All,

I've very proud to present the finished Double Circle Real5x5x5. I've been working on putting a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5 off and on since November 2006. This is my second such design and I finally have a puzzle that works as intended. The notion of a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5 was first published in a Cubism For Fun (CFF) article called Hidden Cubes by Tony Fisher in July 1989. It was Tony's mention of this article here which sparked my interest in putting a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5. The first simulator which would let you play with and solve this puzzle was the program CubixPlayer2 made by Per Kristen Fredlund and released in April 2004. To my knowledge this is the first physical/functional and stickered version of this puzzle. The stickering was completed July 4, 2014. I just got the stickers for the third version of my Real5x5x5 this weekend so it should follow soon.

Some Links:
Tony's first mention of the Hiden Cubes concept here on the forums.
Version 1 of the Real5x5x5.
My presentation of the POV-Ray model for Version 2 of the Real5x5x5. Enjoy the 3D GIF animations.
The making of the Real5x5x5. This covers the conversion from POV-Ray to SolidWorks and also introduces version 3 of the Real5x5x5.
Link to where you can buy this Puzzle on ShapeWays.
Watch a YouTube Video of the finished stickered puzzle.

The Puzzle has an 80 mm edge length and it weighs in at 262 grams.

Solved Solved (Back) Checkerboard Pattern Mid 5x5x5 Layer Turn Mid 3x3x3 and 5x5x5 Layer Turn Mid 3x3x3 Layer Turn Mid Middle-Slice Layer Turn Enjoy...
Carl

I know I've said this before, but.. STUNNING!!

Congratulations! It's a great achievement!

Not sure how to express this... it looks sooooo cute!!!

I am really impressed by the tiny margins required to assemble so much combined movement.
Carl, well done!




Pantazis

Carl congratulations on your achievement! I know how hard you've worked on this so to see a physical version that works is amazing.

You choice of the indentation in the 3x3x3 edges to make them all unique satisfies a strange OCD aesthetic in me. I love that this puzzle is 5 * 5 * 5 = 125 pieces and that all 125 are unique and distinguishable. This truly is a real 5x5x5!

Very cool puzzle looks hard to solve, but I'm not a circle puzzle expert ^^

Finally, the beast lives! Now get one to SuperAntoniovivaldi so he can do a full scramble and solve

I second Gus' statement LOL!!

This is awesome!

brilliant, and congratulations!
i think this construct fascinates me more than any other puzzle so far. mainly for the concept and the math of it, but the form is elegant. (and i agree with Brandon about the coloured inlets on the 3x3 corners.)
i imagine this would be colossally (and prohibitively) expencive to massproduce; but someday, i would love to set a weekend aside and play with one of these.
 

Coolest puzzle ever!
I must have it - no matter what!!

Any chance of mass production?
I love it.
Fantastic job!!!

Gus wrote:Finally, the beast lives! Now get one to SuperAntoniovivaldi so he can do a full scramble and solve

Yes, get it to the only possible person who could possibly solve one of these

Incredible work by the way Carl.

Thanks for all the positive comments everyone.

kastellorizo wrote:Not sure how to express this... it looks sooooo cute!!!

Cute wasn't a word I was expecting... but I'll take it. Thanks.

5hinigami wrote:Very cool puzzle looks hard to solve, but I'm not a circle puzzle expert ^^

It really is just a super 3x3x3 inside a super 5x5x5. It shouldn't be too hard.

Gus wrote:Finally, the beast lives! Now get one to SuperAntoniovivaldi so he can do a full scramble and solve

This will be with me at IPP. If there are any solvers that what to play with it you are welcome to. I'd be happy to film some people playing with it.

fermf wrote:Any chance of mass production?

It is a very complex design and probably not very injection mold friendly but I would LOVE to see this get mass production as well. I'd be happy to work with any producers that want to take a shot at it. As I said in the other thread.... the Normal NxNxN appear to soon be available in mass produced form up to the 15x15x15. The Multi-NxNxN puzzles up to the 4x4x4 have already been produced so it seems likely to me that someone would eventually want to mass produce this puzzle. I don't think it would be as hard to make as the 15x15x15 which appears set to go into production. But I as yet (trying to change that) don't have any of my designs mass produced so I'm not the best one to judge.

