New FTO Speedsolving Method: Nautilus

[Athefre]

Nautilus FTO Website | Join the Discord Server
​

Introducing the Nautilus method for FTO. This is a speedsolving method designed for ergonomics, look ahead, and automation. The method contains four simple steps that are familiar to CFOP and Yau users. The first two steps are similar to Yau and the last two steps are similar to CFOP last slot and last layer. The major advantages this method has are the use of algorithms to speed up steps, great recognition for the algorithm steps, great look ahead thanks to piece visibility, and a competitive move count. The method is also easy to understand. There are no complicated steps at the end that involve thinking in the moment how to move pieces around.

If you are looking to get an FTO or already have one and want to learn a speedsolving method, click the website link above to get started. There is currently a big push to get FTO added as an official competition event, so start practicing now!

 

[fes_77]

Glad to see this getting finished : D

 

[abunickabhi]

Nautilus FTO Website | Join the Discord Server
View attachment 33899​

Introducing the Nautilus method for FTO. This is a speedsolving method designed for ergonomics, look ahead, and automation. The method contains four simple steps that are familiar to CFOP and Yau users. The first two steps are similar to Yau and the last two steps are similar to CFOP last slot and last layer. The major advantages this method has are the use of algorithms to speed up steps, great recognition for the algorithm steps, great look ahead thanks to piece visibility, and a competitive move count. The method is also easy to understand. There are no complicated steps at the end that involve thinking in the moment how to move pieces around.

If you are looking to get an FTO or already have one and want to learn a speedsolving method, click the website link above to get started. There is currently a big push to get FTO added as an official competition event, so start practicing now!

Super interesting method, thanks for creating it and optimising it in the future!

 

[Pyjam]

Congratulations. Great content as usual.

I like the notation you use. Just one question: I guess M goes the same direction than R, and N goes the same direction than L. Correct? But in this case M is the opposite direction than the traditional one.

Edit: I guess no. M goes like L and N goes like R. The original sin as never been more obvious.

 

[Athefre]

Congratulations. Great content as usual.

I like the notation you use. Just one question: I guess M goes the same direction than R, and N goes the same direction than L. Correct? But in this case M is the opposite direction than the traditional one.

Edit: I guess no. M goes like L and N goes like R. The original sin as never been more obvious.

It's a tough choice. Keep the slice turns in a direction familiar to everyone now or do something new to correct the strange M and E directions on 3x3. Technically the site doesn't specify directions and only provides the layer names. I'm definitely up for doing the "correct" way since it's a different puzzle. Maybe the correct way is having M follow R and N follow L. If going the familiar route, M would turn in the same direction as on 3x3 and N also follows the same direction where down is N and up is N'.

 

[bldcuber314]

It's a tough choice. Keep the slice turns in a direction familiar to everyone now or do something new to correct the strange M and E directions on 3x3. Technically the site doesn't specify directions and only provides the layer names. I'm definitely up for doing the "correct" way since it's a different puzzle. Maybe the correct way is having M follow R and N follow L. If going the familiar route, M would turn in the same direction as on 3x3 and N also follows the same direction where down is N and up is N'.

I would say go familiar, it might also help people get into this method.

 

[Pyjam]

If going the familiar route, M would turn in the same direction as on 3x3 and N also follows the same direction where down is N and up is N'.

M must keep the same direction, otherwise you're sure to misread the algs.
The solution is to use new letters and new directions.
I suggest A for M', and V for N.
The shape of A and V are like arrows pointing in the direction of the move.

 

[Athefre]

M must keep the same direction, otherwise you're sure to misread the algs.
The solution is to use new letters and new directions.
I suggest A for M', and V for N.
The shape of A and V are like arrows pointing in the direction of the move.

I did have V for N as a backup idea in case N will be used for something else.

The issue is that the FTO community has yet to decide on a standard notation. Some want all notation to be a single letter, some don't. Some want to keep BL and BR, and some have other ideas (and within those other ideas there are arguments as to what is best). Some want the slices to resemble 3x3 for familiarity, some don't like that idea at all. Some even want to craft the notation in such a way that it doesn't take letters away from certain shorthand triggers, such as S (sledge) and H (hedge).

My notation proposal was to keep it as close to 3x3 as possible and for it all to be single letters. This will allow for ease of understanding for FTO newcomers. Single letters will make referencing individual pieces and stickers read better.

 

[LBr]

What is the average movecount for this method? Having more algs is great but if the method is much less efficient then that’s just academic. Also with the FB step, since it looks exactly like first centre + 2 triples in bencisco (I didn’t get to choose the name), is it solved like that or do you just blockbuild and freestyle?

 

[Athefre]

What is the average movecount for this method? Having more algs is great but if the method is much less efficient then that’s just academic. Also with the FB step, since it looks exactly like first centre + 2 triples in bencisco (I didn’t get to choose the name), is it solved like that or do you just blockbuild and freestyle?

The move count is the same as Bencisco. That's with 2 look last triple and 2 look last layer. The move count drops even more with one look last triple, last layer advancements, and other techniques.

FB is solved the same. Center then two triples, as described on the site. We are also looking into making the step even better using some cool ideas discussed in the server.

 

[Puzzle Maniac]

Definitely looking into this method once my new FTO arrives. I currently average ~1:18 with the Diansheng Pamphlet method, and I thinkI would prefer this over Bensisco.

 

[Renslay]

I also started to learn this! Looks very cool.