Whew, that's quite a bit. I hope the move went well, and that you've recovered from your surgeries without any complications.

Alrighty, jumping in with your form intersections, you've got a lot of confident decision making here, and there's certainly good progress with how you're thinking through the intersections between these forms, although there's also room for improvement. I've made some corrections here on your work. Here's what you'll want to keep in mind:

• Each intersection is always a product of many different pieces, each piece being the intersection between specific surfaces, rather than entire forms. So that is to say, a box has 6 surfaces (all flat), a cylinder has 3 surfaces (2 flat ends, and a rounded midsection), a sphere has 1 surface, although there are an infinite array of different ways in which the sphere can be "sliced".

• Whenever your intersection hits an edge - like the edge on a box - that's where you're going to end up shifting between dramatically different "pieces" of your intersection, because we're jumping from one surface to another, and those surfaces are usually rotated quite dramatically from one another, and so you're going to have as dramatic of a sharp corner.

• Keep in mind that just because the form may have rounded surfaces, doesn't mean they're relevant to your intersection. The cone-box intersection towards the upper right was drawn with curving lines, but two faces of the box were intersecting with the flat base of the cone. This means that all of the intersections were flat, and thus should have been drawn with straight lines, not curved ones.

• Also, remember that when dealing with something that has many different ways in which it can be sliced (like a sphere, or parts of a cone or a cylinder), it's the form you're intersecting with that determines which slice you want to look at. Take a look at the cone-box intersection towards the bottom right - you were correct that the intersection would be represented with an ellipse, but the ellipse in this case would have to run parallel to the face of the box we're intersecting with. Thus, the ellipse is going to be slanted quite dramatically relative to the cone itself.

You're definitely making progress here, but you'll want to keep practicing this and coming back to my feedback here, letting it sink in bit by bit.

Your work on the cylinders in boxes is largely looking good, with one quick note - be sure to extend your ellipses' lines all the way back, with the other lines. In many cases you do, but I did notice some lines that seemed to stop much shorter than the others, like here.

Continuing onto your vehicle constructions, I am seeing a number of things I want to talk about. I'll list them here, then touch on each one in turn:

• Your choice of which tools to use in which situation.

• The extremely heavy use of line weight

• The level to which you were willing to push the precision of your constructions

Choice of Tools

I can see pretty clearly that you definitely used a ruler when building up your bounding boxes and doing your subdivision, so good on you for that - but it definitely appears as though your later linework as you built up the vehicles themselves were more often done freehand, resulting in a lit of little issues throughout. While it's perfectly normal to have imperfect linework when freehanding, it does beg the question of why you opted to set aside your ruler when the instructions both allow and encourage the use of those tools (as highlighted here), specifically in order to ensure that the student's focus and mental resources are all committed towards the focus of this lesson - and not towards using it as another opportunity to improve your linework.

Lesson 1 introduced a ton of great exercises for improving your linework, but here we need to be focusing on how we're building up the structures. Given just how much preparation and subdivision can be needed for these constructions, avoiding the additional challenges of freehanding those lines simply helps us make better use of the lesson material.

Heavy Use of Line Weight

This one's an extension of the previous point, simply because the instructions stated (as highlighted here) that you should stick to the same kind of pen throughout the entirety of the drawing. If you go with ballpoint, which is definitely the recommendation, you use the same ballpoint pen throughout the entirety of your construction. You appear to have gone back over your drawing to do a sort of "cleanup pass", tracing back over your lines with fineliner. You also have some definite areas where you went very heavy on line weight.

Line weight, like many of the techniques we employ in this course, is a tool - and our best use of any tool is towards a specific and defined purpose, rather than just an arbitrary sense of whimsy and what "feels" most appropriate at the time. Generally speaking, line weight should be kept subtle - like a whisper to the viewer's subconscious, rather than an obvious shout. Furthermore, it is best used (at least within the other limitations/requirements of this course) with a focus on clarifying how different forms and structures overlap one another, limiting its use to the specific areas where those overlaps occur (as shown here with this example of two overlapping leaves.

