Cubing Forever
Veteran
My man flexing his 21.82 TPS....
Highest reachable tps (turns per second) in a 3x3 solve
- Thread starter Robert-Y
- Start date
Dan the Beginner
Premium Member
ruffleduck
Veteran
Impressive, that's tied with me! (~22 TPS if you're curious)
GenTheSnail
Veteran
I mean if you guys are talking about single PLL times then none of you understand the point of this thread either.
Dan the Beginner
Premium Member
CFOP solvers should have higher TPS due to the number of turns they need to complete. So, can those who post TPS identify the method, please?
GodCubing
Veteran
GodCubing
Veteran
That's not how logic works
DuckubingCuber347
Veteran
In a way, yes. You can get higher TPS in lbl just by spamming moves whereas methods with fewer moves rely on other things like efficiency which can slow down TPS.
GodCubing
Veteran
Yes, buthigher movecount does not inherently mean higher tps. It is being able to see many moves into the future that creates high tps
Dan the Beginner
Premium Member
That's what I found even at my beginner level. Most of my solve times was spent on block building (like 66%). I can get higher TPS in Beginner Roux, by just grabbing any pair as fast as I can and then turn and get them in place, instead of looking for a better or more efficient pair. (I learned from other experts that it is best to develop oneself early by focussing on efficiency rather than speed.) In fact, most of my higher TPS results are from solves done this way, and in most cases the number of moves is higher as a result, and interestingly the total solve time is often longer ins pite of the high TPS and shorter recognition time.
StrategySam
Regular
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2021
- Messages
- 62
Also RU gen is faster then MU gen. If it wasn't then Roux would clearly be the best method in 2h.
Dan the Beginner
Premium Member
Is "spamming moves" more acceptable than twirling without too much thought? I also think that with CFOP, it is easier to see more moves into the future, than another method that are more varied and intuitive. And that is why I thought it's not fair to Roux and some other methods, to have an inspection time of 15 seconds (instead of no inspection, 4 seconds, or 20 seconds). That 15-second time seems to be a decision based on popularity, and the popularity is probably due to the vast majority of competitors who use CFOP, who most likely need 15 seconds to get a good inspection and plan many steps ahead (clearly harder for Roux). This seems to me to favour CFOP and continue the dominance of CFOP
GenTheSnail
Veteran
I don't think 15-second inspection particularly benefits CFOP over roux; both first steps (cross and FB) are quite similar (4 pieces vs 5 pieces) and can be inspected within a few seconds for any reasonably developed solver (15-20 seconds). It is true that very few roux solvers plan further than FB+DR, but its also true that most CFOP solvers rarely plan further than Cross+1, both of which are 6 pieces. Obviously some CFOP solvers plan into cross+2, but some roux solvers occasionally plan to FB+Square.
Even something like ZZ with it's relatively complex eoline/eocross can be inspected in just a few seconds at a moderate level -- I averaged about 12 and could inspect EO in 0.5-0.8 seconds and get a rough eoline in 2-3 seconds. In fact, inspection actually benefits methods that require significant planning at the first steps -- ZZ would be essentially unusable if there was no inspection allowed.
I think a major consensus for the continuing dominance of CFOP is how easy it is to transition from almost all of the beginner methods, not the 15 second inspection. It also has incredibly widespread and overwhelming resources (not to mention it's proven times and official rankings). Virtually any search of how to solve the Rubik's cube quickly will direct you to a CFOP tutorial as opposed to an overview of different speedsolving methods like ZZ or Roux.
Back on topic, to what you had said earlier:
For solves of the same speed across different methods, yes, the CFOP solves will tend to have a slightly higher TPS due to the method's higher movecount when compared to Roux, ZZ, or Petrus. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that CFOP solvers will have a higher maximum TPS.
Anyone acquainted with ZZ meta will tell you that after EOCross, ZZF2L is simplified even further than CFOP F2L and allows for greater TPS spamming. However this isn't the case for EOLine and ZZ blocks, but that method isn't common these days :(.
Hyeon Kyo Kyoung is known for having incredibly high TPS, and although he is a CFOP main, he is quite excellent at ZZ and has stated that he uses it to help with his turning speed.
GodCubing
Veteran
Only when it is regripless, but never the less you are right the tps cap for roux is slightly lower
Last edited:
Dan the Beginner
Premium Member
I assume everybody has watched Ruihang Xu's 13 TPS solve analysed. Maybe not everybody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KOzBCkDWs
His highest is 16 TPS, as recorded in Cube Station, but it is not an official recorded being a solve using a smartcube (Check Cube Station's Top 20). 61 Turns, 3.81 sec.
UPDATE. The 60 TPS is not true. See my next post about a video I have seen and why I was confused.
Last edited:
ruffleduck
Veteran
Which PLL? I don't think that's humanly possible. 30 TPS is the limit
abunickabhi
Legend
60 TPS on a PLL that is just insane. Hard to believe without any evidence.
UNO_FASY
Regular
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2021
- Messages
- 40
Yeah MU definitely nerfed Roux TPS a bit, MU TPS at best gonna be 12-13 TPS.
Although even be able to turn 9-10 TPS at roux consistently is already enough for sub 5 avg
DuckubingCuber347
Veteran
He's gotten a 14.37 TPS solve in Monkey League before (Check the Monkey League discussion thread). It's a lot easier to get a 16 TPS solve with a smart cube so it's probably equivalent to a 14(?) TPS stackmat solve. Still impressive. I do agree with zzoomer, 60 TPS is probably impossible for any person even for the fastest triggers. What PLL was it, what time, and where's the source?
Dan the Beginner
Premium Member
Sorry if it is incorrect, but the 60 TPS was mentioned in the description of this video. I actually don't know if it is true and I also suspect it is humanly impossible. What do you think?
UPDATE. I checked the video again and it said 60 fps, which should be the frame rate of the video, not TPS. My mistake. :confused: :? Sorry.
UPDATE. I checked the video again and it said 60 fps, which should be the frame rate of the video, not TPS. My mistake. :confused: :? Sorry.
Last edited:
Similar threads
