Lesson 7: Applying Construction to Vehicles

2:47 PM, Monday August 2nd 2021

Vehicles and more... no more... - Album on Imgur

Direct Link: https://i.imgur.com/6rSnniz.jpg

Post with 45 views. Vehicles and more... no more...

I am going to get LazyNezumi to fix my horrible ellipse issues.

I really messed up drawing #6 front mirror of the car. I think I commited myself to the box too strongly, that it clearly ended up breaking the illusion. That, and I also cut off the end.

In the future, I believe I should do more than just a single sideview study. I was a bit confused on how many to do. I think next time, I should do as many views as they require for a patent drawing.

When I first started with the moped, I stared at my page for like 25 mintures stuck not knowing what to do. I then took a lot of time to work through each of the demos again on paper.

I heard we were allowed to submit vehicles we followed along with the instructions/demos. I did this because I wanted to show you that I followed every video and drawing demo.

Lastly, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to critique my work throughout this entire course. I started the lessons in fall of 2019, but grinded lesson 1 material until March of 2020, when I felt confident to submit my homework. Learning from my mistakes, pushing on, and trying difficult things really benefited me! Thanks for helping me get started drawing!

0 users agree
1:02 AM, Tuesday August 3rd 2021

Starting with your form intersections, as a whole you're doing a good job of both constructing these forms such that they feel consistent and cohesive within the same space, and such that the intersections themselves demonstrate a well developing understanding of 3D space. My only issue is really with the manner in which you're drawing the intersections themselves.

I kind of touched on this in my critique for your lesson 6 work - I talked about how your use of line weight was rather heavy handed, and kind of arbitrary, not really focusing on establishing how different forms would overlap one another - but for some reason it didn't occur to me that there was a very simple reason at least for the heavyhandedness. I suppose I could be wrong, but it definitely looks like you're using a thicker pen for the line weight, and you most definitely should not be. Your original linework and any further line weight should be drawn using the same kind of pen.

Line weight itself, is a tool that is focused on clarifying how one form overlaps another - but you appear to be applying it to both the intersection line itself, and the part of the form that exists inside of its neighbour, creating the opposite effect of what you'd want. You're making it seem like the piece stuck inside the other form is in front of it, by giving it thicker lines.

In the future:

Anyway, continuing on, your cylinders in boxes are looking pretty good, though you tend to focus the convergences on only one set of lines, and seem to be keeping the others fairly parallel. Definitely play with more convergence on all three sets of lines.

Now, onto the meat of the lesson - the vehicles. You are definitely right in your observation that in some cases, an orthographic study of just the side view of a given vehicle is not going to be enough. It comes down to thinking about what kind of information you need, what gaps exist in your understanding of the proportions, and what you need to look at in order to fill in those gaps. In many of the vehicles we studied, the side view is sufficient because that's where the majority of the information lays, with the front being relatively straightforward. But that isn't always the case, and you'll note that I did analyze the proportions of the front of the shelby mustang demo.

There are definitely a lot of these constructions that I think you handled very well. The tank was especially well done, as you paid a lot of careful attention to the subdivisions of that bounding box, and adhered closely to it, the coast guard boat came out well despite its proportions (as far as this course is concerned, proportions are only important insofar as our ability to make things look plausible), and the cab-over truck came out quite solidly too, despite a few edges along the top of the cab not quite converging towards their intended vanishing point.

Looking at the shelby mustang drawing, I think this is one of those cases where you probably underestimated just how complex this was going to be, and how much patience and time it would really demand of you. I myself spent nearly two hours when doing that drawing in the first place, and it's likely that my own experience had helped quicken things along by a great deal. While I don't know how long you spent on it, I can see that you opted to skip certain steps - like any and all of the structure for the cab of the car. You ended up eyeballing the roof and windshield, and your drawing definitely suffered for it.

The camaro came out a fair bit better - drawing it as small as you did (probably because you wanted to fit the proportional study onto the same page, but perhaps you were limited by your ellipse guide as well) did result in it being a much more crowded affair, which I imagine made things challenging. Still, you did adhere more closely to the bounding box and minded your sets of parallel lines, which helped you to achieve a more solid result.

That's actually an important point - much later, in this jet ski, you asked in the comments whether adhering to the bounding box hurt you there. Remember above all else that every single drawing in this course is just an exercise - and if you decided to stop following the bounding box and drew more by eye, you would have focused more on what would get you a pleasing end result and would have undermined the purpose of the exercise itself. Construction is about making choices, and sticking to them all the way through - that bounding box is the choice you start with, and you need to adhere to it even if the box itself is way off the mark (which it wasn't here).

