Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:14 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) yet?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
We have 4x4x4s built around an inner 2x2x2, but no 5x5x5 built around an inner 3x3x3 yet... :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
One of the main reasons this hasn't been accomplished yet is that there is no idea as to how to design a mech for it. I'm pretty sure that at least a few people have attempted (including myself) to understand how to make this puzzle, but it just hasn't happened yet. (Key word: yet)

_________________
For all of you that bought a KO 8x8x8: You should have bought a V8!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:50 pm
Location: Near Las Vegas, NV
BelcherBoy2000 wrote:
One of the main reasons this hasn't been accomplished yet is that there is no idea as to how to design a mech for it...

If I'm understanding this puzzle correctly isn't it just a circle 5x5? You would simply need to have a 3x3 as the inner core, and extend the inner centers/edges from it outwards to hold on to the rest of the pieces.

_________________
My Youtube channel
My Shapeways Shop


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:48 pm
Upon reading this, I remembered the mechanism of the Stickerless 5x5 (not naming company to be safe) and wondered if it may be possible if the mech is used.

I may be on thin ice about a plausible idea, since it's new and may not work, but I have some hopes about this.

_________________
I should probably find a better signature....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
BelcherBoy2000 wrote:
One of the main reasons this hasn't been accomplished yet is that there is no idea as to how to design a mech for it. I'm pretty sure that at least a few people have attempted (including myself) to understand how to make this puzzle, but it just hasn't happened yet. (Key word: yet)


This confuses me. Why can't it be built around a funny-shaped 3x3 in a similar manner to the Crazy 4x4?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Jared wrote:
We have 4x4x4s built around an inner 2x2x2, but no 5x5x5 built around an inner 3x3x3 yet... :(
You will soon. Though this thread may push me to move even faster. This is one of the 4 designs I have yet to prototype at Shapeways that I mention here.
BelcherBoy2000 wrote:
One of the main reasons this hasn't been accomplished yet is that there is no idea as to how to design a mech for it.
That isn't true. I shared my mechanism for this puzzle back on Oct.23, 2010 (my wedding annaversary). The only reason I haven't made it yet is the model was made in POV-Ray and I can't export to STL from POV-Ray. Since this time I have learned SolidWorks and I'm porting my models over. There are currently 4 models (as mentioned in the other thread) for which I need to model in SolidWorks. This was going to be the last of the 4 as its likely the most complicated but I really don't want anyone to beat me to the punch so I'm likely to move this to the top of the list. I worked on this design for about 2 months back in 2010 and I have to say its probably the most complicated of the puzzles I've designed. The hardest part was to get the 5x5x5 corners to work over the top of the 3x3x3 corners.
benpuzzles wrote:
If I'm understanding this puzzle correctly isn't it just a circle 5x5?
That is correct. Not sure I'd use the word "just".
benpuzzles wrote:
You would simply need to have a 3x3 as the inner core, and extend the inner centers/edges from it outwards to hold on to the rest of the pieces.
Again I wouldn't use the word "simply". There is no obvious way to do what you describe and the methods I used to solve some of the problems haven't been tested in any other puzzles so it's not obvious what I've done will work. But trust me I will find out.
Jared wrote:
This confuses me. Why can't it be built around a funny-shaped 3x3 in a similar manner to the Crazy 4x4?
It can. Here is your funny-shaped 3x3x3. It is actually a funny-shaped circle 3x3x3.
Image

Carl

P.S. My initial estimates were that I'd need to make this fairly large (close to 80mm x 80mm x 80mm) so this will likely be an expensive Shapeways model. Though I also believe its likely to be a design with a high demand for mass production and I would be EXTATIC to simply have my name on it. That and this is my first step toward designing a Complex 3x3x3. Now that is the puzzle I really hope to be able to pull off someday and I have a few ideas but nothing I feel that is likely stable enough to function very well. Seeing as all those ideas are built on top of this puzzle I certainly need to see if this one works as expected first.

