Starting with your form intersections, overall you're doing well, but I did notice some issues that suggest there may be key spots where your understanding of the relationships between the forms are incorrect - or more likely, that you may be relying more on memorization in some cases rather than assessing the actual nature of the forms in the specific situation you're dealing with.

As shown here, on both the spheres, you've got intersections with the flat plane of a cone and a sphere where the intersection line is inverted. Rather than following the curvature of the sphere's surface as it traces along the flat end of the other form, by inverting that curve you're cutting into the sphere's volume.

For the pyramid-cylinder in the bottom right, this is mostly correct, albeit there are two issues to note:

• For the middle plane, the intersection aligns with the lengthwise orientation of the cylinder. The length of the cylinder is certainly curved in one direction, but it's flat in the other. The closer we get to aligning to it, the shallower those curves get, finally becoming entirely straight in the configuration you've got.

• For the two sides, make sure that the intersection line begins where the silhouettes actually meet, rather than an arbitrary point.

And lastly, for the pyramid-cylinder towards the bottom center, it appears here you got a little confused. The plane you filled with hatching tells us that the pyramid is actually coming towards the viewer, and therefore would have to be penetrating through the back-side of the cylinder, resulting in an intersection that would not be visible, and thus would not be drawn. It appears that you were a little confused, and drew it as though the pyramid was pointing away from the viewer.

Now, while the form intersections were admittedly not the best, overall I'm not especially concerned. I think mostly it comes from the tendency to want to rely more on remembered "facts" about how different forms might intersect, or the presumption that a form that is curved in one axis is curved in all axes. These are generally addressed with, of course, practice, but also ensuring that we're always thinking about the problem in front of us. What's more important than the individual issues I called out here is that you are indeed tackling each intersection as an intersection between a series of pairs of surfaces, stitching them together appropriately either with sharp corners or more gradual transitions from one curve to the next.

Continuing on, you're applying the steps of the cylinders in boxes correctly - this is really just to confirm that the student is still doing it correctly, as it's rather easy for students whose grasp on the steps aren't 100% solid to drift off into doing other random things.

Moving onto your vehicle constructions, there's a lot you've done quite well here, although I do have some points to call out in terms of how you can employ the tools demonstrated in this lesson more effectively going forward. Your form intersection vehicles are coming along well - mind you, there's no need to build everything inside of a bounding box as you did here, building it out as you would the form intersection exercises as you did in the later attempts is just fine.

The reason for that exercise is to help students remember that while we're building our more detailed vehicle constructions inside of a bounding box and while the process involves focusing on the convergences of a lot of separate edges, it's still important to think in terms of how we're building the structure up with separate primitive forms. That is, we're not drawing a bunch of lines and then stitching them together - we're blocking out volumes, starting simple and gradually whittling down to more overall structural detail.

In terms of those more detailed vehicle constructions, the constructions themselves are fantastic and show an inordinate amount of care and patience throughout the process. You've done an excellent job of fleshing them out, of breaking them down step by step, and I have nothing negative to say about how much time you've invested into them. They really must have been time consuming, so you should be proud of yourself for sticking through it all.

My only concern really comes down to the specific information that was presented and established in the orthographic plans themselves. While there was a fair bit of information established there, there were definitely cases where some major landmarks were left undefined. Based on how well you built them out in 3D afterwards, I can only assume that at some point in between you did hammer out those decisions. Either that, or you're very good at making those decisions on the fly, which while impressive is still not something I would suggest doing for the purposes of these exercises, where the focus is entirely on working through everything one step at a time.

Here on one of your earlier constructions I noted a bunch (although not all) of the places where there were landmarks that were not specifically defined. Remember that it's not enough to draw on the orthographic plan - every landmark needs to be defined in a way that can be transferred into three dimensions. There are a lot of ways this can be done, some of them being a little odd, like what we see here in the demo provided in Lesson 6's section on orthographic plans - there we're relying on the arbitrary relationships between the subdivisions' diagonals. Because they are transferred in the same manner to 3D space, it's still valid. But simply having the landmarks present on the orthographic plan without being in some way related to specific subdivisions or their diagonals leaves us with no clear way to transfer the distances/measurements required into 3D space.

Additionally, I did notice that there were a number of places where you would jump straight into curves, rather than building them out as a chain of straight edges as explained here in Lesson 6. Not only does breaking them down into a chain of straight edges or flat surfaces allow us more control over the resulting curve, it also gives us clearer landmarks in the joints of that chain which can then be positioned specifically on the orthographic plan.

Taking a look at this ship's orthographic plan as another example, you are clearly thinking about the measurements - but again, in not laying them out as the results of actual subdivisions, you leave yourself at the disadvantage of having to translate those proportional measurements into 3D space, rather than simply going through the exact same steps (using the subdivisions and their associated techniques from Lesson 6 and 7). Breaking the process into distinct stages like this, with each stage being as limited as possible in terms of what it requires us to spread our mental resources across.

Again, that speaks specifically to the exercise that we're doing here, and it's important to keep in mind that exercises are all this course provides. They're not techniques for approaching a drawing (although they certainly can be used to do that, to solve specifically confusing or complicated spatial problems), they are at their core exercises to help rewire the way in which our brains think about the 3D space in which the things we draw exist. Everything we do here is to train our instincts, so that when we're actually drawing, our conscious mind isn't bogged down with the matters of how to draw something, but rather what to draw.

So, as you continue on towards your own goals, always remember that what you've learned here can and should continue to be applied, as exercises, but that when you're drawing your own stuff how you go about it is entirely up to you, and your instincts. With that, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson, and the course as a whole, as complete. Congratulations!