all the parts it could take 10-15+ hours for 1 puzzle, then on top of that due to the layer lines you need to sand down and/or use acetone to smooth everything out and make it useable, they didn’t have to do this with the clocks outer casing, then finally assemble, sticker and test it, and even after all that it will still need some breaking in. It is definitely possible (as Ben has proved) to make a really good 3D printed fto, however I don’t think it is practical for mass production. Maybe SLS would work better for it, but Idk much about SLS printing and how much post production is required to make those puzzles good.

qwr

#### qwr

##### Member
With the outer casing for the angstrom clock it takes like an hour to print depending on your settings (when I printed a replacement for mine it took an hour and a half, but that was using a shorter layer height than what they used), when printing a puzzle, due to all the parts it could take 10-15+ hours for 1 puzzle, then on top of that due to the layer lines you need to sand down and/or use acetone to smooth everything out and make it useable, they didn’t have to do this with the clocks outer casing, then finally assemble, sticker and test it, and even after all that it will still need some breaking in. It is definitely possible (as Ben has proved) to make a really good 3D printed fto, however I don’t think it is practical for mass production. Maybe SLS would work better for it, but Idk much about SLS printing and how much post production is required to make those puzzles good.
I've done a small amount of 3D printing (I believe with Ultimaker 3s) where even with the layer lines the surface is quite smooth requiring virtually no sanding, which brings down the manual labor part a lot. It is possible to fit several pieces onto one metal plate. And usually in the makerspace on campus we had running probably 16 small printers and at least 3 large really big ones, along with SLA printers. Admittedly idk much about 3d printing.

Another cost effective option may be selling modded lanlan FTOs. It is probably extremely labor intensive and not worth it.

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
I mentioned it in the SS discord, but I figured I would throw it out here where it might be seen a bit more:

Any thoughts on calling the FTO "Octant" ? I think this is a good name for the puzzle as an event.

#### qwr

##### Member
I mentioned it in the SS discord, but I figured I would throw it out here where it might be seen a bit more:

Any thoughts on calling the FTO "Octant" ? I think this is a good name for the puzzle as an event.
why? it has nothing to do with octants, which are a real term (such as in octrees)

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
why? it has nothing to do with octants, which are a real term (such as in octrees)
Why not? It sounds good. Oct - 8, Octahedron - 8 sides

Why do we call megaminx megaminx? Why not call it the Hungarian Supernova?

And you can technically divide up each axis of it to fit within each octant of R3

#### qwr

##### Member
Why not? It sounds good. Oct - 8, Octahedron - 8 sides

Why do we call megaminx megaminx? Why not call it the Hungarian Supernova?

And you can technically divide up each axis of it to fit within each octant of R3
because octahedron is a much more accurate term.

and yes megaminx is a stupid name but we're stuck with it now.

#### zslane

##### Member
Octahedron makes sense, but apart from the "cube", none of the other puzzles shaped as a platonic solid have the canonical name. We have pyraminx instead of tetrahedron, megaminx instead of dodecahedron, and icosaix instead of icosahedron. Which is fine, I guess. The name seems less important than the quality of the puzzle. "FTO" will probably stick, even if it gets added as an official WCA event.

#### qwr

##### Member
FTO is actually probably the most descriptive name of any potential puzzle to the WCA because it describes the shape and the turning.

#### DNF_Cuber

##### Member
FTO is actually probably the most descriptive name of any potential puzzle to the WCA because it describes the shape and the turning.
pyraminx being the best current, FMC is in a grey area