_________________
-
Image

Image


Last edited by wwwmwww on Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
Oh, boy, am I glad to see this move to the top of your list Carl!! Can you plan your design around making the funny looking circle cube have exchangable 1face and 0face centres also :wink: ? Please say yes! I think that will go a long way towards justifying the larger cost :)

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Burgo wrote:
Can you plan your design around making the funny looking circle cube have exchangable 1face and 0face centres also :wink: ? Please say yes! I think that will go a long way towards justifying the larger cost :)
There will be two circles on each faces. Are you asking about just the inner one or both? I haven't spent much time thinking about either but I feel that its safe to say the inner circle could be made into either type rather easily. The outer one would involve splitting the inner 3x3x3 corners up into multiple pieces I believe and that piece is so complicated already I'm not certain that would work very well. I'll have to think about that some more. By the way... if this works the Complex 3x3x3 isn't the only puzzle I had plans to build on this design. The Deep Uniaxial and the Mercury Uniaxial are supersets of two of the Crazy Plus 3x3x3's. This puzzle would easily allow me to make the supersets of all the others.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
Thanks for the update Carl. But I'm thinking about non-super multicubes. If you have a 5x5 cube, and the center 3x3 square on each face has a circle, it's a proper multicube (but not a super one), right? In the sense that all pieces are accounted for.

It could at least be more proportional...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
Jared wrote:
Thanks for the update Carl. But I'm thinking about non-super multicubes. If you have a 5x5 cube, and the center 3x3 square on each face has a circle, it's a proper multicube (but not a super one), right? In the sense that all pieces are accounted for.

On Carl's proposed design you get an odd view of some of the pieces.

You see the sides of the 3x3x3 edges in a way that masks their orientation and makes duplicate pieces.

You see the 4 sides of a 3x3x3 center which makes their orientation visible.

You see the 4 sides of a 5x5x5 face center which makes their orientation visible.

You see the face and 2 sides of a 5x5x5 + Center which makes all of them unique.

You see 2 sides of the 5x5x5 X Centers which makes them all unique.

The 5x5x5 edge-wings would have a piece indicating their side view but it adds nothing and has been left out.


The thing keeping this from being a Super 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 is that it's the 3x3x3 edges only have the sides visible. If you try to reduce the diameter of the inner circle to expose the 3x3x3 faces it eliminates the 5x5x5 face centers.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Last edited by Brandon Enright on Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:17 am
Location: Australia
wwwmwww wrote:
There will be two circles on each faces. Are you asking about just the inner one or both? I haven't spent much time thinking about either but I feel that its safe to say the inner circle could be made into either type rather easily.
I was thinking the inner circle parts would all move (both circles) with the slice turn.

It's a tough puzzle in it's own right, but those options could offer a new challenge after the initial solve.. which, even though complex, is quite achievable for a lot of us. There's a bit of a visual factor to the associated inner parts as it is, Crazying them could be a really nice option to add. Making the outer ring move with the face turn might just be too extreme anyway! It's been a long time since I solved it, so it's starting to get a bit fuzzy.

Have you managed to do anything with the missing trivial outer Circle Corners, or will they just be holes in the puzzle? Or possibly the outer ring come in a bit?

_________________
1st 3x3 solve Oct 2010 (Even though I lived through the 80s).
PB 3x3 55sec Jan 2011 (When I was a kid 1:30 was speedcubing so I'm stoked).
1st 3x3 Earth (nemesis) solve Jan 2011 My You Tube (Now has ALLCrazy 3X3 Planets with Reduction)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Jared wrote:
Thanks for the update Carl. But I'm thinking about non-super multicubes. If you have a 5x5 cube, and the center 3x3 square on each face has a circle, it's a proper multicube (but not a super one), right? In the sense that all pieces are accounted for.
Here is the sketch that Matt (username: bobthegiraffemonkey) sent me that inspired me to make my design back in 2010.
Image
I don't think you can pull all 10 piece types to the surface without two circles. Would you like to post a similar image of your proposed puzzle's face? Granted it could be argued that not all the pieces need be seen, say the central core for example, as one knows how its connected to the 3x3x3 face centers and if they are visible then one can deduce the the orientation of the core. Still I think you are going to have other issues. What about the 5x5x5 face centers? Again I guess you can deduce where there are but you'd have no idea as to their orientation and maybe if you aren't concerned with a super version that is ok.