Carl

crypticat wrote:(and i agree with Brandon about the coloured inlets on the 3x3 corners.)

It appears there may be some circle puzzle terminology out there that has become accepted but I personally view it as incorrect/sloppy. Burgo tells me on a circle 3x3x3 that piece is called a "circle corner". The problem is that piece isn't a corner at all. Its the side view of an edge cubie. Here is what a single 3x3x3 edge cubie looks like in this puzzle: (copying images from my POV-Ray model)
http://wwwmwww.com/Puzzle/Real5x5x5/Real5x5x5_04.png
This is what a single 3x3x3 corner looks like:
http://wwwmwww.com/Puzzle/Real5x5x5/Real5x5x5_06.png

Note the 3x3x3 Edge is composed of 3 discontinuous parts which act as a single piece in this puzzle. In the spirit of Oskar's questions here are some you might like to think about:

(1) What is the first twisty puzzle to make use of puzzle pieces which were composed of discontinuous parts (no connected, not screwed together, or touching physically)?

(2) This puzzle has many such parts:
(a) Name a piece which is composed of a single part? The 3x3x3 corner is one (see above) can you name another?
(b) Name a piece which is composed of two discontinuous parts? There is one... there were almost 2 such pieces. Can you name the piece that didn't make the cut? Do you know why it didn't make the cut?
(c) Name a piece which is composed of three discontinuous parts? The 3x3x3 edge is one (see above) can you name another?
(d) Name a piece which is composed of four discontinuous parts? There is one.
(e) Name a piece which is composed of five discontinuous parts? There is one.

(3) Is there any finished puzzle out there with any pieces made of 6 or more discontinuous parts?

(4) I have shared a design for a puzzle which has one piece composed of 21 discontinuous parts and several other pieces which are composed of 8 discontinuous parts. Any idea what design I'm talking about? By the way... I've tested enough of this design that I'm sure it will work. I even have the pieces printed already.

(5) What piece of this puzzle (The Double Circle Real5x5x5) is made up of the most parts? They can be parts that are in contact and you can count screws and stickers as separate parts. How many parts are there in this piece?

(6) Who made the statement "It is fairly obvious that the only way to play with such a puzzle is on a computer." with regards to playing with a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5?

Carl

wwwmwww wrote:(5) What piece of this puzzle (The Double Circle Real5x5x5) is made up of the most parts? They can be parts that are in contact and you can count screws and stickers as separate parts. How many parts are there in this piece?

If I remember correctly it's the 3x3x3 face center with 9 parts(5 parts, 4 stickers), right?

rayray_2561 wrote:If I remember correctly it's the 3x3x3 face center with 9 parts(5 parts, 4 stickers), right?

Nope.

Carl

wwwmwww wrote:

rayray_2561 wrote:If I remember correctly it's the 3x3x3 face center with 9 parts(5 parts, 4 stickers), right?

Nope.

Carl

Was it the 1x1x1 core then? I'm just guessing now but that should have screws and stickers so I think that's it.

rayray_2561 wrote:Was it the 1x1x1 core then? I'm just guessing now but that should have screws and stickers so I think that's it.

Yes. Its the 1x1x1 in the center. How many pieces does it take to make that 1x1x1? They are all in contact with each other. Nothing discontinuous here. In one of the other threads I called it the most complex 1x1x1 that had been designed (now made) to date.

Carl

wwwmwww wrote:Can you name the piece that didn't make the cut? Do you know why it didn't make the cut?

This nearly brought me to tears Answer: Because you weren't making a Crazy Series

I think Konrad is to blame for calling them Circle Corners and Inner Edges (on a 333) if my memory serves me Let's blame him anyway And I think I'm probably responsible for shortening it to CC. But, you're right, they really should be called `side edge view` and `side outer centre view` or something like that, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it We've always been aware of the actual piece types and underlying relationships, the reduction methods for Crazy Cubes absolutely depend on knowing it, maybe we should change our 333 Circle Cube terminology to reflect it?

