VHLS vs Full - OLL

[xyzzy]

So, It's been a while, and I am still terrible =(

Please tell me again that where am I lacking.
[Sorry I lost the scramble]

Without looking at it too closely:

1. you still rotate too much
2. gosh, your lighting sucks; I can barely distinguish the colours
3. can't see the top face because of camera angle
4. cross was painful; you need to execute it faster
5. F2L efficiency seems fine, but I can't really tell because I don't know where your F2L pieces are exactly
6. F perm sucks; you can get rid of one of the regrips by not rotating to finish the alg (i.e. do R F R' F' R2 instead of x R U R' U' R2), but you should also try the other, more common RUF alg: R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R
7. there was like 0.3 s between finishing PLL and stopping the timer; you need to optimise your timer stops

 

[Duncan Bannon]

@Crazy_Cuber

1.Try to use more inspection. Plan out whole cross.
2.Try to use less rotations
3. Lookahead some more.

 

[bullton]

so i find it interesting, a lot of people have given you the correct answer, oll is better than vhls, but no one seems to want to say why, there are four big things that determine if you should learn a set, efficiency, recognition, ergonomics, and looks. OLL/PLL is a 3 look LS+LL method with very good ergonomics but a bit below par efficiency, and recog is easy, o VHLS+OCLL+PLL is 4 looks however, because it requires you to solve a pair/set it up opposite, and then insert so you lose a look, it's slightly less efficient without something like zbll or coll, ergonomics are perhaps slightly better, and efficiency is significantly worse, recog is comprable.
so when comparing them it's easy to tell WHY you want to learn OLL and not VHLS, and regarding the getting good at f2l first thing, it really depends on what you want, ultimately in the long run it doesn't matter which one you get good at first, in fact good ll early might even be better but that's a whole different argument, it's up to you tho, f2l improvement will drop your times more rn, but long run it shouldn't matter

 

[tnk351]

I learned full oll after I reached sub 20.

 

[Thom S.]

The thing is that against VHLS, full OLL will ever win
Like the name says, full Orientation of the Last Layer, you do every case in one algorithm.
VHLS on the other hand is edge orientation for the two most basic F2L Cases.
Let's disregard the amount of algorithms
VHLS compares to 2-Look OLL and ZBLS compares to full OLL
They compare but that doesn't mean you get practically faster, only if your EOLL is really bad or you use at least COLL.

 

[Crazy_Cuber]

So, I see why It's a Full-OLL has got 4 times more votes than VHLS =P

 

[PapaSmurf]

A little thread bump, but my ranking of last slot+last layer subsets are (for CFOP, but ZZ is better):
1. zbls+zbll=the ultimate CFOP extension.
2. vls+pll=very good, especially for singles (look at Mats).
3. insert+oll+pll=proven to be consistent with optimised algs and should be learnt.
4. vls+coll+epll=just use zz.
5. vls+ocll+pll=just use zz but slightly worse.