And actually no... my design as presented isn't a super version. As Brandon pointed out the 3x3x3 edges don't even have a fixed position in the solved state, let alone a fixed orientation. But that is easily fixed and will be fixed as the STL model is made.
Jared wrote:
It could at least be more proportional...
Function is much more important to me then keeping everything proportional. I chose the proportions as best I could knowing what I knew as a designer back in 2010. I've learned a lot since and that will be incorporated as I port the design over. So there may be a few difference in how the final puzzle turns out. If will likely take me a few weekends to convert everything and as everyone knows I'm working on it I'm considering posting a few pics along the way to show progress. We'll see. If I do, I'll start a thread over in the Puzzle Building and Modding section.
bmenrigh wrote:
On Carl's proposed design you get an odd view of some of the pieces.
Arg!!! Did I really forget to post that link in my first post? Looks like I did. That was the MAIN point of my first post and I "talked" so much I forgot to include that. Thanks Brandon. I wasn't intending to make everyone go hunting for it.
bmenrigh wrote:
You see the sides of the 3x3x3 edges in a way that masks their orientation and makes duplicate pieces.
Yes, in a sense they have only been stickered on "opposite" faces of their cubies. This issue can be fixed with a simple sticker modification alone. I'll likely make a slight shape change to support an extra stickered surface on these pieces.
bmenrigh wrote:
The 5x5x5 edge-wings would have a piece indicating their side view but it adds nothing and has been left out.
True. Its the void that is left behind that has caused a fair bit of commotion. I could add them in but I'd have to make the puzzle bigger to make room for a foot on this part and being a smaller part I suspect it would be prone to popping so I still feel no real need to add it in... but I do think I see a way to fill that void without altering the design too much and I think if what I have in mind works it make even improve the stability.
bmenrigh wrote:
The thing keeping this from being a Complex 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 is that it's the 3x3x3 edges only have the sides visible. If you try to reduce the diameter of the inner circle to expose the 3x3x3 faces it eliminates the 5x5x5 face centers.
Did you mean Super where you said Complex? This puzzle is a stepping stone to a Complex 3x3x3 (which outwardly could look identical to this puzzle) but I don't think we really want to be talking about the Complex 5x5x5 in this context.
Burgo wrote:
I was thinking the inner circle parts would all move (both circles) with the slice turn.
Such a puzzle could be made. I just don't think it would be the Multi-5x5x5 as I don't think you can expose all 10 piece types that way.
Burgo wrote:
It's a tough puzzle in it's own right, but those options could offer a new challenge after the initial solve.. which, even though complex, is quite achievable for a lot of us. There's a bit of a visual factor to the associated inner parts as it is, Crazying them could be a really nice option to add. Making the outer ring move with the face turn might just be too extreme anyway! It's been a long time since I solved it, so it's starting to get a bit fuzzy.
My current plan is to design the best Multi-5x5x5 that I can and to print and test that before I get too far ahead of myself trying to add functionality and options on to it. I think some of the options you are after could easily be created by modifying just a few pieces and if so I would be open to offering a kit of parts which when added to the base puzzle would allow for a number of different assembly options. We'll see. This thing has been sitting on my plate unfinished for 3 years and at this stage my main objective is to correct that injustice. This puzzle deserves to be finished.
Burgo wrote:
Have you managed to do anything with the missing trivial outer Circle Corners, or will they just be holes in the puzzle? Or possibly the outer ring come in a bit?
I think I see a way to fix that without moving the ring or leaving a hole (or at least that hole). My idea for adding a 3rd stickered surface to the 3x3x3 edges involves adding another hole (indent) into the surface.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
wwwmwww wrote:
bmenrigh wrote:
The thing keeping this from being a Complex 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 is that it's the 3x3x3 edges only have the sides visible. If you try to reduce the diameter of the inner circle to expose the 3x3x3 faces it eliminates the 5x5x5 face centers.
Did you mean Super where you said Complex? This puzzle is a stepping stone to a Complex 3x3x3 (which outwardly could look identical to this puzzle) but I don't think we really want to be talking about the Complex 5x5x5 in this context.
Brain oops. I did mean "Super". I edited my post.

I probably thought "Complex" because I'm still dreaming of the day you come up with some crazy (but usable) representation of the Complex 3x3x3. This puzzle seems like a stepping stone on that quest.

wwwmwww wrote:
Burgo wrote:
I was thinking the inner circle parts would all move (both circles) with the slice turn.
Such a puzzle could be made. I just don't think it would be the Multi-5x5x5 as I don't think you can expose all 10 piece types that way.
Burgo wrote:
It's a tough puzzle in it's own right, but those options could offer a new challenge after the initial solve.. which, even though complex, is quite achievable for a lot of us. There's a bit of a visual factor to the associated inner parts as it is, Crazying them could be a really nice option to add. Making the outer ring move with the face turn might just be too extreme anyway! It's been a long time since I solved it, so it's starting to get a bit fuzzy.
My current plan is to design the best Multi-5x5x5 that I can and to print and test that before I get too far ahead of myself trying to add functionality and options on to it. I think some of the options you are after could easily be created by modifying just a few pieces and if so I would be open to offering a kit of parts which when added to the base puzzle would allow for a number of different assembly options.
A nearly Super 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 just isn't hard enough for Burgo. He wants to bandage it in crazy ways to make it harder. Burgo, I would hate to be your Psychiatrist :lol:


wwwmwww wrote:
Burgo wrote:
Have you managed to do anything with the missing trivial outer Circle Corners, or will they just be holes in the puzzle? Or possibly the outer ring come in a bit?
I think I see a way to fix that without moving the ring or leaving a hole (or at least that hole). My idea for adding a 3rd stickered surface to the 3x3x3 edges involves adding another hole (indent) into the surface.
Interesting! I was trying to think of ways to expose the third sticker for the 3x3x3 edges but the only method I thought would work would be to put a hole down the center of the 5x5x5 Middle-Edges which doesn't seem usable.

Aesthetically I'd like to see the holes filled in but I'm sure your right that without drastic changes to the design those pieces would be a mechanical nightmare, constantly jamming and catching and twisting and causing a big headache.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
wwwmwww wrote:
I don't think you can pull all 10 piece types to the surface without two circles. Would you like to post a similar image of your proposed puzzle's face? Granted it could be argued that not all the pieces need be seen, say the central core for example, as one knows how its connected to the 3x3x3 face centers and if they are visible then one can deduce the the orientation of the core. Still I think you are going to have other issues. What about the 5x5x5 face centers? Again I guess you can deduce where there are but you'd have no idea as to their orientation and maybe if you aren't concerned with a super version that is ok.


Sorry, no time to draw a picture, so I'll swipe one off your site. ;)

Image

Just looking at the one on the left. The 5x5 centers never move around, so the 3x3 centers in the circle are sufficient.

Please tell me I'm not missing something...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
wwwmwww wrote:
As Brandon pointed out the 3x3x3 edges don't even have a fixed position in the solved state, let alone a fixed orientation.
Hmmm... I think I was a bit too fast here. Thinking about it some more I believe I would say the 3x3x3 edges as presented do have a fixed orientation in their solved state... they just don't have a fixed position. And that error was all me parapharising Brandon's point.
Jared wrote:
Just looking at the one on the left. The 5x5 centers never move around, so the 3x3 centers in the circle are sufficient.

Please tell me I'm not missing something...
No... I think you are correct. You are missing the core and the 5x5x5 face centers but if you are just looking at the 5x5x5 Multi-cube and not the 5x5x5 SuperMulti-Cube then the solve should be identical. There is enough information present to deduce the 5x5x5 face centers location so I think its ok to call this a 5x5x5 Multi-Cube. I think my hangup was that it's missing two piece types but if one isn't concerned about super-versions then those 2 pieces add no new information from a solving perspective.

To be honest, I'm not so sure that puzzle would be much easier to design though. You still have 5x5x5 corners moving over 3x3x3 corners and I'm not sure you can pull that off and keep the cubies proportional. I'll have to think about that a bit more. Let me finish the SuperMulti one first and I may re-visit this Multi version.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Last edited by wwwmwww on Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:48 pm
I'm not sure if this is completely relevant, but didn't Oskar make a 6x6 with multiple circles? While I'm still half convinced about my earlier post being a plausible mech, I think if Oskar's mech could be used to make a 5x5 multicube. And for Carl, my best wishes toward this working once the parts arrive.

_________________
I should probably find a better signature....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: Bay Area, California
wwwmwww wrote:
wwwmwww wrote:
As Brandon pointed out the 3x3x3 edges don't even have a fixed position in the solved state, let alone a fixed orientation.
Hmmm... I think I was a bit too fast here. Thinking about it some more I believe I would say the 3x3x3 edges as presented do have a fixed orientation in their solved state... they just don't have a fixed position. And that error was all me parapharising Brandon's point.
I'm not sure how to describe it exactly. There is an equivalence between what could be thought of as a permutation of pieces and orientation of the pieces. For example, with the side-only view of the edges these two positions are indistinguishable:
Attachment:
rubiks_2-2_swap.png
rubiks_2-2_swap.png [ 10.76 KiB | Viewed 1344 times ]

Attachment:
rubiks_2-2_flip.png
rubiks_2-2_flip.png [ 10.98 KiB | Viewed 1344 times ]


When you're solving you get to choose the easiest path for solving the pieces. Sometimes it's better to flip some pieces and sometimes its better to permute them.