Burgo wrote:

wwwmwww wrote:Can you name the piece that didn't make the cut? Do you know why it didn't make the cut?

This nearly brought me to tears Answer: Because you weren't making a Crazy Series

No. That isn't the answer I was after. There is one of the 10 basic types of cubies in a Multi-5x5x5 that could have been made of 2 discontinuous parts in this puzzle. In the end I left one of the two parts out entirely so that pieces is now just made of a single part (not counting stickers). What is the piece? And why did I leave one of its two parts out? There are voids still present in this puzzle which belong to this missing part but they aren't visible from the surface.

I haven't given up on the potential to turn this into a Crazy Series... I just have many projects I need to finish before I can get back to that one.

Carl

To be clear.. [you're not talking about the little CCs on the 555 corners, that belong to the centre 555 edge wings?]

I can have a pretty good go at most of the parts you're talking about, but I want to leave it open for others and not spoil the party.

wwwmwww wrote:

crypticat wrote:(and i agree with Brandon about the coloured inlets on the 3x3 corners.)

It appears there may be some circle puzzle terminology out there that has become accepted but I personally view it as incorrect/sloppy.

Me too. There is a logical mapping for all of the 3x3x3 pieces and all of the 5x5x5 pieces so I think the most natural thing to do is to speak apart parts as the "3x3x3 edge" or "5x5x5 +Center", etc. The only thing left is to describe the logical mapping of those pieces to the physical pieces of your Real5x5x5 but that only has to be done once.

wwwmwww wrote:(1) What is the first twisty puzzle to make use of puzzle pieces which were composed of discontinuous parts (no connected, not screwed together, or touching physically)?

I'm going to go with the Hungarian Globe. The Astrolabacus is another old one.

Too bad the Hungarian Rings don't intersect each other at the midpoint of each ring or we'd have an example going back to the late 1800s .

wwwmwww wrote:(6) Who made the statement "It is fairly obvious that the only way to play with such a puzzle is on a computer." with regards to playing with a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5?

That sounds like a Tonyism My first thought was "me" and then "you" but I think both of us would have provided some sort of heuristic argument for why.

wwwmwww wrote:(6) Who made the statement "It is fairly obvious that the only way to play with such a puzzle is on a computer." with regards to playing with a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5?

So while you're proving everyone wrong, when am I going to get my Complex 3x3x3 ?

Looking great Carl! Congratulations on completion of such a complex project!

Dave

Brandon Enright wrote: So while you're proving everyone wrong, when am I going to get my Complex 3x3x3 ?

I think that might be what he's talking about here: ??

wwwmwww wrote:(4) I have shared a design for a puzzle which has one piece composed of 21 discontinuous parts and several other pieces which are composed of 8 discontinuous parts. Any idea what design I'm talking about? By the way... I've tested enough of this design that I'm sure it will work. I even have the pieces printed already.

Burgo wrote:To be clear...

Yes... that is the missing part. The talk of the Crazy Series had me thinking you meant something else. It wouldn't be hard to put that part back in... but I think you'd be looking at a cube with a 100mm edge length and not an 80mm one.

Carl

rline wrote:

Gus wrote:Finally, the beast lives! Now get one to SuperAntoniovivaldi so he can do a full scramble and solve

Yes, get it to the only possible person who could possibly solve one of these

This. Same thing happens on every YouTube video featuring any moderately difficult puzzle. "Give it to CrazyBadCuber - I bet he could solve it!" Gimme a break.

themathkid wrote:

rline wrote:

Gus wrote:Finally, the beast lives! Now get one to SuperAntoniovivaldi so he can do a full scramble and solve

Yes, get it to the only possible person who could possibly solve one of these

This. Same thing happens on every YouTube video featuring any moderately difficult puzzle. "Give it to CrazyBadCuber - I bet he could solve it!" Gimme a break.

Solving ability isn't quantifiable. There are at least a dozen people that can solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulated.