So to put it simply - as far as this course goes, adhering to the box is never wrong. While it may hurt your end result, that is still more in line with our goals for these drawings. That is precisely why crossing things out or scratching them out as you tried to in this wagon won't achieve anything. Once the marks are on the page, you can't get rid of them - you can't unmake those decisions. You have to stick with them, because the alternative is to end up losing all structure entirely. Scratching them out doesn't make them go away, either.

There are circumstances where you can still work within the existing framework, and make alterations. For example, in this one you decided early on that the box you'd started with was too tall, so you separated it into two boxes - a shorter bounding box, and the piece that was cut out of the original. This is fine, because you were still working within the confines of construction, and you merely broke the 3D space into two spaces, and constructed your car within one. You didn't attempt to undo any of your marks, or change the nature of the illusion you were creating. You worked within the rules of the construction you'd laid out yourself.

The last thing I wanted to talk about is this car. It's definitely one that went pretty awry, as you noted yourself, but since it's the only drawing you attempted of your own of a car, it is definitely something of note (since the little tykes doesn't technically count).

One of the main reasons it went off the rails, so to speak, was because when drawing the various sets of parallel lines that the construction would follow, you did not make any attempt to have them converge. You effectively placed those vanishing points at infinity, even though none of those sets of lines were actually running perpendicular to the viewer's angle of sight. Given their orientation, they definitely should have been converging towards their own vanishing points.

This went on to kind of throw off the ellipse method of creating the grid as well, since it does rely on there being a valid arrangement that follows the rules of perspective. Here you fell more into axonometric projection (the umbrella term under which isometric projection exists, which follows totally different rules).

Now, as a whole I do feel like you're very much moving in the right direction with many of these, but I do want to see you try your hand at a few more car drawings. When doing so, I want you to adhere to a few rules:

  • Do not scratch things out. It doesn't make them go away, it doesn't fix your drawing. It just makes your page a lot messier than it otherwise would have been.

  • Make sure you're considering how the sets of lines that are parallel in 3D space converge towards a vanishing point when drawn on a flat page. The only situation where the vanishing point goes to infinity is when that set of lines runs perpendicular to the viewer's angle of view.

  • Do proportional studies of whatever orthographics are necessary to give you the information you'll need.

Also, if I understand it correctly, you've spent several hours on many of these drawings, and splitting them across multiple sittings. These are very good things, and I'm glad to hear it. As you can see in VeeDraws' work (she included a little timetable in her album), this lesson is one that is very time consuming. It comes down both to investing lots of time into each drawing, and also spending that time well.

One area that often goes overlooked is the investment of time in observing our references, in order to derive the information necessary to perform these constructions. You do a really good job of following along with most of the demonstrations, where that information is already distilled for you. You've also done a pretty good job working from some of your references (the moped for instance shows a lot of care and attention), but I do suspect that when things go awry - like the oldsmobile - not observing your references as actively while drawing may have been a contributing factor.

So, as I mentioned, I'm assigning some revisions for you to complete below.

Next Steps:

Please submit 3 additional drawings of cars. These of course can't be any of the demonstrations, and must be from your own references. Really take your time with these. I can see your capacity and potential throughout your work, but this is really the last big boss of the course.

When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
5:22 PM, Friday August 6th 2021

Imgur Link: https://imgur.com/a/lGbGazA

Hello Uncomfortable,

  • I think I am struggling with getting curved lines to converge towards the vanishing points.

  • My apologies for thos vehicles that do not count. I should have asked the community whether they would be good subjects to use before I drew them.

  • I did not mean to apply lineweight in areas or scratch out proportional studies. That was so that I wouldn't keep making mistakes.

  • I have been using my early mornings, lunchbreaks, and evenings to do these. I was not just trying to rush these.

Thanks again for all of this feedback!

8:49 PM, Friday August 6th 2021

Looking at your new drawings, I don't really get the impression that you fully understood some of the major points I raised in my feedback. One of these that stands out, is as follows:

One of the main reasons it went off the rails, so to speak, was because when drawing the various sets of parallel lines that the construction would follow, you did not make any attempt to have them converge. You effectively placed those vanishing points at infinity, even though none of those sets of lines were actually running perpendicular to the viewer's angle of sight. Given their orientation, they definitely should have been converging towards their own vanishing points.

I also addressed this issue again at the end of the critique, when attempting to summarize things so you'd be more likely to keep it in mind:

Make sure you're considering how the sets of lines that are parallel in 3D space converge towards a vanishing point when drawn on a flat page. The only situation where the vanishing point goes to infinity is when that set of lines runs perpendicular to the viewer's angle of view.

