koolestani

Guilty as charged about that cone intersection, I did notice that fatal flaw a bit too late and felt very stupid after the fact.

I now realize that I didn't use mirroring at all, and very little bit of subdividing and do see why I couldn't nail the bits that came out wrong. Like the spoiler in the F1 car, it's length came out to be more towards the side thats closer to the viewer and fell a bit short on the side away from the viewer basically making it not aligned with the center. Although I'm sure that's not something I could have avoided just from the information of the side profile/orthographic (because it's not enough data). I guess that's why studying all orthographics instead of just one will prove to be better.

While deciding where the various elements should go I was deciding which cube they would go into from the orthographic, wheel based grid, but after identifying the correct cube, I was trying to zero down in a manner similar to moving a 3D object along the X, Y, Z coordinates of that cube, and I did feel like something was missing as it was considerably difficult for me. Not sure if that way of thinking is alright or something that should be avoided. But I do see what you meant by this (although maybe not completely)

Looking at your orthographic plans, they don't pin down specific relationships between the elements you're drawing, and so you're left having to make a lot of decisions as you construct them in 3D.

Thank you Uncomfortable for the feedback and I hope to catch you in the Discord server every now and then with some questions (hopefully good ones).

Thank you for the feedback Uncomfortable :D

I would like to link my references now, as I forgot to do so in the earlier post. I hope this helps someone looking for references. Also I wanted to show you that most of the references I worked with had no spokes and rims, so I guess I was drawing tires rather than complete wheels.

I am absolutely guilty of the first point though.

As far as the textural aspect is concerned, I simply had no idea there was any! And when I your remark about it in the critique I thought, did I really just forgot about an entire dimension of texture? So I checked the challenge literature again, only to realize that there was none! And I must say, I was absolutely not going through this challenge with the intention to capture texture at all. I invested no time whatsoever in texture, all I was focused on was building the wheel up as a three dimensional puzzle, where all the different pieces comes together to create the final result. Taking particular care about the tread pieces and how they wrap around the surface of the wheel as it turns away and towards the viewer, along both the higher and the lower point and the sides. I did not concern myself with the way my references were receiving light and casting shadows.

I'd say if the intent of the challenge was to capture the wheels through implicit mark making then I have gone in a very wrong direction with this whole thing. And I agree, that with the explicit markmaking, a lot of attention will be drawn by the wheels themselves. With that said, were we supposed to deal with this challenge with minimal explicit markmaking? Or a moderate mix of both implicit and explicit markmaking?

Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I absolutely agree, I really had trouble on leveraging the tools provided in the lesson. I tried really hard to find objects that would make for good references in regards to the process the lesson expects us to follow. But they all seemed either way too mechanical or way too organic.

I tried looking for objects with major landmarks falling at standard fractions, midpoints, thirds, quarters but really came up short. And for curvy objects it seemed very baffling to apply the tools of this lesson at all. For example the mouse demo has one thing going which is having an axis of symmetry (although not really because of the thumb buttons). If I take a completely asymmetrical object, I just get lost about how to apply any of these tools to construct it, for example a vertical mouse. All I can think of is drawing a bounding box for such an object and just using french curves or even freehanding it as correctly as i can.

It seems I did overthink it perhaps while selecting my objects as the measuring tape I drew doesn't really have much symmetry or major landmarks placed at standard fractions.

I really did not find the ellipse template to be of much help, while I get they can't cover all the degrees possible but the sizes are too small so either I must draw the objects at a significantly smaller size than I would like to or have to freehand the ellipses

Also the french curves are a bit limited as they mostly provide the ability to draw asymmetrical curves. So symmetrical arcs or partial circles needed to be drawn freehand. And my lack of experience with french curves didn't help either.

Although the biggest thought that kept popping up in my mind was, why? Why the sudden shift from eyeballing and freehanding to something so measured. Short of using technical pens that we have to fill up with ink and hold upright, it feels almost like drafting/technical drawing. While I'm no expert, I'm fairly familiar with orthographics and they have a very technical connotation for me. I'm afraid of Lesson 7. Vehicles seem lightyears ahead of eveyday objects.

Sorry about that, don't know what went wrong. Here is the link to the full assignment.

I see.