Brandon Enright wrote: So while you're proving everyone wrong, when am I going to get my Complex 3x3x3 ?

Oh trust me... I want to make that puzzle SO bad. This was a big stepping stone in that direction but I'm still not sure how to pull off the complex 3x3x3. I think it may be possible with gears but even if it is (I'm not sure yet) the puzzle would need to be huge. As is there isn't any room inside this 80mm monster for gears.

Burgo wrote:I think that might be what he's talking about here: ??

No... that isn't the Complex 3x3x3.

Carl

wwwmwww wrote:

Brandon Enright wrote: So while you're proving everyone wrong, when am I going to get my Complex 3x3x3 ?

Oh trust me... I want to make that puzzle SO bad. This was a big stepping stone in that direction but I'm still not sure how to pull off the complex 3x3x3. I think it may be possible with gears but even if it is (I'm not sure yet) the puzzle would need to be huge. As is there isn't any room inside this 80mm monster for gears.

Indeed, the Complex 3x3x3 is insane to think about as a physical puzzle. I think the biggest hurdle is the slice layer which needs to spin at both 1x and 2x rates at the same time. Obviously there will need to be two slice layers in order for this to be physically possible.

If you can come up with the design(s) I'd be happy to cover the printing costs, even at 100mm^3.

This has got to be one of the greatest designs I've seen in a long time!
Wish I could make IPP this year to see it.

I noticed in the video that you had to manually move the centers a little bit periodically. Is that just a result of loose tolerances or the flexibility of the plastic or something?

-d

darryl wrote:I noticed in the video that you had to manually move the centers a little bit periodically. Is that just a result of loose tolerances or the flexibility of the plastic or something?

There is some play in the center circles. Plus or minus maybe 5 degrees or so. You want the alignment better then that before turning one of the adjacent faces. If you don't want to tweak the alignment manually like that on occasion you can also over rotate a turn by about the same 5 degrees or so and then turn it back and the centers should always be aligned.

Carl

Brandon Enright wrote:Solving ability isn't quantifiable. There are at least a dozen people that can solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulated.

I can only think of a few. Could you provide at least "dozen people" list? Sure, MANY people can solve A LOT of puzzles, but how do you know they can solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulated?

Brandon Enright wrote:Obviously there will need to be two slice layers in order for this to be physically possible.

This puzzle has 3 slice layers in that regard. In principle, there is no reason a Complex 3x3x3 couldn't look exactly like this puzzle. But focusing on the slice layer movment isn't even needed. If one has a mechanism which allows all 6 faces to move the proper way the problem is solved. The slice move takes care of itself as it is just the linear combination of two opposite face moves.

bcube wrote:I can only think of a few. Could you provide at least "dozen people" list?

I don't think Brandon is saying there are a dozen plus people that have solved every puzzle. For example, at the moment I believe the only person that has solved a Complex 3x3x3 is Brandon himself. Maybe there is one other... I can't recall at the moment. His point is that the basic principles are all the same and many have demonstrated their ability well enough that he believe they could solve just about any puzzle if they applied themselves. Tom's Switch Box may be an example that I don't believe has been solved yet but I too believe there are several that could if they applied themselves long enough. At some level it becomes a time/reward issue. If the time investment isn't worth the reward I can see a puzzle just being avoided. Not certain that is the issue here but I do believe its possible to make a puzzle hard enough that no one would want to solve it. I can't give a concrete Twisty Puzzle example at the moment but I can likely can give you a "Go First Dice" problem that some of our best minds have worked on and I think most have just about given up on it. I think there is a solution (likely many) but the search space is so vast that our fastest computers would take the age of the universe (maybe then some) to search it all with our current best algorithms.

Carl

bcube wrote:

Brandon Enright wrote:Solving ability isn't quantifiable. There are at least a dozen people that can solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulated.

I can only think of a few. Could you provide at least "dozen people" list? Sure, MANY people can solve A LOT of puzzles, but how do you know they can solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulated?

