>>7625016
And comments like this that insist that OP was asking for a 3d model (when clearly they aren't) when the response was perfectly fine for a real object? There's either some trolling happening in this thread, some kind of severe misunderstanding, or someone is blindly claiming that OP wanted a mathematically accurate cone, which any artist wouldn't use for a study in blender. Offering the base cone in a 3d program is not what would be used for a reference so I don't understand why people are trying to gaslight OP into believing that that's what they asked for, when it's not.