_________________
Prior to using my real name I posted under the account named bmenrigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:34 pm
Location: Scotland, UK
I have yet to buy a shapeways puzzle since I have trouble convincing myself it's a good use of money (even though I could afford it). The multi-dodecahedron came the closest so far, but this puzzle might win ...

I might have another think myself about good ways to bandage this into a complex 3x3x3, since that's the main reason I want this. If you're having a serious try at making this, I wish you the best of luck, and I eagerly await a demonstration video!

Matt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
bobthegiraffemonkey wrote:
I might have another think myself about good ways to bandage this into a complex 3x3x3, since that's the main reason I want this. If you're having a serious try at making this, I wish you the best of luck, and I eagerly await a demonstration video!
If by "this" you mean the SuperMulti-5x5x5 then the answer is most definately. I want to finish this puzzle this weekend and make a video and I think I should be able to do that Saturday. Sunday I'll start porting over my old POV-Ray model and I'll likely start a thread in the Puzzle Building and Modding section to post progress pics. I expect it may take a few weekends to finish but I may try to work on it some week nights too. We'll see. Most week nights I'm pretty well drained by the time I get home from work and am more or less useless so don't expect too much between the weekends.

If you mean the Complex-3x3x3... I am serious I want to make it. I just don't have an idea for a mechanism yet that I think is robust enough. I've convinced myself that yes it is theoretically possible but its close enough to the edge of what is possible that I doubt any of my ideas so far would hold up under playing long enough to be solved. As I see it the core of the puzzle needs to be a Slice-turn-only Circle 3x3x3. And I posted this challenge almost a year ago and I don't think anyone has stepped up to the plate yet (including myself).

I see ways it could be done but all seem to be overly complicated. For example my Gear Cube Kit could be used with the 1:3 ratio gears to make a Slice-Turn-Only Cube and the circles could be built up from the screw heads as they don't rotate. Another option is to use a normal spider core and to make the 3x3x3 corners out of 8 blocks all connected by the Oskar's Magic mechanism which allows the spider core to rotate in between them. This method would certainly make the puzzle HUGE!!! (likely bigger then the 17x17x17) and Oskar's already told me that mechanism is problematic and very sensitive to printing tolerances. So I highly doubt its a stable option at any size. The Slice-turn-only Circle 3x3x3 isn't the only technical challenge but its certainly one of the bigger ones. And I feel something like the Complex 3x3x3 is going to have to be solved is stages. The first stepping stone is the SuperMulti-5x5x5. The Slice-turn-only Circle 3x3x3 is another. And there will likely be more before we get there.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:50 pm
Location: Near Las Vegas, NV
wwwmwww wrote:
And I posted this challenge almost a year ago and I don't think anyone has stepped up to the plate yet (including myself).

Forgive me if I'm missing something but I think there is a relatively easy way to make this puzzle. You could use Oskar's Geary cube mechanism, but instead of using one gear per edge, you could use 2 gears which mesh with each other on the same edge piece. This would cause opposite faces to rotate in opposite directions rather than the same direction, causing the puzzle to only turn by the slices. Then you could build up the circles from the core.

_________________
My Youtube channel
My Shapeways Shop


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
wwwmwww wrote:
No be honest, I'm not so sure that puzzle would be much easier to design though. You still have 5x5x5 corners moving over 3x3x3 corners and I'm not sure you can pull that off and keep the cubies proportional.


Yeah, you might need a larger outer layer - or pillowing. Whatever happened to that, anyway? Haven't seen a pillowed puzzle come out in a while... :lol:

Does anyone have some good pictures of the mechanism for the Crazy 4x4 I? Just for comparison's sake. It's probably the best starting point...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
benpuzzles wrote:
Forgive me if I'm missing something but I think there is a relatively easy way to make this puzzle. You could use Oskar's Geary cube mechanism, but instead of using one gear per edge, you could use 2 gears which mesh with each other on the same edge piece. This would cause opposite faces to rotate in opposite directions rather than the same direction, causing the puzzle to only turn by the slices. Then you could build up the circles from the core.
True... and this solution was first mentioned to me via PM on December 26, 2012 by another forum member. He had plans of making it and wasn't sure when he'd get to it so it wasn't a solution I was comfortable advertising. Still it remains to be done and yes I agree its certainly a viable solution. It still feels more complex then necessary but maybe it is the best solution. Think of Oskar's Alternating Cube... Bram presented an idea to Oskar that was incredibly complex. His first version was a simplification of Bram's design which in itself was still very complex and due to that complexity it can be "cheated" by forcing turns which shouldn't be possible. Now look at the second version. Its a very simple and robust solution that doesn't allow cheating. I have nothing against this idea but this doubling up on the gears sounds problematic. You'll have many small gears and I'm just not sure how robust it will be. I do agree that it sounds better then either of the ideas which I did share but is there an even better/simpler solution out there? I don't know...