The GelatinBrain scoreboard will give you several names to start with. They don't have to have solved every puzzle in actuality. But they've clearly demonstrated the ability to solve some VERY difficult puzzles. With enough time, they could probably solve others. It would not be a stretch to assume they could solve most puzzles. You clearly can't know that they can "solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulator." The literal interpretation of that is ridiculous. Take it for what it is, rather than asking for a complete list. That's just plain unnecessary and it sounds pugnacious.

wwwmwww wrote:I don't think Brandon is saying there are a dozen plus people that have solved every puzzle.

Aha. In that case I misunderstood him. Thank you for clarification.

wwwmwww wrote:I do believe its possible to make a puzzle hard enough that no one would want to solve it

I guess it may be not necessarilly hard enough. Although there are many who could solve 333x333x333 Rubik´s cube, it is not worthy for anyone.

themathkid wrote: it sounds pugnacious

I´m sorry if you/other poeple feel it this way. The statement of Brandon was not clear to me, so I ask for a clarification. No side effects were intended.

themathkid wrote:You clearly can't know that they can "solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulator.

My original point exactly.

themathkid wrote:The literal interpretation of that is ridiculous.

See? Even you find it unclear in my opinion.

Anyway, you may find this paragraph even more pugnacious. Because I still would like to see a "dozen people" list. Let me explain: No doubt Oskar is an excellent puzzle builder. I personally don´t know anything about his solving abilities, however. Would he be listed? No doubt Jaap is an excellent puzzle solver. In comparison with SuperAntonioVivaldi, I find his solutions, however, less intuitive (I am not saying he is incapable of intuitive solving at all). Would Jaap be listed? Apparently when solvers can solve certain (VERY hard) puzzles, they deserve to be listed. Would it be possible to make "solved puzzles" list instead then? If an excellent programmer can solve every puzzle via computer, would he be listed (even if he can not solve Rubik´s cube without computer)? The questions in this paragraph are rethorical. But if you would like to answer them, feel free to do so.

Brandon Enright wrote:Solving ability isn't quantifiable. There are at least a dozen people that can solve pretty much every twisty puzzle there is, physical or computer simulated.

I'm sorry I brought it up. I don't have a list and I'm not about to put one together. I was intentionally imprecise because I didn't think the point needed to be belabored.

My main point is that there are many people know know all of the tricks and strategies to figuring out how to solve most twisty puzzles. The Real5x5x5 is an amazing achievement by Carl and I can't wait to own one and solve one but it isn't a sophisticated or hard twisty puzzle. I'm with themathkid on the eye-roll about giving the puzzle to the one or two people that could solve it. Solving it is even easier considering Carl has already a visual guide of how each piece corresponds to either a 3x3x3 or 5x5x5 piece. The grip analysis is already done for prospective solvers.

For what it's worth, I think solving skill can be roughly broken down into these categories:

• Optimal sequences and fewest-move strategies
• Comfort with crazy situations and complex piece interactions allowing for a huge number and types of puzzles to be solved
• Jumbling puzzle solving
• Bandaged puzzle solving

I don't think there is anyone that's good at all of these categories.

It's like if somebody asked you who the best runner is. Do you pick the best distance runner? The best 100m dash runner? The best marathoner? There is no best runner and there is no list of best solvers.

For the Real5x5x5, the skill needed to figure it out and solve it is quite modest in comparison to some other twisty puzzles.

Brandon Enright wrote:For the Real5x5x5, the skill needed to figure it out and solve it is quite modest in comparison to some other twisty puzzles.

Oh I agree 100%. Above I stated

wwwmwww wrote: It really is just a super 3x3x3 inside a super 5x5x5. It shouldn't be too hard.

I didn't design this for the solving challenge... I designed it for the designing challenge. At least one prominent member here said it couldn't be done. Nothing motivates me more then telling me I can't do something. I take great pride in being able to prove them wrong. And I mean nothing but respect by doing so...

