I think there is an easier way to do this than with complex mathematics. I'm
not sure this would work, though I don't see why not. What you could do is
get a real rubix cube and draw or write down the positions and color of all
the different cubes. Then take a few days off work :-) and solve it as many
times as you can each time writing down all the different moves. Then all you
have to do is recreate the rubix cube in Pov-Ray using the drawing or
description you made of the original cube then animate it using the
instructions you wrote down while solving it.

Ken wrote:

> RED-Cow wrote:
> >
> > I got bored the other day and decided to make one of these.  I'm
> > wondering if Moray's Inverse Kinematics could be used to make it so the
> > sides are rotatable.  That would be cool.
>
>   From what I understand about inverse kinematics this would probably
> be a poor application of it's abilities. All you really need to do is
> declare a group of nine cubes on one face in a union and then rotate
> it around it's own axis.
>
>  A little random color distribution from that shown would at least
> seperate yours from the dozen or so I have seen all displayed in a
> solved state of rest.
>
>   To get it really mixed up i.e. to make it usable is not something I
> think would be worth the effort. Might make for a really challenging
> animation project. Write a routine that randomly mixes up the cube and
> the remainder of the animation pov spends trying to solve it. Might be
> possible but way beyond anything I would like to try.
>
>   Hey Spider ! Got a new challenge for you. <* big wide grin *>
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Anxious to see how
Philippe

>Hmm, I believe it's possible, though difficult.
>
>GrimDude
>vos### [at] arkansasnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> RED-Cow wrote:
> >
> > I got bored the other day and decided to make one of these.  I'm
> > wondering if Moray's Inverse Kinematics could be used to make it so the
> > sides are rotatable.  That would be cool.
> 
>   From what I understand about inverse kinematics this would probably
> be a poor application of it's abilities. All you really need to do is
> declare a group of nine cubes on one face in a union and then rotate
> it around it's own axis.
> 
>  A little random color distribution from that shown would at least
> seperate yours from the dozen or so I have seen all displayed in a
> solved state of rest.
> 
>   To get it really mixed up i.e. to make it usable is not something I
> think would be worth the effort. Might make for a really challenging
> animation project. Write a routine that randomly mixes up the cube and
> the remainder of the animation pov spends trying to solve it. Might be
> possible but way beyond anything I would like to try.
> 

Well posed hell :-)
Two remarks, firstly, not every random order of boxes is solveble! I know a very bad
move towards
others trying to solve your cube, just by twisting one box. No way to ever make it. So
you have to
be really careful to choose or construct a possible order. But then of course one can
implement the
solver, that was there at the time. I used to have it in print, but surfing may yield
to a faster
solution.

Axel

PS: I think the spaces between the colored patches are just a bit to wide.

Post a reply to this message

once you have the macros to turn the faces, simply run that macro with some
random parameters about 1000 times to shuffle the cube and keep it solvable. I
agree that it would be easier to grab a real cube, scramble it, and plot out
the moves to solve it. That's quite easily done. Does anyone remeber how to
solve the cube?
Joshua


Axel Hecht wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > RED-Cow wrote:
> > >
> > > I got bored the other day and decided to make one of these.  I'm
> > > wondering if Moray's Inverse Kinematics could be used to make it so the
> > > sides are rotatable.  That would be cool.
> >
> >   From what I understand about inverse kinematics this would probably
> > be a poor application of it's abilities. All you really need to do is
> > declare a group of nine cubes on one face in a union and then rotate
> > it around it's own axis.
> >
> >  A little random color distribution from that shown would at least
> > seperate yours from the dozen or so I have seen all displayed in a
> > solved state of rest.
> >
> >   To get it really mixed up i.e. to make it usable is not something I
> > think would be worth the effort. Might make for a really challenging
> > animation project. Write a routine that randomly mixes up the cube and
> > the remainder of the animation pov spends trying to solve it. Might be
> > possible but way beyond anything I would like to try.
> >
> 
> Well posed hell :-)
> Two remarks, firstly, not every random order of boxes is solveble! I know a very bad
move towards
> others trying to solve your cube, just by twisting one box. No way to ever make it.
So you have to
> be really careful to choose or construct a possible order. But then of course one
can implement the
> solver, that was there at the time. I used to have it in print, but surfing may
yield to a faster
> solution.
> 
> Axel
> 
> PS: I think the spaces between the colored patches are just a bit to wide.

Post a reply to this message

Yup! Got two of the things here. :)

I still average between 30 and 45 seconds to cure it, regardless of how
confused it is.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:

> I think there is an easier way to do this than with complex mathematics. I'm
> not sure this would work, though I don't see why not. What you could do is
> get a real rubix cube and draw or write down the positions and color of all
> the different cubes. Then take a few days off work :-) and solve it as many
> times as you can each time writing down all the different moves. Then all you
> have to do is recreate the rubix cube in Pov-Ray using the drawing or
> description you made of the original cube then animate it using the
> instructions you wrote down while solving it.
>
>

Or you could just successively randomly rotate the sides from the previous
frame's orientation, then animate the frames in reverse and nobody's the wiser!
:-)I've done the lock-yourself-in-your-room-until-you-solve-it thing, and it's a
bit time consuming.

Andy


--

--------------------
"There are three men in a boat with four cigarettes but no matches.
How do they smoke??"
  -The Riddler

Andrew Woodfin
UNC Charlotte Center for Precision Metrology
adw### [at] unccedu | http://www.coe.uncc.edu/~adwoodfi
--------------------

Post a reply to this message

Guess most people know about this already, but seeing as how it relates to
the topic. Some student, I believe at MIT or something, used a bank of
super computers to plot out the shortest route to solving the rubix cube
from ANY posioble position and found that it could be solved in about 17
moves from ANY posible starting position.

GrimDude wrote:

> Yup! Got two of the things here. :)
>
> I still average between 30 and 45 seconds to cure it, regardless of how
> confused it is.
>
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

Yes, there is only one way to solve a Rubix cube, thats why ppl can do then
in 60 secs or so, unfortunatly for the rest of us there are several million
wrong ways..

Maybe i will have to dig out one of those books :)

Rick

Post a reply to this message

Somewhere on the web I recently visited a site that has the solution for
the Rubix. The author used Bryce to create the required images for his
tutorial. Here in the U.S., Toys R'Us sells the cube with a solution manual.
  Sorry, I don't have the price handy. :)

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

I can still do it, though in about 2 min 30.  

The magic word is Singmaster, one of his collegues can do the
cube from any possible situation in about 17 moves, just like
that MIT computer.

Cheers
Steve

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> Yup! Got two of the things here. :)
> 
> I still average between 30 and 45 seconds to cure it, regardless of how
> confused it is.
> 
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message