Being too aggressive with line weight will flatten your drawing out, and will also blur the line between what is meant to be line weight (which can run along the silhouettes of forms, but as discussed above, must stay quite subtle), and what is meant to be cast shadow (which can be as broad and bold as we like, but must always be cast upon another surface, and designed as a specific shape that conveys the relationship between the receiving surface and the form casting the shadow.

Also, keep in mind that form shading - so basically any situation where a surface itself gets lighter or darker based on its orientation relative to the light source (like where you filled in the wheelwells on this pickup) - is, as explained here in Lesson 2, not meant to be included in our drawings for this course. One exception I'd offer is when we fill the interior (of like a car) in with black - there the filled black areas are still only reserved to areas with surfaces that can be cast upon (so the opposite side windows would still be cut out), but it technically still counts as the structure of the car casting shadows onto the interior surfaces.

I do accept a bit of responsibility in all of this - given that the course has a combination of older and newer demonstrations (something I'm working to resolve with an overhaul of all the material that is currently still back at Lessons 0 and 1), there are definitely some demos that do not hold to all of these rules. A big one, for example, is the Camaro demo, which uses filled areas of solid black for things that aren't cast shadows, and ends up somewhat overdone. That said, it still has other elements that are valuable, and so demos such as this remain up until I am able to replace them.

Level of Precision

Here your work is mixed. You've got some cases where there is a fair bit of precision being used (like in this tank towards the end) - while you didn't necessarily pin down the specific intended location for every little element, you did do it for the bulk, and it generally came out feeling fairly solid as a result.

Conversely however, if we look at this Nissan Sentra, it looks like you built your bounding box, subdivided it to position your wheels, then kind of winged it from there, working more from observation rather than actually taking the steps to pin down each element one by one.

There's also a tendency towards jumping in too early with curves, rather than establishing everything first as a specific boxy structure (meaning, made up of straight edges, flat planes, etc. which are far better defined than arbitrary curves as explained here in Lesson 6), then rounded out towards the end within the clearly defined structure you've already built up.

Don't get me wrong - there are definitely vehicles that are still built up with a decent amount of precision, like this pickup (although constructing the cab within a bounding box would have been better), as well as this corvette.

Conclusion

You're really not far off, but I do want to see you hold more tightly to the principles of the course and the lesson, so I'm going to ask for a couple more vehicle constructions. I'd like you to focus on cars for these last two (and one of them should be a sports car with lots of curves, so you're forced to first build it up with boxier forms, then round them out). Also, expect to spend a lot of time on each of these, and to split them across multiple sittings and days as needed. I generally don't show off other students' work (because I don't want students to feel like they're being compared in skill level, as everyone's going to be at a different stage), but I've found that having students check out VeeDraws' Lesson 7 submission (and most importantly the little time card included along with it) can help them get a better sense of just how much time these drawings can really take. And for what it's worth, I don't think you're behind VeeDraws in technical skill - I think you can pull off the same quality of work, but that you simply need to give yourself full use of all of the resources at your disposal - including both tools, techniques, and time.

So it appears you submitted these revisions as a new submission, when they should have been sent in as a reply to my original feedback. I've gone in and cancelled the new submission, and will finish up here.

Fortunately, it will be brief! Because you've absolutely knocked it out of the park. I'm honestly really impressed at just how much better these revisions are than your initial attempts, but not only is your approach here more precise and solid, but it's also vastly cleaner and shows a far greater focus on what it is you're trying to do at any given moment (rather than getting a cluttered mind trying to tackle a million things all at once).

Now there is certainly room to further increase your precision here, as you are still working with a lot of eyeballing/approximation. So for example, as shown here on one of your orthographic plan, in a minute or two I've identified quite a few landmarks whose specific positioning was not defined. Of course, for some of these you'll have decided on what the specific subdivision would be for some of them when actually doing the 3D construction (though others you no doubt still eyeballed), what we want to strive for is making as many of the decisions as we can upfront.

Anyway! That aside, you're doing great and have shown a great deal of improvement. So, I'm happy to mark this lesson, and the course with it, as complete. Congratulations!