To put it simply, you're not drawing in perspective. What you're doing is more similar to axonometric or isometric projection, rather than perspective projection. When drawing those bounding boxes, you're keeping all of its sets of parallel edges (in 3D space) parallel in 2D space as well, as you draw them on the flat page. You're not considering how they ought to be converging towards their shared vanishing points.

When objects are smaller - like if these were toys rather than real objects - you'd get fairly shallow foreshortening. The lines would converge a little, but it'd be fairly subtle. With objects of greater size however, that convergence becomes more noticeable. If you look at this step of the shelby mustang demo, you can see that there is a lot of noticeable convergence as those lines go back towards their vanishing points. Compare this to how you're approaching drawing these bounding boxes.

I've made some notes directly on your last drawing to demonstrate this point - see how your lines run parallel on the page?

The other point I raise on those notes pertains to the issue you raised yourself - "I think I am struggling with getting curved lines to converge towards the vanishing points."

That is certainly true, and for good reason. When we talk about how lines converge towards a vanishing point, we're generally talking about lines that follow a single, consistent path - in other words, straight lines. Curving lines themselves are, at face value, much more complicated - their trajectory changes throughout their length. But there is a much easier way to consider them. We can simplify them down into a series of straight lines, as discussed here in Lesson 6.

Each of those straight sub-segments will be subject to a different vanishing point, because they're all oriented differently in space, but they are far easier for us to build up in our construction, rather than worrying about trying to eyeball a single complex curved line.

I talked about this in my critique a little, though perhaps not enough, in the context of adhering to your box structures. In your vehicles, you have a tendency to create your general bounding box, and you'll break it down somewhat further, but you always hit a point where you decide to draw the vehicle itself, as a series of curving lines, by eyeballing and approximating things. You're not treating the straight lines, flat planes and boxy forms as a solid framework - you seem to treat it like more of a loose suggestion or a vague plan to keep in mind.

That's not the case. Think of it more like you've started with a giant block of wood, and early on you're cutting away big pieces of it to fashion it into a vaguely car-like shape. Then, as you get further along, you start cutting away smaller pieces, and by the end, you're rounding out those corners. You're not drawing a whole new car - you're just refining the structure that you've been building up the whole time.

The point I linked from Lesson 6 (I'll link it again here) is integral - you're laying down the structure that becomes your curve, first by breaking it down into a series of straight lines, then rounding out those corners at the end. This way you can establish exactly how those structures occupy space in simpler terms (boxes are far simpler than curving forms), and then increase their complexity once everything is in its place.

If you have questions, feel free to ask, but otherwise I do want you to try the same revisions again - that is, 3 pages of car constructions. It's worth mentioning that only 3 and a half days have passed since I sent out my critique (ignoring the time that may have passed between me posting it and you seeing it). Taking into account that you were spending mornings/lunchbreaks/etc. on them, as well as the time required to go through my feedback and review the lesson material, that's not a lot of time given to each of these three constructions. Though I can see that you've tried to spread it out and to give each drawing plenty of time, I still think you are underestimating just how long each of these drawings requires from you.

Next Steps:

Try the 3 car constructions again.

When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
10:55 PM, Friday August 6th 2021

This makes a lot more sense now. Would it be okay if I share the first car when I finish it to get your approval that I am on the right track? I wouldn't be expecting feedback or writings on that one. More it would be a way so that I don't spill my mistakes into another 2 vehicle drawings.

Thanks for the examples and explanation describing my issues. It is a lot more clear now. I see my current lines are way to parallel and have issues with the freehanded curves. I will follow the guidelines you shared.

Thanks again for this!

View more comments in this thread
The recommendation below is an advertisement. Most of the links here are part of Amazon's affiliate program (unless otherwise stated), which helps support this website. It's also more than that - it's a hand-picked recommendation of something I've used myself. If you're interested, here is a full list.


This is another one of those things that aren't sold through Amazon, so I don't get a commission on it - but it's just too good to leave out. PureRef is a fantastic piece of software that is both Windows and Mac compatible. It's used for collecting reference and compiling them into a moodboard. You can move them around freely, have them automatically arranged, zoom in/out and even scale/flip/rotate images as you please. If needed, you can also add little text notes.

When starting on a project, I'll often open it up and start dragging reference images off the internet onto the board. When I'm done, I'll save out a '.pur' file, which embeds all the images. They can get pretty big, but are way more convenient than hauling around folders full of separate images.

Did I mention you can get it for free? The developer allows you to pay whatever amount you want for it. They recommend $5, but they'll allow you to take it for nothing. Really though, with software this versatile and polished, you really should throw them a few bucks if you pick it up. It's more than worth it.

This website uses cookies. You can read more about what we do with them, read our privacy policy.