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:50 pm
Location: Near Las Vegas, NV
wwwmwww wrote:
I have nothing against this idea but this doubling up on the gears sounds problematic. You'll have many small gears and I'm just not sure how robust it will be.

I agree with you completely. I have no idea what kind of size the gears will be and I don't know how stable it would be either. It's probably possible, however, to change the gearing ratios and cut depths a bit to make the bears larger and more stable.

EDIT: After thinking about this some more I realized that the puzzle will require some specific gearing ratios, like 4:22. Here's why:
If you have 2 adjacent gears with the same number of teeth meshing, their orientations will be opposite of each other. On one gear, a tooth will be facing away from the meshing point, while on the other gear a gap will be. This means that on opposite layers of the cube the teeth will need to be positioned in opposite ways in order to mesh correctly. Luckily due to the permutations of the slice-turn-only 3x3 this is actually possible to do. You just need a tooth count which is NOT divisible by 4 for the outer layers, and orient the teeth differently for opposite layers. This would make the pieces have a chiral geometry: for example 4 of the corners would be "left handed" so to speak, while the other 4 would be right handed...
...I'll have to look more into this.

_________________
My Youtube channel
My Shapeways Shop


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:26 pm
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
benpuzzles wrote:
wwwmwww wrote:
I have nothing against this idea but this doubling up on the gears sounds problematic. You'll have many small gears and I'm just not sure how robust it will be.

I agree with you completely. I have no idea what kind of size the gears will be and I don't know how stable it would be either. It's probably possible, however, to change the gearing ratios and cut depths a bit to make the bears larger and more stable.

EDIT: After thinking about this some more I realized that the puzzle will require some specific gearing ratios, like 4:22. Here's why:
If you have 2 adjacent gears with the same number of teeth meshing, their orientations will be opposite of each other. On one gear, a tooth will be facing away from the meshing point, while on the other gear a gap will be. This means that on opposite layers of the cube the teeth will need to be positioned in opposite ways in order to mesh correctly. Luckily due to the permutations of the slice-turn-only 3x3 this is actually possible to do. You just need a tooth count which is NOT divisible by 4 for the outer layers, and orient the teeth differently for opposite layers. This would make the pieces have a chiral geometry: for example 4 of the corners would be "left handed" so to speak, while the other 4 would be right handed...
...I'll have to look more into this.


When I sent this idea to Carl last year, I thought about the two-gear problem a bit, and while in one orientation the tooth is opposite a gap (requiring two different tooth patterns on the top and bottom layers), if you rotate the gears slightly, the two gear set becomes rotationaly symmetric about the edge axis which will allow the gear patterns on the top and bottom layers to be the same. (Follow any of that?) Also, I think this will avoid needing any specific gear ration other than whatever works for the large gear on the top and bottom layers.

I have not gotten much past a couple of sketches because I have been designing production puzzles lately (coming soon to a shop near you), and not much prototyping time. In theory this two gear approach works "fine", but until it is modeled in 3D, anything can happen.


The one thing I don't have an answer for is the: "NO!, WAIT! the puzzle turns *crunch* ... this way... " problem inherent to slice-only puzzles. :?

_________________
I will not Reason and Compare: my business is to Create. -William Blake

Videos on Youtube!

New Designs on Shapeways!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:50 pm
Location: Near Las Vegas, NV
Puzzlemaster42 wrote:
I thought about the two-gear problem a bit, and while in one orientation the tooth is opposite a gap (requiring two different tooth patterns on the top and bottom layers), if you rotate the gears slightly, the two gear set becomes rotationaly symmetric about the edge axis which will allow the gear patterns on the top and bottom layers to be the same.

Why didn't I think of that :oops: That solves the problem entirely!

_________________
My Youtube channel
My Shapeways Shop


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why hasn't anyone made a 5x5x5 multicube (crazy cube) ye
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Somewhere Else
P.S. Also a Gigaminx with a Megaminx inside it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group