I couldn't tell what that 1.8 was for. It appeared as if it was some circular area off the map and there were no indications on what it was for and since you stated you wanted the red line, I went with that. For 1.8 quants, of which is rather a little odd (1.75 is the nearest worthy, easy-to-work-with value). Either way, I can make it look very smooth and fine. Given the new specifications and details, I could make a higher quality replica of it within maybe 20 minutes using nothing more than MED. The 1.8 value is rather screwy, but if you want it, I'll need to use the 6.4 MED to do so. Since this is apparently an elevator cable, it's rendered vertically using the side or back views rather than the top view, of which, too, is not a problem.

Edit: Also, the 21 on the map is inconsistant with the spacing of everything else and looks more like a 32 than a 21 so I made the model as if it was a 32 to keep the shape as displayed on your diagram.

The 21 is right, it is the horizontal distance between the centre of the two wheels (diameter 32 quants). 32 is the vertical distance between the two wheels.
I think my drawing is a little bit of the reallity.

Regards,
Frits

This poses a conflict:

1. If the 21 is right, then the long diagonal will end up being steeper than shown in the image with a more complete 180 turn than shown on the image. The image shows a 135° turn followed by a 45° turn at the end. For the 21 to be right, it'd use something more around a 155° turn (I'd have to calculate it - this is only an estimate) instead with a 25° turn at the end.

2. If the image depiction is to scale, there would be a 135° turn on the right edge with a 45° turn on the bottom left. The only way this is possible is if the 21 is supposed to be a 32 instead. This is simpler to make, but not much simpler.

One last question. Do you want to use 1.8, or are you okay with 1.75? 1.75 is much easier to work with and I could do it with the 6.31 MED. 1.8 requires the 6.4 MED and I don't know how compatible it is with the 6.31 MED and earlier.

Anyway, I'm sleepy at the moment so I'll make your model (if you want it) when I wake up about 11 or so hours later....

I made a new drawing, I hope it is more accurate.



Regards,
Frits

PS.
Yes the diameter must be 1.8 because I made the other cables already with a diameter 1.8
Btw. I have version 6.40.5 beta

havent seen the model but my guess is he layed out the vertices and the connected them using face build.

Done in about 18 minutes. Compared to the other version, I made the curves smoother (base 60, which is about 6 times smoother than the previous one. The diameter uses base 8, but it's so thin it's hard to detect. Anyway, here's the model. No need to unzip anything - it's 14KB as is and I've uploaded the MDL file itself. Again, it's untextured. Being so thin, there isn't much point to texturing it with a decent texture.

Edit: this model uses 256 vertices and 496 faces. You may use some sort of poly-reducing tool to reduce it further.

Hello,

Thank you verry much for making this model for me, it fits perfectly on my other cables!
Still wondering how you made this, is it like I tried to do with a cylinder, extrude it, rotate it and move it into place?
Please help me out here so I can make the models myself in the future.
About texturing, I still don't understand how texuring works, if I try it the model keeps white.
I am using in the 6.40.5 version.

Thanks again and best regards,
Frits

All I did was place a single vertex some distance from the origin, moved it into place, set the rotate snap to 360/base where base is how fine you want it (I used base 60 for this). The first step I did was just create the diameter of the cable (with the base of 8 (rotate snap at 45). Once the diameter was done, I positioned it to the radius of the circle (16 in this case) and centered it. I made a single duplicate of it using some copy paste and rotated it with a base of 60 (rotate snap at 6). Once that was set, I built the faces. When I finished building the 16 faces, I used more copy paste and continued pasting it until about 150 degrees of a circle arc was made, about where it would meet up with your 51 quants distance. I then just moved the 150 degree arc off the side (toward the top) then continued the remainder of the half circle by pasting more of what I had on the clipboard. This final part was then moved close to (but not touching or connected to) the other part of the half circle. I then selected the ends' vertices and built the faces to connect them. Once the faces were built, I then positioned everything as needed. It took me 20 minutes to do it, but if it wasn't for debating on what base values I should use and remembering just how I did it (as it's been about 5 months since I've done anything significant for 3D design - blame it on the poor design of MED), I could've done it in just 10 minutes.

The way primitives are done in MED is horrible. You can't set an exact size without having to guess for about 5 to 10 minutes, the input fields are way too narrow and you only get one or two different axes for sizes, rather than all three. My How to make high-precision circles and spheres tutorial explains a method that allows much more flexibility than MED's primitives does, but you have fewer edge vertices available and control on only one axis. The scale tool is extremely imprecise and otherwise meaningless to use when it comes to high-precision design. Also, math skills come in handy. That tutorial does need to be rewritten (HTML file - it hasn't been updated since at least July 2005, and since then I've better optimized my techniques for this, of which I've mentioned near the start of my reply. My "how to make levels in MED" tutorial explains texturing as well, but it needs to be updated. Before it's updated, MED needs to be in a lot better shape than it is, especially the creation of UV maps and being able to set texture scales (again, the scale tool's extreme inaccuracy causes problems).

Thanks for your explanation and I can agree with you that working with the primitives is not an easy task to do. Indead you can't set the exact size in the inputfields.
I think it should show a little screen when you choose a primitive on wich you can fill in the exact start values in the three axes for a cube or a radius for a sphere instead of the edge size of a single face and so on.
Maybe it is something for the future?

Anyway thanks again and best regards,
Frits

Well, if you look at this rather old screenshot (from late December 2005, of which hasn't changed), you'll see that the size value is shown, the quants size, but you cannot edit it - a dumb thing to do.



Using the size input field (8.28 - meaningless) affects all 3 axes and a size of 8.28 is not always the same size either. The best way of having MED much better is to have some sort of side banner (like WED does) which contains tool options, a list of UV maps and other commonly accessed things like the skin edittor and creation of UV maps. I have intentions on making a heavily modified screenshot of MED to show all this. It would be my "dream" MED, if you so speak. It's otherwise very vivid in my mind on how I'm "seeing" how my "dream" MED would be.

My 2D game has one major philosophy (sp.?): if something can be customizable in some way, make it customizable. In my 2D game, you can configure virtually anything in practically any way. WED, MED, and SED should all have the same.