"clockwise" is a relative term. The letterings are only clockwise if you look at the cube from the bottom. Also something tells me the algorithm you have is not right since I is not adjacent to either of the other two letters used.
That being said, this is essentially the best notation possible if all twelve edges have to be used.
My only comment to this is that we used to have a megaminx scrambling notation with a bunch of letters, and it was completely impractical. I wonder if it would actually be better to just use the two letter designations directly, so instead of I F+ B F+, why not simply DL FR+ UF FR+? It's longer, but probably a lot easier, especially for someone who's not too familiar with scrambling.
I feel like it's a more intimidating to have to learn the piece that each letter refers to than just having more letters in a move.My idea was that it would be less intimidating to get involved if everything was on a one letter basis. It would also account for the fact that curvy copter is a completely new puzzle compared to anything else.
The order of the letters wouldn't matter, because RU and UR refer to the same piece, and therefore the same turn.Also, I also thought of the complications of how the letters would go in order, for example being RU or UR? I'm sure this would more than confuse people who are new to cubing.
I think it would be much easier if turns between 90 and 180 degrees were denoted with F++ or RF++ instead of writing double moves.Two partial turns would, using R/L, U/D, F/B Order, would be, in your case: RF. However, in reconstruction, where someone would do two F+ moves, it would be RF+ RF+.
No, this puzzle is too interesting for that.So to be clear, does doing two partial turns always end up in the same place as doing a 180?
yeah, that's a good idea, but wouldn't that technically cancel out to an RF-?I think it would be much easier if turns between 90 and 180 degrees were denoted with F++ or RF++ instead of writing double moves.
No, this puzzle is too interesting for that.
So RF++ is the opposite of RF-, and RF-- is the opposite of RF+? So would it be possible to call RF++ RF-' and RF-- RF+'?From solved, RF++ would take the puzzle to the same shape as RF-, some of the pieces would just be in different places. So yes, you would be able to continue jumbling
It would be turned the same way but the center petals would be in different spots. So algs that would solve those later or swap them would have to be very specific.So RF++ is the opposite of RF-, and RF-- is the opposite of RF+? So would it be possible to call RF++ RF-' and RF-- RF+'?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|The megaminx notation||General Speedcubing Discussion||4|
|S||Notation questions for megaminx solvers||Software Area||9|
|3920 Notation||General Speedcubing Discussion||0|
|U||Notation Confusion||Cubing Help & Questions||3|
|Antislice move notation||General Speedcubing Discussion||5|