Jumping in with your form intersections, as a whole these are very well done. There are a few small hiccups, but as a whole you're doing better here than we generally expect from students at this stage - even though it's an exercise that was introduced back in Lesson 2, it's one that represents the core challenges of the course and so it's one we expect to see grow steadily as a student moves through the course, and then we take a peek at them here and in Lesson 7. It's normal for students at this stage to be comfortable with intersections between flat surfaces, but to still struggle somewhat with those involving curved surfaces.

I did pick out a couple points in your work that I wanted to call out, which I've marked out here. The sphere-box intersection on the top right is the main one here, where you appear to have drawn a singular continuous curving line. Whenever our intersections hit an edge on either form in question, it's going to demand a sudden change in trajectory as we flow from the face on one side of the edge, to the face on the other. This essentially means that as you drew correctly in the box-sphere intersection immediately beneath the one I corrected, it would result in a sharp corner.

For the cylinder-box intersection, you approached it correctly, but I made a minor adjustment to the angle of the intersection to better match the orientation of the box's plane. We can think of the box's plane here as though it's the knife that is slicing through the cylinder.

In general, this diagram may help, but ultimately I expect it would expand what you already appear to understand, as again - your work here is very well done.

Continuing onto your object constructions, this is much of the same. You've done an excellent job here, and I'm very pleased with your results, and have only fairly minor suggestions on how you can continue to improve. As a whole you're demonstrating a clear prioritization of the concept of precision, which is really at the heart of this lesson and Lesson 7.

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.

And at that, you've really, really knocked it out of the park. While there's still certainly room for improvement, with this being the first point at which the concept of orthographic plans were introduced, you did a phenomenal job of first establishing them correctly with focus on all the right things, like making clear decisions and defining them in a way that can be transferred directly into 3D space (meaning using the various subdivision tools introduced in the lesson), and in applying them to your 3D constructions very effectively.

In terms of advice on how to improve, there's really just two points to call out, and I do so with the caveat (if I haven't beaten this horse to death yet) that you're already doing a great job. These are just some extra recommendations as to where things can be pushed a little further, and I've marked them out on this page.

  • Firstly, and this is relating to the lower of the two sections of notes on your spray bottle's orthographic plan, is just calling out that location of this ribbing wasn't identified in your orthographic plan. Obviously it's a pretty minor detail, but I would lean towards either deciding to include it (and therefore drawing it on the orthographic plan and 3D construction, but doing so by bringing your subdivision in that area down to that level), or deciding that the detail is really not that important and leaving it out entirely (meaning, not attempting to include it by eye/estimation). It helps to always keep in mind that our references (whether photographic or physical objects in front of us) are sources of information, but are ultimately subject to our own choices. We choose which proportions to apply (like the drawer handle analogy in the orthographic plans section), and we choose which pieces to include and which to leave out. At the end of the day, what we're doing is an exercise focused on constructing something, and in so doing putting our brains through the process of thinking through all these 3D spatial relationships while working on a flat page. Deciding to leave things out is entirely fine, as long as you're still ultimately having your brain think through those spatial relationships with the components you do choose to include.

  • And the second part is just a reminder of this section of the notes, where rather than jumping straight into curves we first define them as a chain of straight edges that are then rounded out. This allows us to plan them out more easily and identify more specific landmarks (like the corners in those chains of straight edges) to identify proportionally using subdivision in our orthographic plans.

Anyway, as a whole you've done a fantastic job. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the great work!