I am ending the year with a bang, announcing my 3x3x3 Dino Cube!



It is based on the mechanism of my 3x3x3 Rainbow Cube. Some additional work was required to keep the tips surrounding the corners in place. The foot connecting these is a bit thin and naturally they're a bit squishy (just like on the SuperX). I plan on making a version with holes for stabilizing magnets.

The puzzle measures 65mm on an edge. It's very stable and the rotation is fair, but is a bit tight. I think this is due to the print quality not having been as good as usual. But overall, it's a quite nice puzzle.

Doing a Dino Cube turn:


Doing a Rubik's Cube turn:


The 3x3x3 Dino Cube, scrambled:


The 3x3x3 Dino Cube will be available from my puzzle shop later on.

3x3x3 Dino Cube video

Read more about the 3x3x3 Dino Cube on my website.

WOW the turning is amazing for something that should be really squishy!!!

Perfect puzzle indeed!

- Greg

Awesome Tom! I was thinking about buying a 'big' Shapeways puzzle, and I think I've just found it. Well done!

WHAT.A.PERFECT ....!!

I was expecting it to be squishy, but after seeing the video, I am astounded by its amazing quality and turning.

The 3x3 edges must be SO easy to solve, since on both puzzles, they do 3-cycles

I just noticed something. If i'm not mistaken with your mech its shells from a FT cuboctahedron (or DRD) So the edges should be the centers of the mech (am I mistaken?)

Thus wouldn't it be easier to solve if you start by solivng the edges, then the squishy pices, and then the centers?

- Greg

P.S: Isn't the scramble in the last picture U (YBR) U' and another dino turn on the down left corner?

Very Very Nice Tom, Does this mean that a much more stable Super X is possible as well?

Chris Hemerich

If you mean " a more stable super-x, without the use of magnets" I pretty confident the answer is no. In the video, around the 40 second mark, Tom shows the "squishiness" of the puzzle. The parts that he moves around are actually the same parts as on the super-x (imagine merging the 2 3x3 cuts on a turning axis into one cut to form a 2x2) They still move around a lot, and it would result in a puzzle very similar to the one drew shows off at the beginning of his video


That being said, Great puzzle Tom. I'm sure v2 will be even better.

Beautiful. Well Done.

Chris

Puzzle of the year, right here. You have my votes!

Like you said, the turning isn't perfect, but it's still very good. I'm sure that with magnets it will be much better!

Alex

It would be a simpler and less impressive build, but a combo 3x3x3/redi cube probably wouldn't have the squishiness issue.

Yes, I've already more-or-less done that in my 3x3x3 Rainbow Cube. It could be shapemodded into a Redi Cube + Dino. I considered making a 3x3x3 Redi Cube but there would be no added challenge compared to the 3x3x3 Rainbow Cube (orienting the corners is pretty trivial).

Bravo!

Thomas

Very cool!

I still say the name "3x3x3 Rainbow Cube" doesn't do it justice. It's not just an arbitrary combination of two other puzzles; it's a face-turning cuboctahedron. It fills a clear hole that was waiting to be filled. We finally have face-turning versions of all the Platonic solids; the cuboctahedron is a quasiregular solid (as well as an Archimedean solid). I'd have put it at the top of the list of most obvious missing twisty puzzles.

now that is a refreshing puzzle, been looking forward to that one for a long time.

I think printing a superX in WSF would help quite a bit.

Toms once said that his Dino Skewb would suffer greatly if it was mass produced without changing the design (to involve magnets or clicks). But it was ok, because of the texture of WSF.

so I think yes, it is possible. But not because of this design.

that aside, WOW! I am blown away Tom! great work! I will want to add this one to my collection of TomZ-puzzles in near future!

I have to disagree. The super X was alrerady the equivalent of a face turning cuboctahedron

- Greg

Ya, but it wasn't the same shape. In the same manner, would you consider a regular 3x3 as an edge turning tetrahedron, or a vertex turning octahedron?

EDIT: The Ultra X, on the other hand...

Um, no. A turn of a Rubik's cube face is a 4-cycle in the edges which is an odd permutation.

This puzzle has two pretty awful types of parity to it. The first is where the whole puzzle is solved but two edges are swapped. This happens for the same reason that void cube parity happens. The second is where the whole puzzle is solved but two 1/3rd corner pieces are swapped. This happens because the 1/3rd corners are in an odd permutation but the edges (by virtue of the void effect) are in an even permutation.

The reason the centers on this puzzle act as void centers with respect to the edges is that they can be built from their 1/4th center constituents in either permutation just like on a 4x4x4 cube.

I should add that if you want to play with this puzzle, it is Gelatinbrain's 3.4.5.


Great job Tom, this is a beautiful puzzle.

Yes, I experienced the void type parity when solving my Rainbow 3x3x3 the other day. The same will occur here.

Well, sort of. Maybe it was the first puzzle with cuboctahedral twist. And I guess it could be shapemodded to a cuboctahedron. But it would be deep cut on the square faces. If we're thinking of natural analogs of Rubik's Cube, I'd say that Tom's cuboctahedron is it.

On your Shapeways shop it says this puzzle is unprintable. Is this an error on the site?

I also cannot wait until this is available! But take your time perfecting the mechanism (I assume that is what you are doing?)

Awesome puzzle!

Adam

Yes I know. I just assumed now was later on since it's in the shop. I hadn't looked before.

Sorry Tony my bad.

Can't wait to see this and the rainbow 3x3 available in your shop!

I hope that you can get the magnets worked out Tom, It really is a cool puzzle. I like the idea of combining 2 puzzles into one, that you have shown very well with some other puzzles too.

Next step: 24 Skewb Dino Helicopter 2x2 3x3 Rainbow Super-X Cube