some photos and promised their production ...

It'd be nice if it was not a KO... Has news on the mechanism gotten out yet?

I get the feeling that this will be based on the same mechanism as the recent KO 8x8x8.

Why do we always cry KO foul every time a higher-order cube comes out?

Quite possibly the same company, by the looks of it. I really wish Verdes had released a Cubic 7x7x7 with wide outer walls.

I much prefer the cubic look on these higher order cubes. If v cubes releases any >7 cubes in my lifetime, I hope they continue the recent pattern of making them both pillowed and cubic.

I believe that for both the 7x7x7 and 8x8x8 models, the outer layers are not prohibitively large at all, but look rather nice. Anyone who recognizes the Verdes 6x6x6 will tell you that the outer layers were slightly thicker to add stability.

How many minutes till this thread gets locked/deleted? I'd give it an hour.

Sorry this topic was away for a bit so the Admin/Mod could discuss a bit.

Sandy wants this to be the place for information about (twisty) puzzles, provided of course they adhere to the KO policy. This thread falls within our policy given that it doesn't mention producer names or display logos.

The question being evaluated was: "Is this disrespectful?". In some sense it is a form of advertising, but without names or markings it is doing a reasonable job of just reporting generic information: A cubic 7x7x7 is being produced. We've certainly said as much about other puzzles in the past and even shown internals for comparison and demonstration of their use of mechanism.

Our goal is to keep the "respect" bar high, but at some point knowledge of the existence of a KO isn't in and of itself disrespectful.

Do be careful around this topic though. Before you post take the time to get familiar with the KO issue so you don't wind up violating the KO policy as this thread could easily head that direction.

To address a few questions:
Given this is an odd numbered puzzle a 2x2x2 at the core would make no sense. The only logical mechanism would be the V-7.
Without seeing the internals of course one can't be certain. But do consider that there has yet to be a higher order puzzle less than 12x12x12 that does not infringe the Verdes patent. And those non-infringing puzzles greater than 11x11x11 use some of the very same ideas that would likely infringe had Verdes not stopped his claims at 11.

To those who consider these ideas obvious, consider why (for decades) they were not suggested before Mr. Verdes. It certainly wasn't because no one cared to have a cube larger than 5x5x5, or found the stability of existing 5x5x5s unable to be improved.

So we could put our heads in the sand and claim that because we haven't seen the internals, it may well not infringe the Verdes patent and not be KO. But I think, particularly for a 7x7x7, this would be irresponsible. This would give free advertising to a puzzle that has the overwhelming likelihood of being a KO.

In the slim event this puzzle does indeed have a revolutionary internal mechanism we'll probably be some of the first to know, and clearly in that event our designation of this puzzle would be amended and it would be the talk of the forum.

So I think it fairly logical our policy would be conservative on this issue as there is not an equal probability of its origin, and the damage on one side is permanent whereas a bit of delay on the other side is not really of any significant consequence.

Dave

Having handled and seen a cubic 7x7x7, 8x8x8 and 17x17x17 I prefer this shape and think they look far better. Also, as a puzzle maker a cubic shape is far easier to do stuff with and I very much hope that these will lead to V-Cubes making similar puzzles. Especially since they have shown some flexibility recently.

Anyone wanting to see how a cubic 7x7x7 looks and handles can of course go here-

Erik Akkersdijk solving a cubic 7x7x7

Me solving a cubic 7x7x7 (fractionally slower than Erik)

The cubic 8x8x8 uses a 3x3x3 mechanism as its core, it actually looks a lot like the core used in the Rubik's 5x5x5. I've got some pictures of it if anyone is interested (I have so far refrained from posting them for obvious reasons).

Just saw this thread for the first time today and my first thought was finally the proportional cube 7x7x7. It wasn't still I opened the thread that I see this one isn't proportional.

Hasn't there been talk of this cube being produced before?
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=16644

If memory serves me correctly this designer has already got a 4x4x4 produced so I'm hopeful of someday seeing the mech he's used to make this proportional 7x7x7.

Carl

White

I've heard this puzzle is going to be sold for around 20$, which is insane to me, plus with it being cubic I may have to pick it up.

Unbeliveable.
Grigr, where are you getting these pics? I would love to explore this further.

This pic gives me an idea. They almost did it here. But for large NxNxN cubic puzzles where you can't keep all the cubies the same size, you CAN make the fillet on the cube's edges just the right size to keep all the stickers the exact same size squares. That way the edge stickers and the corner stickers look just like the face stickers and I think it would give it a nice finished look. If applied to say the 17x17x17 it might look really odd, I'm not sure. You would have some very large fillets by that point. Here on this 7x7x7, I wish they had made that fillet just a bit bigger and made are the stickers identical.

Carl

Agreed. I believe it would work best with black plastic.

On their 6x6, the stickers all have the same size. I think that would look weird on the 7x7 though. However, I think you could replace the outer ones with square stickers.

Slightly off topic but I wonder how many people noticed that the 'stickers' on Oskar's Treasure Chest are different shapes and sizes.

I thought that was obvious. For me, it was one reason to replace them.

Where are you getting these pictures?

The white pictures are from a [removed], which is a KO.
Site: deleted

Guilty until proven innocent?
That makes me uncomfortable, as if my flowered wallpaper is watching me...

Did I not address this *exact* point clearly in the second half of my message just a few posts ago (here)?

Dave