# SALOW Notation for Curvy Copter.

## Would you support Curvy Copter as an event?

• ### No

• Total voters
22

#### Aerma

##### Member
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+'?
In a jumbled position this might not be the case though? Like in the part of a scramble where you're jumblind the cube, FR++ could be different from FR which could be different from FR+ , which could differ from FR-

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
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+.
I just checked this and two partial turns is not equal to 180

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
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+'?
Sure you could call them that, but RF-' certainly makes less sense than RF++ since RF++ would denote a ~110 degree clockwise turn.
In a jumbled position this might not be the case though? Like in the part of a scramble where you're jumblind the cube, FR++ could be different from FR which could be different from FR+ , which could differ from FR-
Yes, it should be normal for all of these to be distinct legal moves (as they are when the cube is in the solved state).

#### Sion

##### Member
In a jumbled position this might not be the case though? Like in the part of a scramble where you're jumblind the cube, FR++ could be different from FR which could be different from FR+ , which could differ from FR-
This is true.

I'm guessing it can go like this: (neutral), RF+, RF--/RF+', RF, RF++/RF-', RF-,(neutral)?

#### whatshisbucket

##### Member
This is true.

I'm guessing it can go like this: (neutral), RF+, RF--/RF+', RF, RF++/RF-', RF-,(neutral)?
I imagined that RF++ would be the move in between RF+ and RF (at least that's what makes the most sense to me).

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
I imagined that RF++ would be the move in between RF+ and RF (at least that's what makes the most sense to me).
That’s how I am interpreting it as well. I’ve got my CC here and I’m doing the different moves as this thread is progressing

#### Sion

##### Member
I imagined that RF++ would be the move in between RF+ and RF (at least that's what makes the most sense to me).
I'll be able to make more sense of it once I get my hands on a curvy copter tomorrow.

So you'd say RF+, RF-', RF, RF+', then RF-?

#### Wish Lin

##### Member
A have an idea: Since this notation is kind of like Old Megaminx notation, maybe we can improve it just like Megaminx.......

Hold one corner and do moves like wide R2 and D2 only, like Megaminx.

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
Basically if you have a solved cube and you turn the FR edge it would go FR+,FR++,FR(180 degrees), FR- -, FR -, original state

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
A have an idea: Since this notation is kind of like Old Megaminx notation, maybe we can improve it just like Megaminx.......

Hold one corner and do moves like wide R2 and D2 only, like Megaminx.
I have played around with that already and I don’t think that’s the way to go. Especially with jumbling. That would make it really awkward to do jumbling scrambles. I think Sion so far has the best solution for the jumbling notation of +/-

#### Sion

##### Member
Basically if you have a silver cube and you turn the FR edge it would go FR+,FR++,FR(180 degrees), FR- -, FR -, original state
While I like R++, I still think calling R++ R-' makes more sense since it is the positional inverse of R-, kind of like how U' is the inverse of U on 3x3.

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
While I like R++, I still think calling R++ R-' makes more sense since it is the positional inverse of R-, kind of like how U' is the inverse of U on 3x3.
I understand it’s the positional inverse, but I think it needs to be ++ because if you only go by the position of the edge it’s the same but the four petals around each turning edge would be in different locations. Also as a side note I think it would look weird to have +’ since megamimx already uses ++. But from a scrambling point it would be identically if you’re just going for the manipulation of shape after doing some initial scramble to put the cube in a random state before jumbling.

#### Sion

##### Member
I understand it’s the positional inverse, but I think it needs to be ++ because if you only go by the position of the edge it’s the same but the four petals around each turning edge would be in different locations. Also as a side note I think it would look weird to have +’ since megamimx already uses ++. But from a scrambling point it would be identically if you’re just going for the manipulation of shape after doing some initial scramble to put the cube in a random state before jumbling.

Perhaps we could use forward and back slashes, so it could be RF/, RF//, RF, R\\, R\, which could differentiate CC from Mega, especially since something like F+ is completely different from F.

#### Aerma

##### Member
I understand it’s the positional inverse, but I think it needs to be ++ because if you only go by the position of the edge it’s the same but the four petals around each turning edge would be in different locations. Also as a side note I think it would look weird to have +’ since megamimx already uses ++. But from a scrambling point it would be identically if you’re just going for the manipulation of shape after doing some initial scramble to put the cube in a random state before jumbling.
If I understand this correct, I agree. So hypothetically in jumbled states these might all be different moves: FR, FR+, FR++, FR-, FR--

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
If I understand this correct, I agree. So hypothetically in jumbled states these might all be different moves: FR, FR+, FR++, FR-, FR--
Yeah. I’m not completely sure as I never messed with jumbling. But in theory those moves could potentially swap different petal pieces so I think notation definitely needs to be specific

#### Wish Lin

##### Member
Perhaps we could use forward and back slashes, so it could be RF/, RF//, RF, R\\, R\, which could differentiate CC from Mega, especially since something like F+ is completely different from F.
Really good idea IMO.

Just to be clear, each edge can have 6 possible placements, right?

#### OreKehStrah

##### Member
Actually, on second thought, Using RF/, RF//, RF, RF\\, and RF\ would make much more sense literally since you're turning jumbling moves on angles.
Yeah that I think that is better too