When it comes to applying the concepts covered in this lesson as well as the last few, it's not really a matter of "I did it" or "I didn't". It's a spectrum. When people tackle lesson 6 for instance, and are first introduced to the idea of building things inside of a larger box and subdividing that box to find particular landmarks to place smaller elements and details in a more precise, specific manner. When completing that lesson's work, given that they're being introduced to this sort of spectrum, it's normal for them to stay around the end of the spectrum where they're not necessarily subdividing their forms all that much, and are still prone to approximating the position of certain elements. Not all do, of course - some will subdivide their boxes to find specific, intentional positioning for each and every feature on the object they're constructing, and frankly that's always a great thing to see. It is difficult however, and I don't at all expect students to be at a point where they're comfortable doing that by the time they're done with lesson 6.

This lesson, however, is where the stakes are higher, and the expectations for students match. This is the lesson where approximating and eyeballing the positions of things is left aside, and where students are expected to be much more precise, and ultimately willing to invest far more time in each and every drawing. To give you some context, the shelby mustang demo took me a full hour and a half to draw, and that is even after considering the fact that I have an amount of experience with this that should ostensibly allow me to complete such things more quickly than the average student working through this lesson.

So, long story short, the point I'm trying to make is that many of your drawings here only really scratch the surface of how these things are supposed to be approached. You certainly do apply some subdivision, and in some cases you do so more than others, but you always seem to be eager to hit the point where it's okay to just wing it - and to be completely honest, such a point doesn't exist.

Looking at examples like the speeder bike, you started with a basic box and subdivided it once, then decided to just estimate everything else. With this jet ski, you made much more of an effort, but still ended up with a lot of highly approximated curves through the seat area, and for the entire steering mechanism. Same goes for the motorcycle.

The last drawing, the settler wagon, is definitely moving in the right direction, although the ellipses that support the cover appear to have been placed somewhat arbitrarily once again.

I don't usually show students the work of others', as I don't want them to directly compare themselves to the quality of the work being produced, but in this case I think doing so may be valuable in terms of showing the quantity of effort and work that is expected to be invested into each and every drawing throughout this lesson. As such, take a look at Matt's work. Now, he gets into subdivision even more than I'd hope to see from students - so you don't need to get into it quite this much, but the sheer dedication to every single mark being planned and determined without any attempt at estimation or approximation is entirely within the spirit if what I'd like to see from you. At the end of the day, it comes down to intent - if you intend to approach the drawings from a more approximate, laissez-faire stance, then your drawings won't take as long, but they also won't feel as grounded and real. If you intend to subdivide to determine the positioning of every last little thing, then the few places where you do decide to just approximate something will be preceded with a good deal of consideration, thinking, "should I just put the mark in? Or should I give it a stronger underlying structure to make sure it comes out right?"

So, to this end, I'm going to ask that you do some additional pages. I'll list them for you below. Beforehand, however, I want you to review the notes on handling curves from lesson 6.