shadowslice e
Member
Delete the post then.Wrong thread
Delete the post then.Wrong thread
In the french community, someone just got this scramble:
L2 F2 R' U2 D2 R' D F B' R' B2 L2 D' R2 U D' B2 R2 L2 U B2
Going to do some tests pinning LMCF to my "phase" solving style to see what happens. What I'm thinking is to do corners intuitively and solve the L12P using pairs, triplets, comms and other edge stuff. IDK if I'm gonna break the edge portion down to separate substeps but as of now I don't see much of a reason to.
LMCF IS the best! It has high TPS and low movecountJust Use Roux
I don't use LMCF because of the waaayyyy high algorithm count. I already have problems learning OLL/PLL so... 400 algs...To be fair Roux is still more developed than LMCF. I would say a Roux solver who knows EOLR and multiple CMLL's to skip bad LSE cases has an advantage over an LMCF solver... but not for long. The progress I am making improving LMCF is so rapid that I'm not sure that Roux will have an advantage for much longer. LMCF has unparalleled flexibility for innovations, speed short cuts and on-going developments which will continue to speed it up over the next while. Even before any of that, I am also re-working the algorithms for better ergonomics & speed and even lower movecount, as well as improving the ergonomics and lookahead in the E2L phase.
I started learning it 1.5 months ago and the algorithms ( especially the basic set ) are really easy to remember. I am currently learning the advanced set and 50% of the algorithms are just mirrored cases( especially L5E and E2L pairs )! Got a little problem with EG-1/CLL, but I still use Ortega for the corners and my PB is on 20.83 right now ( I solved the corners in 6 seconds ).. so even if you do not know a lot of algorithms, you can get pretty fast too, I definitely recommend you trying itI don't use LMCF because of the waaayyyy high algorithm count. I already have problems learning OLL/PLL so... 400 algs...
From my own experience I can definitely agree to that, but rather singles than average.I believe that makes it the fastest existing method for such a low algorithm count...?
By the way, when will the new document be published? I think I heard someone saying something about E2L Quadruplets ?To be fair Roux is still more developed than LMCF. I would say a Roux solver who knows EOLR and multiple CMLL's to skip bad LSE cases has an advantage over an LMCF solver... but not for long. The progress I am making improving LMCF is so rapid that I'm not sure that Roux will have an advantage for much longer. LMCF has unparalleled flexibility for innovations, speed short cuts and on-going developments which will continue to speed it up over the next while. Even before any of that, I am also re-working the algorithms for better ergonomics & speed and even lower movecount, as well as improving the ergonomics and lookahead in the E2L phase.
Wouldn't someone who gets sub-10 using ZZ-OCLL/PLL be using just as few algs? If I'm not mistaken, this is not to uncommon (I'm pretty sure Phil Yu does it all the time).Juqe is right, you can get really fast with just the LMCF basic algorithm set (around 25-30 algorithms), you can get sub-10 singles with just that. I believe that makes it the fastest existing method for such a low algorithm count...?
By the way, when will the new document be published? I think I heard someone saying something about E2L Quadruplets ?
7 corner orientations then 21 PLL's, plus F2L algorithms I suppose? So 28 algorithms plus F2L algorithms. A very low algorithm count, similar to LMCF basic.Wouldn't someone who gets sub-10 using ZZ-OCLL/PLL be using just as few algs? If I'm not mistaken, this is not to uncommon (I'm pretty sure Phil Yu does it all the time).
7 corner orientations then 21 PLL's, plus F2L algorithms I suppose? So 28 algorithms plus F2L algorithms. A very low algorithm count, similar to LMCF basic.