Jumping right in with your form intersections, these continue to move in the right direction. I did note some issues, which I noted down on your work here - these were primarily cases where you actually overcomplicated the intersections, taking what would have been a single simple curve and making it far more than that. This can happen when we focus more on prior assumptions, rather than focusing on the actual surfaces that are present, and looking at how they relate to one another in space. As a result, such intersections tend to be harder to explain (in terms of explaining why we made certain choices), because they're not choices that are based on anything specific. To that end, try to always think about how you would logically explain the choices you're making in the given moment. It's okay for the results to be incorrect, but if you can't actually explain your reasoning, then it both suggests that you're not actively making clear choices at all, and also makes it more difficult to learn from them or receive more targeted critique to help clarify misunderstandings.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, you appear to be applying the line extensions correctly, and are arming yourself with enough information to usefully analyze afterwards, so you can make decisions on how to adjust your approach for future pages.

Looking at your form intersection vehicles, while ultimately it's not an issue because you still got the intended benefits of the exercise (I'll explain what those are in a moment), you did end up taking this much farther than was requested in the instructions, which was:

These are purely constructional, approach them as you might the form intersections from lesson 2, by drawing primitives (boxes, cylinders, etc). Focus on drawing through your major geometric forms. you can break them down as far as you like, but remember that we're not interested in the smaller details - just on laying down the primitive forms in the arrangement of a vehicle. Do not use grids, subdivision, etc. Just simple primitive forms as you'd draw them for the form intersections exercise, focusing on each individual primitive form, one at a time.

In refining your forms further than their basic primitives (so for example, in how you subtracted a curving portion from a box and rounded the corners to construct the wheelwells on this truck), you definitely went well beyond what was asked here. That said, the intended outcome was a reminder for students that even though the more detailed vehicle construction demos can make it seem like we're only stitching a forest of lines together to produce an end result towards the very end of the process, that we still want to be thinking about this in terms of working from big to small, simple to complex. Or in other words, we're still thinking in terms of carving an object out of a big block of wood, rather than building it out of toothpicks.

Now when it comes to your more detailed vehicle constructions, I think this is a good time to address some of the points you raised in your submission comment. You asked,

Do I have to do all the subdivision in this plan from the inside? Or am I thinking wrong and there is an easier way.

The way this course works is that by doing everything hyper-intentionally, and as completely as we are able (in terms of applying all of the steps, even when they are massively time consuming and push at the limits of our patience), we are pushing those behaviours down into our subconscious where they form new habits and rewire the way in which our brain understands the world around us, and the 3D space in which all we seek to draw exists.

As discussed back in Lesson 0, students have one responsibility as far as official critique is concerned - that they give themselves as much time to do the work to the best of their current ability. While we cannot force ourselves to put more skill into a task than we have to provide, we can ensure that how much time we invest in a task is determined only by the task itself, and not by other factors, such as how much time we have in a given sitting (we can always spread a task across multiple sittings). So yes, while the work is time consuming (especially for this lesson, I've had students take dozens of hours to complete it), you are not given deadlines. Merely the requirement that you commit all of the time that you can to work through all of the tasks and sub-tasks involved to the best of your ability.

I will mention one additional thing to this point - you finished the 25 wheel challenge on July 1st and got the go-ahead to continue onto Lesson 7 on July 3rd, so you had at most a little less than 3 weeks to spend on the homework for this. I have also received two other Lesson 7 submissions, and just as a comparison point, they got the go-ahead to start tackling its homework about a month earlier than you, and so they will have had considerably longer to complete it than you allocated yourself.

All of which is to say, you may have had expectations about how much time this lesson should take, which were not accurate. All told however, many of your orthographic plans were quite thorough and fastidious, with the majority of the major landmarks being pinned down. There were however certain cases where you definitely didn't take your time. For example, on this page you were definitely sloppier in terms of identifying your major landmarks, and also were very scratchy in drawing the 3D vehicle construction itself, tossing out concepts like the ghosting method.

Conversely, this vehicle and its accompanying orthographic plan was approached with far more care. That said, as with many of your constructions here, your use of line weight doesn't quite align with the priorities/execution we introduce back in Lesson 1 here where line weight should be kept subtle and focused on clarifying specific localized overlaps, as opposed to just going back over the entirety of the drawing to separate the object from its construction.

Looking at the use of the "constructing to scale" methodology as applied to that same vehicle, I did notice that while the ellipse along the side was pretty correct, the ellipse along the front was not as shown here, with its minor axis oriented incorrectly. It should be aligned around a minor axis line that runs down the length of the vehicle, converging towards the left vanishing point. Your use of this methodology here was better, but for some reason you ended up abandoning the lower edge you used when applying it. You then tried to use the same proportions, but on a plane slanted slightly differently, which is likely a big part of why the proportions there were out of whack.

Speaking of proportional issues, I noticed that when laying out the side view orthographic for your plane, your proportions were pretty far off to start with, as we can see here. I assume this may have been due to you working off a single reference image, but side views are definitely available for this aircraft, such as:

• https://www.ewarbirds.org/aircraft/images/t34.2/t34b.02.png

• https://www.ewarbirds.org/aircraft/images/t34.2/t34b.01.png

The last thing I wanted to point out is that I've been seeing a lot of cases where you jumped right into a curving structure without first laying down a scaffolding for it based on straight edges/flat surfaces as discussed here in Lesson 6 (which I also called out in my feedback for your Lesson 6 work).

Ultimately your work here demonstrates two things:

• That you seem to have the capacity to apply the concepts from the lesson

• and, that for whatever reason, you did not opt to giving every aspect of the work as much time as you could have to apply it to the best of your current ability,

This may unfortunately be a rather unsatisfying conclusion to a year's long journey for you, but I will be marking this lesson - and the course as a whole - as complete. You've done well enough not to warrant revisions, and as revisions require more time from us (and your choice not to put as much time into the work here has definitely caused providing feedback to be considerably more time consuming since it required picking through what may have just been sloppiness and what may have been the result of a lack of understanding), I'm not inclined to assign revisions just for the sake of giving you a more satisfying conclusion.

That said, if that satisfaction is something you'd like to pursue, you always have the option to tackle Lesson 7 again, giving it as much time as it demands of you, and submit it again - though that will cost you an additional 2 credits.