There's no deadlines, so no need to worry. All that matters is that you review the instructions for the task you're doing, when you're doing it, and that you adhere to whatever major principles are introduced throughout the course (as opposed to picking the lesson back up months later and just diving right in without review).

Jumping in with your form intersections, much your work here demonstrates a strong, well developing understanding of how the forms relate to one another in 3D space, but there is one issue I saw come up in three distinct places, as I've shown here. In effect, you're leaning towards defaulting to "soft" corners (which we get when two curving surfaces intersect with one another). When you have a rounded surface intersecting across an edge between two flat surfaces, that edge - which marks a jump from one orientation to a completely different orientation - will be met with a sharp corner to denote the sudden change in trajectory. You can see this concept depicted further here.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, I'm glad to see that you're checking your line extensions correctly, but there is a notable issue that is present in the boxes for your form intersections, as well as in your vehicle constructions' initial bounding boxes, and it is unfortunately one that I have called out to you in the past - specifically in your cylinder challenge critique:

On that note, however, one thing to be careful of is any situation where your side edges get a little too parallel. For example, if we take a look at 74 on this page, those side edges aren't entirely parallel, there is some very very minute convergence to them, but the question comes down to what you intended to do there. If you intended to do some very shallow foreshortening there, with extremely minimal convergence, then that's fine. But if you intended to actually draw them as parallel on the page (as some students do), that would be incorrect. Basically the thing to remember is that the only situation where the side edges would actually run parallel on the page is if the edges they represent in 3D space actually run perpendicular to the viewer's angle of sight, not slanting towards or away from the viewer at all through the depth of the scene. This would put their vanishing point at infinity, resulting in parallel lines on the page.

So, in a sense we can control the orientation we want for our form, but we are not in control of where the vanishing point goes beyond that. Given that in this exercise we're rotating our cylinders quite randomly, we can pretty much assume that perfect of an alignment would not occur, so we should generally be working with concrete vanishing points throughout this exercise - which again, if you were purposely just trying to keep very shallow, gradual convergences, that would be correct.

I think it's safe to say that this might be a situation where you should have gone back over the previous feedback more carefully after your time away. As I noted above, taking time away is by no means an issue, as long as you understand that one can't simply jump right back in where they left off without reviewing past material, past feedback, etc.

It's worth mentioning that the manner in which you're drawing your boxes here - with what appears to be three 'infinite' vanishing points - is not valid in perspective, but some students do confuse it with isometric (as well as axonometric) projection, thinking of it as the logical extension, from 3 point perspective, to 2, to 1, and finally isometric as "0 point perspective". This is not correct, as isometric and axonometric projection do not share the same goals as perspective projection. Perspective focuses on capturing the effects of human binocular vision - how we see the world through two eyes - whereas isometric does not. It's still very useful, just not what we're learning in this course.

Continuing onto your form intersection vehicles, you're handling these just fine, although while you adhered more closely to this exercise than most students (there is a common tendency to overcomplicate it), you did overcomplicate it a little by working within the larger bounding box to start. All that's asked here is to do the same thing as the form intersections exercise, with the forms arranged to match the general layout of a vehicle, nothing more. Of course the way you approached it didn't harm anything at all, so you're fine to approach this exercise in this manner in your own practice.

Interestingly enough though, one thing I did see you using as a result of making the exercise a bit more complex than was requested, was noticeably missing (not entirely, but in quite a few cases) from the later drawings where it would have been very welcome. In your form intersection vehicles, you were fairly fastidious about using the diagonal subdivision approach, ensuring that you knew what proportions each subdivision was being given. This is very useful, because it allows us to work with the kind of precision we discussed back in Lesson 6 (I gave you some diagrams explaining how we can use orthographic plans to decide on where the specific landmarks should be situated, so that all of those decisions could be made ahead of time. You'll also see similar strategies being employed across a few of the demonstrations - most notably in the shelby mustang demo.

Throughout your more detailed vehicle constructions, you appear to work more by eyeballing... in a manner of speaking. It's not that you're eyeballing your actual constructions - you're mostly doing an excellent job of that, constructing solid, believable forms and all, despite the reliance on an isometric box to start. It's more of an eyeballing/estimation of those proportional relationships to one another, resulting in an overall drop in precision (again, as defined and discussed in my feedback for your Lesson 6 work).

So, in effect, due to the greater reliance on eyeballing things, you did have some struggles with proportions. And due to the isometric starting point, many of your vehicles did feel somewhat more toy-like, with that absence of foreshortening implying a very small scale. Aside from that however, you have done really well, and have take a great deal of care with the overall construction of your objects.

I feel fairly confident that you can address the points I've already raised just as a matter of making different conscious decisions in exercises like these - and so I will go ahead and mark this lesson, and the course with it, as complete. Congratulations!