With most situations, we can choose to look at them from one of many different angles. Where you feel disappointed in yourself for having taken as long as you did to reach this point - a course with no deadlines, no expectations of pacing, but really just that you fit it into your life as best you can, and that you keep taking steps towards completing the assigned work - I see no reason for such disappointment. You got the work done, regardless of how long it may have taken you.

Anyway, onto the critique. Starting with your form intersections, your work here is by and large well done, with the intersections themselves demonstrating a well developed understanding of the relationships between them. I have just one suggestion - when it comes to drawing the intersection lines themselves, and more specifically deciding how much weight/thickness to apply to them, keep in mind what's explained here about focusing the line weight on defining how different forms overlap one another where the actual lines cross.

So for example, here's a comparison between how you approached it along the top, and what I'm recommending. In your case, you make the part of the box's outline thick wherever it exists within the sphere's silhouette. What I'm recommending is instead that you make the outline of the box get thick as it crosses the outline of the sphere. This changes how the viewer's eyes are likely to navigate the mess of lines. As shown here, applying no line weight is like a 4-way intersection, where the viewer's eye could come in from the right along the box's edge and choose to either continue going straight or turn onto the sphere's outline in either direction. Applying line weight in the manner you did takes the part of the box's edge that exists within the sphere's silhouette and turns it into a beefy multi-lane road, but it's still giving the viewer a clear choice of multiple possible paths to take when they hit the intersection. They can take the beefy road, but they're still effectively changing roads regardless of which path they choose. Finally along the bottom, we have my recommendation, where the line gets thicker as it passes over the sphere's edge. Here it's almost like lifting that road over the other, creating an overpass. Where the intersection would generally be, the viewer's eye has the choice to continue moving along the edge they're on, or moving to one of lesser thickness, and will generally prioritize moving along the same edge, especially due to any alternative meaning they'd have to switch to a thinner road.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, you're generally doing well here too, but again I have one suggestion - a number of these (though definitely not all) end up with foreshortening so shallow that it appears as though you're specifically trying to keep their edges parallel in space. This was actually something I addressed in my critique of your 250 box challenge work, so you'll want to go back and review it to understand why it's incorrect in the context of this exercise.

Moving on, you've done really well with your form intersection vehicles - many students tend to overestimate exactly what's being asked here, but you hit the nail on the head. It's really just about doing the form intersections, but arranging the forms in the layout of a vehicle, so we can keep reminding ourselves that what we're doing still involves complete forms, rather than individual edges being stitched together. That can be easy to forget, especially as we get caught up in working off the grid whose purpose is to increase our precision.

As far as the form intersection vehicles go, you've nailed it - especially in regards to the general cohesion between your forms. The rate of foreshortening is consistent, which helps you avoid any conflict between the perceived scale of your components. Your more detailed vehicle constructions leverage this quite nicely as well, and as a whole I feel you've done a really good job when it comes to the core construction of your vehicles. There are definitely mistakes, but in terms of the process you've used and how it influences the precision behind your choices, it's largely in line. The kinds of mistakes you run into are cases like this where you didn't give yourself much convergence to those lines I highlighted, which in turn really boosted the impact of small (potentially negligible) errors in the technique used to move that wheel size back in space. As a result, the far wheel ended up way wider, when it should have been narrower than the front wheel.

The bigger issue there is that you're shooting yourself in the foot by actively avoiding those convergences (as discussed in regards to your cylinders in boxes and the feedback I gave you in regards to your cylinder challenge). Push the convergence more, and it should help a great deal. As to the rest however, you're doing a great job of transferring the structure you've analyzed (I assume your orthographic studies were not included, but based on your work it definitely appears that you have used them).

My only other concern comes down to some more superficial points - the use of line weight, the use of filled areas of solid black, and some places where you may be more prone to going back over lines repeatedly without the use of the necessary tools (a ruler) or the necessary processes (the ghosting method) for each and every mark:

• Firstly, keep in mind that as discussed here in the instructions, you are not to switch pens from the ballpoint you used for your bounding box/subdivision lines to a fineliner to go back over your linework. Stick with the same pen. You can of course switch to a thicker pen/brush pen for filling in the shadow shapes, but not for going back over your linework. So, what you did here with this VW beetle, going back over all of the linework with fineliner to separate it from the underlying construction, as the purposes of this exercise is to focus on how the forms themselves sit in space, not to end up with a clear drawing in the end.

• Secondly, remember that our filled areas of solid black should be reserved for cast shadow shapes only, not for form shading. To that point, any situation where you've got an existing shape and go to fill it in, you should take a moment to ask yourself whether what you're drawing is really a shadow shape (which by definition should have its own new shape drawn, as it's that shape which defines the relationship in space between the form casting it and the surface receiving it), or if you're really just filling in an existing shape. If you're doing the latter, you're probably engaging in form shading (like filling in the side plane of a form) which as discussed here in Lesson 2 should not be employed in our drawings for this course, or you're attempting to capture local/surface colour (like the trim around the windows here).

And with that, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson - and the course as a whole - as complete. Congratulations!