Standard Lettering Scheme for Reference

Alright, I understand now how clockwise-around-face instead of clockwise-around-corner rather suggests this one, so actually I prefer that now (might even switch my own scheme to that shape).
smsl52.png
 
Last edited:
I worry a bit that we are hijacking Speffz away from Speff and riffz, even though the method is their proposal. Although I think we should all weigh in, this is still their effort, so I think their opinions should have a little more weight than anyone else's.

As a compromise between the community as a whole, and Speff and riffz together, how about we continue to use their clockwise around the face lettering, and letter blocks that are clockwise to the corner. This is basically the same style scheme as what Speff and riffz suggested originally, and is the one shown in Stefan's most up to date picture. For the face order we will use the one Stefan suggested, ULFRBD since this makes it very easy to display the face order on a 2D picture of an unfolded cube. This will simplify things greatly for the Wiki article, rather than having two pictures of a cube, one from UFL and one from DBR. Simpler is better when it comes to this standard definition.

Sound like a good compromise? I am specifically asking Speff and riffz, but I feel others should still have the freedom to weigh in as well. I just think that we are starting to hijack Speff's and riffz's idea too much. If their scheme is not preferred then someone can invent another one with a different name.
 
ULFRBD since this makes it very easy to display the face order on a 2D picture of an unfolded cube.

Well, you can put other face orders on a 2D picture just as easily. Just wouldn't be as nice (at least I don't see how).

Just to be clear: the suggestion now is my original A-X image?
 
Well, you can put other face orders on a 2D picture just as easily. Just wouldn't be as nice (at least I don't see how).

Just to be clear: the suggestion now is my original A-X image?

Yes, at least that was my intention. I figure this is a good compromise between what has already been debated in the thread, and a nice face order that is easy to display on the Wiki page, and easy to learn.
 
Why is D singled out in the description, getting its own rule? I think it doesn't need that extra description, just like the other sides don't.

I'm still not sure about the obliques. Is it "A" and "a"? Or is one of them "Aa"? Made a picture to show how I guess it's supposed to look. And another as an alternative which doesn't just upper/lower-distinguish the obliques, but also the x-centers, t-centers and wings.

2mevfag.png
2hqxdt0.png
 
Yes, you got the obliques right. I like the idea of extending the uppercase and lower case letters to distinguish between outer and inner centers/wings. I had considered that myself, but I wasn't sure it would really prove useful. I guess it can't hurt, though.
 
Printable cube?

iORKY.png

Print it at 72 ppi and it should come out about the same size as a standard 3x3.
 
Why is D singled out in the description, getting its own rule? I think it doesn't need that extra description, just like the other sides don't.

Please others feel free to edit the page. That's why it's in the Wiki. I do not claim any ownership of that page, I am just the one who started it. Please edit out any inconsistencies or errors to improve it.

As to why I put that rule in there, we had a debate earlier in the thread about whether DFL should be the starting corner on the D face (the upper-left corner after an x2 rotation) or DBR (the upper left corner after a z2 rotation).

I'm still not sure about the obliques. Is it "A" and "a"? Or is one of them "Aa"? Made a picture to show how I guess it's supposed to look. And another as an alternative which doesn't just upper/lower-distinguish the obliques, but also the x-centers, t-centers and wings.

2mevfag.png

This is the picture I am trying to describe. I am interested in the idea of extending the uppercase and lowercase idea to other pieces, but what happens if the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 cube are released and people attempt those BLD? *cough*Mike*cough* No matter which notation is used the uppercase and lowercase rule would either need to be scrapped or remade for the larger cubes. The debate in the thread only led to the obliques getting case lettering, which is why the Wiki page describes it as such. If people are interested in using upper and lower case lettering for the other pieces, then it would be a simple matter to change the picture to include a picture like Stefan's for the upper and lowercase lettering, and adding a rule for it in the text.
 
I know that the standard scheme has already been chosen, and I'm not posting this as an alternative to replace the current system. I've already argued for this system but I think most people don't use it, and it wasn't really understood properly, so I just wanted to post about it.

The issue of which letters are assigned to which groups isn't discussed here because it's not relevant to the system for grouping the stickers.

Here's an animated picture of how it works:
TRAy3.gif


How it works: draw a line from the center to the corner. Imagine a small circle (radius less than the line drawn) centered on the corner. Following this corner clockwise leads to an edge. Form a triangle using this edge, the corner and the center (see the picture). All the stickers which are partially inside this triangle are grouped to use the same letter.

The property of this that I like is that commutators for different pieces are very similar.

For example, taking the corners UBR, FUR and LFD, the matching edges with the same letters are UB, FU, LF. The corner cycle is solved with [R', U L' U'], and the edge cycle with [M, U L' U]. Since the centers are basically extensions of the corners, the same applies to them. The difference between these two commutators is moving the interchange slice, R, inwards to become the M slice. However using the Speffz notation, the corner cycle would be matched with the edge cycle UR->FR->LD. The edge commutator here would be [R', E' L' E]. This cycle still is similar but it feels different, although that is probably just personal bias.

I think this would be useful to someone who is using the same letter for their buffers (UFL and UF for example) because the cycles from those position are similar. The same property does apply to Speffz but in my opinion it is to a lesser degree.

On a related note, if you write corners using a clockwise notation (UBR instead of URB), then the first two letters of the corner make up the notation for the edge. Changing the last letter from the corner to lowercase also gives the wing. Changing the last two letters from the corner to lowercase gives the x-center, and changing the last letter from the edge to lowercase gives the +-center. This works for Speffz too but only if you adopt a counterclockwise notation.

I guess in the end it's still arbitrary anyway ;)
 
Aron, isn't your 5x5 scheme exactly the same as Speffz's, only mirrored? Try the corners ULB, FLU and RDF, that results in yours being the worse one exactly like Speffz is the worse one in your example.

And with bigger cubes, your triangles won't cover all pieces.
 
Aron, isn't your 5x5 scheme exactly the same as Speffz's, only mirrored? Try the corners ULB, FLU and RDF, that results in yours being the worse one exactly like Speffz is the worse one in your example.
Yes it is. Like I said it's all based on arbitrary choices. I see what you mean with that example, and all I have to say in response is that ULB buffer sucks :p

And with bigger cubes, your triangles won't cover all pieces.
Sure, which is why another oblique is arbitrarily chosen. I'm still undecided which one is easier for me.
 
Hola dudes,

Although it's somewhat of a n00b topic, what are people's thoughts as to a standard colouring scheme for discussions? Not a big deal, but would be interested in people's thoughts.

For the record, I'm U-White, F-Red, R-Blue. Have always been colour-neutral for sighted, haven't begun "serious" BLD yet and would wouldn't mind being in "synch" with the majority.
 
Although it's somewhat of a n00b topic, what are people's thoughts as to a standard colouring scheme for discussions? Not a big deal, but would be interested in people's thoughts.

White on top, green in front. Anything else should not be taken seriously as a standard anymore.
(I feel sorry for promoting YR instead of WG a few years ago.)
 
Back
Top