I didn't plan on doing the extra cylinders. It just happened that when I stopped to take count I found out that I drew more than what was asked. So I thought might as well select the ones that are objectively better.

Nice to hear from the man himself!

I followed this weird numbering scheme because I was facing this issue where I chose some cylinders to include in the homework, but on a second look I decided not to include them because I had spares that were better (drew quite more than 150), so I had to revise the numbers for all subsequent cylinders, and because I wanted the numbering to be penciled in rather than adding it digitally, I had to erase and rewrite the numbers. Basically the moment I decided to drop or include a cylinder that previously wasn't, I had to horse around with the numbering a lot. So I numbered them this way and now it doesn't matter if I choose to drop or include a cylinder as the sequence isn't numerical anyway (but they are presented in the correct chronological order on the imgur album).

I drew a handful more than 100 cylinders in boxes, so I numbered them normally. And since the extension lines of one cylinder were quite close to those of another, I decided to uploade complete pages. Although in doing so I was a bit worried about the color accuracy, focus and resolution, it seems to be just enough. It was probably difficult to make a distinction between the magenta extension lines and the red lines for edges of the boxes themselves.

I have a really hard time drawing an ellipse two full times in a single run. For some reason my brain either always wants to fall short on that or go overboard, but it's rarely ever two full times. And when I do go overboard it seems I've undermined the work done with the first full ellipse.

I did feel that I couldn't get a lot of variety in my angles in the 100 cylinders in boxes, and it seemed largely due the constraint of a pair of opposite faces being a square, which of course they need to be if we want to draw cylinders in them.

I have to say, the one example of drawing cylinder in a box that was included in the lesson material was a very odd angle. I found it very difficult to identify the "Y" of that box as two arms of that Y were almost conjoined as a single straight line on account of one face of the box being quished into a tiny sliver due to the angle.

Thanks again.

Thank you DIO.

Do you have some suggestion about how one should go about drawing a hollow cylinder of mass wrapped around the entire torso of these animals. I see the bulk of the torso in some cases as kind of like a sleeve or a tube of equal thickness that wraps around the torso. I understand it can't be perfectly cylindrical, but you get the idea.

In that case it seems counter intuitive to split or cut it up into multiple pieces that sit or rest on top of each other, which is what additional masses are all about.

If I'm drawing the side profile of an animal and this is what I visualize the bulk of torso to be like, how should I proceed?

Thanks for this feedback. Here are my revision pages. I haved enjoyed all the lessons so far and this one's no exception but for some reason I found this to be the most difficult to go through. Just a lot of friction from my side. Something about jumping from crustaceans to mammals seemed overwhelming.

I hope these are more in line with the process. I did mess up the Hyena's feet. They were hidden by tall grass in the reference and I tried to draw them anyway, and it shows.

I take it that the three large paragraphs enclosed within the double quotes is the feedback from Uncomfortable.

His revisions do look better but they deviate from the reference a bit. The silhoutte of the green metallic beetle is still quite true to the reference but the crab's silhoutte is quite altered by those divets.

As such, its not really permitted for a student to decide to submit revisions if they were not assigned.

I was just trying to eliminate any doubts I had left because I got different feedback for the same error, so I was a bit confused by that and felt I should clear it up.

As was suggested in the earlier comments.

If anything said to you here, or previously, is unclear or confusing you are welcome to ask questions.

There are many potential reasons this could be happening, but at the end of the day, it is your responsibility to ensure that you can implement the feedback you've received, or that if you do not understand something, that you ask questions (either here, or over on our Discord chat server, where fellow students are often happy to help).

Thanks.

I also drew the parts of legs that hid behind the body of these creatures. Any tip about the same? I think since the hidden parts are basically conjecture on my part, I just extrapolated what I thought must be going on with their design judging from the parts that were visible.

I'm not sure these specific alterations were necessary, as you had already drawn complete forms for these pieces, wrapping them around your underlying ball forms.

Isn't A and B of the green metallic beetle same as the C and D of the crab with a lot of annotation. Here is what I mean.

I corrected it in the green metallic beetle because earlier they were also just shapes extending off of existing base form.

Something that happens much more frequently in your work is extending off existing forms with partial shapes, not quite providing enough information for us to understand how they actually connect to the existing structure in 3D space.

Thanks again.