Alrighty! Thanks for your patience in waiting for your feedback. Jumping right in with the form intersections, by and large we still don't expect students to be able to nail this one perfectly, but we do find that after having gone through the various constructional puzzles throughout lessons 3-5, students generally will have developed their spatial reasoning skills far enough to make some proper headway here. At this point it's normal to see students be more comfortable with intersections involving straight/flat surfaces, but to continue to struggle with those involving curving surfaces.

In your case, you're further along than that - you're handling a lot of those curving intersections decently as well, although there are some key areas where you aren't all the way there yet. I've noted some corrections here, and you can check out this diagram, which explores how the intersection changes as the nature of the surfaces involved in them does, specifically a sharp corner between two planes turning into a single rounded surface.

Continuing onto your object constructions, as a whole you've done a great job here. I have a couple points to call out but as a whole, I'm very pleased with how closely you've stuck to the spirit of the lesson, especially when it comes to elements focusing on the concept of precision. Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

In our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. These allow us to meaningfully study the proportions of our intended object in two dimensions with an orthographic study, then apply those same proportions to the object in three dimensions.

While you didn't include any orthographic plans in your submission here, your work makes it pretty clear that you did (and if not, well... please do, but also wow). You're demonstrating a lot of clear, specific decisions being made, without the usual clutter and panic that comes from attempting to make them while actually executing your 3D construction. Technically I don't believe I've instructed students to include them for this one, but it is important to include them for your lesson 7 work.

In terms of critique, I have two things to call out, but only the first is of any significant importance.

  • Firstly, be careful when constructing your bounding boxes. Because we're dealing with smaller objects - and therefore shallower foreshortening - it's easy to fall into one of two traps. One is simply to intentionally draw your boxes such that they have no convergence at all (in terms of trying to achieve "0 point perspective", which as explained here is incorrect and does not exist). I do not believe that is what you're trying to do here. The other trap is that while we may intend to include the slightest bit of convergence, it's easy to end up with lines that actually diverge instead of converging. I noticed this with your huion keydial, where it does appear to get slightly wider as we go back in space. There is fortunately, within the context of this lesson and the tools we're allowed to use in it, a fairly straightforward solution. Just as in the box challenge we used line extensions to check after the fact whether our lines were converging consistently, or even diverging, we can do that here... but before we commit to a line. A ruler will give us the same information by projecting the path of the line we wish to draw out, so if we pay attention to it, we can see whether our lines are diverging, or remaining too parallel, and correct that before committing to the stroke. In general though, even when drawing small objects, be sure to include enough convergence that it is noticeable, if only barely, so as to avoid this kind of issue altogether.

  • Secondly - and this one's much more minor - is that it's important for any form you construct to, regardless of how big or small it is, to always go through the same processes. Looking at the buttons for this arcade style controller, you opted to approach the buttons with a single ellipse, and then simply doubled it up to project it out as a very short cylinder and create the full button structure. If these were longer, you'd of course have established a minor axis line and even a bounding box for the structure, so you could be sure they'd project out appropriately, but here you cut corners a little because it seemed insignificant. Even in cases like this, it's best to go the extra mile. I will note that technically the degree on these buttons is incorrect - or more accurately, the footprint defined for them isn't actually square in 3D space, but for our purses in this lesson that's okay. It comes down to the fact that here we don't establish specific proportions for our bounding box, and so even though the orthographic plan may have been very particular, those proportions ultimately get stretched/squished to fit the bounding box we draw without any real basis. This is something we address in lesson 7, so I wouldn't worry about it right now.

Anyway, all in all, great work. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.