But the Real5x5x5 I'm sure has already been solved by many using the CubixPlayer2 program. In past threads, I believe all the alorithms needed to solve this puzzle have been posted publically years ago... if not a decade ago. Even I could hunt them down and solve this puzzle if I wanted to bad enough. And I still need to look up alorithms for the last layer of a 3x3x3. One of these days I will work out my own 3x3x3 solution... at the moment I simply prefer design challenges over solving challenges and I'm far enough behind on most of those that the solving is taking a back seat.

Carl

wwwmwww wrote:...]I didn't design this for the solving challenge... I designed it for the designing challenge. At least one prominent member here said it couldn't be done. Nothing motivates me more then telling me I can't do something. I take great pride in being able to prove them wrong. And I mean nothing but respect by doing so...

....

Carl

I deeply understand this and if I ever will buy it, I'll do it in appreciation of your design achievement.
STUNNING, as Burgo has said!

wwwmwww wrote:CubixPlayer2 program

Obviously we understand that it's not bragging to say, I've solved it on Bo Hu's simulator (along with all the other Circle and Double Circle 555 variants available there). It's a very intuitive simulator, and worth a shot if anyone would specifically like to know more about the movement of the puzzle.

I don't think I can quite say that I've actually solved the true `Real555` though, because the RCedges don't have a specific position on that simulator, but I think that with time and application I could eventually come up with a strategy for that.. and if not I'll seek out a Youtube tutorial .

I will certainly be buying this puzzle from Carl. After solving it, I've got to highly recommend it for that experience. It's a really great balance of `interesting` without being `overly complex` for a physical puzzle. On top of that is the interesting theory behind what you're doing. Plus it has all the aspects of your favourite old puzzles still in there. It's a must buy for every puzzler.

Personally, I like the non-specific RCedge aspect in the solve, I think it's a fun little quirk of the circle puzzle, and I've asked Carl for a set of flat parts for those `as well`.. hopefully he can make a set of those edges available separately in another model so that other people can buy them as well if they choose.

Carl,
will you place it at Shapeways or have some of them with you for sale at the IPP?

Fantastic item!!!

Frank Tiex wrote:Carl,
will you place it at Shapeways or have some of them with you for sale at the IPP?

Fantastic item!!!

Hello Frank, I'll have this one with me at IPP. I don't have time to make more before IPP. And I must confess I'm rather attached to this one... so I'm sort of hoping to keep it for myself. Then again my wife would kill me if I didn't accept a decent offer for it. So we'll see... I might be willing to part with this one by then.

Regardless, I'll have it in my Shapeways shop soon. This puzzle is also designed to be tumbled. This first one wasn't and the arms had to be redesigned and replaced after all the other parts were printed. So this puzzle has been broken in for months now... it needs it too, at least without the tumbling. Tumbling may shorten break in significantly. Oh... and it took me the better part of two days to sticker this one. After IPP I'm considering having several printed and tumbled by Brandon (if he's willing) that I'd be happy to assemble and sell with sticker sheets. I'd like to ask the buyers to sticker it themselves if they don't mind.

Oh and one other trick I learned from Oskar that I applied to this puzzle. The exterior surfaces have been sealed with clear nail polish. Only one coat is needed (that is what Oskar uses) however here I applied several coats and buffed the surfaces smooth with something like this. The results were great and the stickers are staying put just fine... nothing has come off yet. The multiple coats and buffing is likely over kill but I'd highly recommend a coat of clear nail polish and let it dry over night before you apply the stickers. Some pieces may stick together as the nail polish tries to get between parts but they can be easily broken apart after its dried.

If there is interest in several nearly finished (aka unstickered) puzzles feel free to post. And I can check with Brandon and that is something we may be able to offer after IPP.

Carl

P.S. The reason why its not in Shapeways yet is I've been addressing the issues Brandon pointed out here:
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopi ... 72#p310472
And once all the design tweaks were done I had to follow Brandon's instructions here:
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopi ... =9&t=26390
to get the triangle count down to 1,000,000.
I just completed that now and I'm currently packing the parts with Tom's packing program.

