TheCubeMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 4
--
Last edited:
Yeah, the time for the first pair will almost always be different to the time for the next four pairs, which is why you can't just divide by four. It will be "very close" for some people, but for me I can pause for up to three seconds, making it very inaccurate.I am glad that you like it and thank you for the suggestions, however the transition from cross to 1st pair can be calculated using the time it takes you to solve your first pair and cross time (the first pair is calculated by taking your f2l avg and dividing it by 4, as there are 4 pairs in f2l) I admit, this may not be 100% accurate but it is certainly very close and I will try to make it more accurate in future. Thank you for your opinion and advice.
the transition from cross to 1st pair can be calculated using the time it takes you to solve your first pair and cross time (the first pair is calculated by taking your f2l avg and dividing it by 4, as there are 4 pairs in f2l)
Pip is correct (about everything except the move count for cross + F2L, which is more like 35).
However, I would recommend looking at what has been done before and trying to extend or improve it, rather than reinventing the wheel. Search on "systematic practice". You will find a spreadsheet made by speedpicker that already does a better job of CFOP solve analysis. Study that carefully, and you might see how you can contribute by adding something new and useful.
Personally just the knowledge of 38% for LL can tell me exactly where I stand if I do LL scrambles. What I would like is something where you can input your average for a specific OLL/PLL case and it gives you back all the OLL and PLL in order of which is furthest from it's ideal percentage. That way you know exactly which algs you should drill more at all times.
Actually a LL timer that remembers your previous data would be amazing for that since it can be set up like Anki where it periodically makes sure each alg stays at a certain level for recognition and execution and can give you detailed feedback.
You're assuming that each step of Cross, each slot, OLL and PLL take the same time. They don't.1 - Estimated F2L Average. This is not calculated from avg solve minus oll, pll & cross.
It is more about taking the proportions of your solve (including cross, oll and pll), allow me to explain.
Let's say a scrambled cube was an apple and it took me 7 big bites to eat all of the apple, or in this case solve the scrambled cube.
If f2l took ? bites and the rest of the apple (cross, oll and pll) took 3 bites (or 43%) of the remaining apple.
It would be mathematically obvious that f2l took 4/7 bites (or approx 57%). That is what the formula does, it finds the proportion of a solve your f2l takes.
Although it seems like simply taking away, it is not. It analyses the proportions and calculates the result from those proportions.
Your F2L average is meaningless. It isn't 4/7 of the total solve, and the first pair is not 1/7th of the solve. You can't predict the first pair because the first pair is always different to the other pairs.3 - 1st Pair Recognition Time + Average Pair Insertion Speed. Let's start with the 1st pair recog, this is calculated using the f2l, cross and first pair times. It is accurate and does not need to be modified in future, I am very confident it is not only useful but also very accurate, because the f2l avg is (NOT!) meaningless as I demonstrated in point #1.
You're assuming that each step of Cross, each slot, OLL and PLL take the same time. They don't.
Your F2L average is meaningless. It isn't 4/7 of the total solve, and the first pair is not 1/7th of the solve. You can't predict the first pair because the first pair is always different to the other pairs.
Maybe for some people, but not for me and not for many others. My first pair recog is so poor that this would provide a very inaccurate value for my cross+1 (I'd guess my F2L is something like 2 for cross, 4 for first pair and then that leaves 1.3s for the other pairs. This is only an estimate, but it's almost certainly close to what I actually average). You can't assume that everyone is similar, because for this step they aren't.You're right, but the difference would be barely anything (maybe 2.47 prediction and 2.77 actual)
Yes, that's precisely what it is. Your formula is "=C44-(C61+C11)". Why lie?1 - Estimated F2L Average. This is not calculated from avg solve minus oll, pll & cross.
It does seem like "simply taking away", doesn't it? You can't claim that something analyses data when it is just performing a basic mathematical operation. That attracts attention to it, leading Excel superusers to unlock your spreadsheet and expose you.It is more about taking the proportions of your solve (including cross, oll and pll), allow me to explain...
**EXPLANATION**
Although it seems like simply taking away, it is not. It analyses the proportions and calculates the result from those proportions.
TDM has covered this, but I'll restate for the record - cross + 1st pair is not the same as cross + 1/4 of F2L time. There's a significant transition to consider.2 - Cross & 1st Pair
Yes, let's!Let's start with the 1st pair recog... I am very confident it is not only useful but also very accurate
Nope. Once again, you subtract cross + 1 from F2L without cross, then divide this nonsense number by 3.As for the avg pair insertion, this too is derived from the same times and is also accurate using the formula that calculates it.
Yes, there is. Your baseline solve formula takes full solve time, subtracts LL, subtracts cross... then adds LL back on! Notice anything missing? Like the cross time? Why subtract a number just to add it back on? Why not just use "=C44"?4 - As for baseline + analysis. There is no error with the formula
You have no idea? Cool, let me explain it to you. Your formula doesn't look at TPS. It takes the time for solving 4 F2L pairs and divides it by the time taken to solve cross + 5 F2L pairs (=C51/(C57+C51)). What the value of this number is is anyone's guess!and I have NO IDEA!! how you got an f2l tps of 0.55 with an f2l avg of 7.31!
No, it was your formula.If you take a look at "Sheet2" which contains some examples of random data entry, you would see that the f2l tps is 0.71 and f2l avg is 23.68, this means it takes 17 moves (approx) to solve f2l. I think that makes a bit more sense! Are you sure it wasn't something like a typing mistake or miscalculation??
LMAO!!!! 7.31 F2L out of an 18.5 second solve is not 68.6%. It's not even 40%. How can you possibly expect this argument to hold any water?It has calculated that your f2l took up 68.6% of your solve, maybe f2l isn't your strong point.
No, it's not. And I'm not guessing.It is not right of you to accuse the analyser by taking a guess of whether it's accurate or inaccurate, as I can certainly tell you it is accurate.
No, they aren't.Recognition times can be calculated fine as they are using a comprehensive data analysis function.
I'd rather the user not be able to see the formulas used, because they could easily just copy them and make there own analyser from my hard work.
No worriesThank you for your "constructive criticism" on my analyser
I disagree. But what do I know?I really do think you're getting the wrong impression about how some of the mathematical techniques and data handling is carried out.