Making one of these things really is a team effort isn't it? Thanks Brandon, Tom, Oskar, and Matthew Sheerin for making this image back in 2010 which allowed me to "see" this puzzle for the first time.

wwwmwww wrote:[...]This puzzle is also designed to be tumbled. [...] After IPP I'm considering having several printed and tumbled by Brandon (if he's willing) [...] And I can check with Brandon and that is something we may be able to offer after IPP.

I'd like to tumble a batch. But...

The demand for 40mm PAW Pentultimates was a lot higher than expected so instead of 9 being enough, I'm going to have to polish another batch of 9. I have 2 more prints because I ordered 12 (one was a bad print) but my huge tumbler can only fit 9 prints. I suppose I should order the other 7 to get read for the next round.

Tumbling the PAW Pentultimates took me a few months because each one takes a total of about 3 hours of manual labor. Most of the time is spent with the parts sitting waiting for me because I usually wait until I have a free weekend and the motivation needed for manual labor to advance the parts through the various stages.

The good news is that I think I see a way to build a chamber driven by a vacuum to separate grit from the parts semi-automatically. I just placed an order for a big 5.5 horsepower vacuum. If I get the powder chamber idea working the only manual labor will be picking porcelain spheres out of pieces. With the help of designers, that work can be significantly reduced.

So yes, I'd like to tumble a batch but it's going to be a few months before I can even start .

Brandon and I may offer a few polish puzzle here in a few months if there is enough interest. Till then the puzzle is now available in my Shapeways shop.

http://shpws.me/vkoi

To give you an idea of cost. If we did a batch order for 5 people here is a quick estimate of what the total would come to.
If there are at least 5 interested, I'll cover the shipping from Brandon to me for assembly and I'll cover the shipping to you. You have a few months as nothing is likely to happen until after IPP and Brandon has some tumbler time available.

Carl

Hmm, sounds like a great offer and I'm very tempted, for obvious reasons this is top of my list for my first custom-built puzzle purchase. I would feel bad spending that amount on one puzzle on top of other puzzles and competitions, but I could probably get some of it covered as part of my birthday.

I'll say maybe for now, I should have a definite answer by the time an answer is needed, and thanks anyway to Carl and Brandon for making this available.

This puzzle is absolutely beautiful, but a little bit too mind boggling for my poor brain. Do you have plans to release the windowed version on shapeways too?

Not that I can afford either, but for window shopping sake!

bobthegiraffemonkey wrote:thanks anyway to Carl and Brandon for making this available.

It's all Carl. It's Carls idea, time, model, everything. At some point in the future I'll probably tumble a batch of them

Bjacobson wrote:Do you have plans to release the windowed version on shapeways too?

Yes... I need to get that one stickered still. It should be a little cheaper. It is still an 80mm cube but it has fewer pieces and is less dense. However that isn't a Super Multi-5x5x5 with each face a single color. I'm not even sure its a Multi-5x5x5 as there are no stickers on the central 1x1x1. You can deduce its position and orientation at all times, so from a puzzle point of view I guess it is. From a mechanism point of view I'm tempted to say it isn't. And despite being a much "simplier" puzzle, at the moment I would say this Double Circle Real5x5x5 actually turns better. I may have the other one too tight while I'm breaking it in but its sort of catchy at the moment. Though its in no danger of popping. I'll have to take it apart again to sticker the inner 3x3x3 so when I do that I'll see if I can tension it better when I put it back together. It is a playable and solvable puzzle as is... I just think it can be better. Oh and incase it needs to be said... neither of these I'd consider speed cubes. You want to take your time and make sure the alignment is close (it doesn't need to be perfect) before you start making turns.

Carl

I prefer each logical piece being one physical piece to each face being one colour, but whatever, everyone's got a preference . Both styles seem to turn well enough judging by your videos; I'm just fine solving the infamous c4u gigaminx so I'm sure both would satisfy me.

Bit late to the party but WOW! Congratulations on getting this spectacular puzzle finished.
I've enjoyed reading your updates on this real 'labor of love' and your dedication to it really shows in the final puzzle (even now with a perfectly working puzzle you are still planning more tweaks )

Great work!