Jumping right in with your form intersections, overall you're doing great here. I can very clearly see that your understanding of how these different forms relate to one another has developed really nicely over the past lessons. Not only are you apparently comfortable with the more basic flat-on-flat intersections, but you handle a lot of the curved-on-curved ones well. While I did find some mistakes, they actually come primarily from overthinking things a little, and perhaps focusing more on the nature of each individual form (whether the form is "flat" or "curved") rather than focusing on each individual surface involved.

So for example, as I've marked out here, though the cone in the bottom left does indeed feature a curving surface, its intersection with the cylinder is technically a flat surface (the base of the cone) intersecting with a curving surface (the length of the cylinder). The way you approached it there was, though subtle, more of an intersection between two curving surfaces, resulting in a sort of S curve. We can see the same kind of intersection where I put a checkmark, where you've got the length of one cylinder (a curved surface) intersecting with the length of another cylinder (another curved surface).

Now I did notice another similar issue - that is to say, another very minor one - in the intersection between the cylinder and box to the upper left of this page. In effect, the issue is that you appear to be treating the edge less as a sharp distinction between two perpendicular planes (where a very sharp corner would be required in the intersection line, going from one curve to a dramatically different curve), here you appear to have rounded it out a bit more. These notes should help explain why it's a little off as a result. Another similar issue would be on the bottom right of this page - the intersection between the sphere and box should really just be a single simple C curve, not the compound curve you've got there.

Anyway! Pushing into the object constructions, you have by and large done a good job. I do have some suggestions on how things can be improved even further, but there's a lot you've done here that really leans hard into the overall focus of this lesson: precision. Up until this point, specifically through lessons 3-5, we tend to work reflexively, laying things out from the inside out. That is to say, when dealing with our animals in Lesson 5, we could start with a cranial ball that's way too big - for our purposes, that's not a problem. We'd simply end up with a head that's too big as a result, because we'd roll with the punches and keep going. This lesson marks the first time that we're shifting towards working outside-in.

Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

In our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. These allow us to meaningfully study the proportions of our intended object in two dimensions with an orthographic study, then apply those same proportions to the object in three dimensions.

Now, precision focuses all on when we're making our decisions. Ultimately in any construction, decisions need to be made. How big, how long, how flat, where does everything go, where does everything start/end, etc. If a decision is not made, then it's going to end up being made right at the last moment when you actually put a mark down. That's... generally a bad thing - like jumping straight into the execution phase of the ghosting method, and trying to solve all the problems at once while also making a confident stroke. Doesn't work out so great.

If we take a look at this microwave construction - specifically its handle - there are some decisions you made prior to actually drawing that handle, and some decisions that you effectively made when putting the marks down. Here I've identified two of the lines you'd drawn (red for the vertical line, green for the horizontal). These are good - the red line defines the central axis upon which the handle is centered, and in green you've defined the highest extent of where the handle touches the body.

The purple lines however are a bunch of other decisions that could have been made ahead of time as well - the bottom of the area the handle touches at the top, the top/bottom bounds of the bottom connection point, as well as the far left/far right bounds of those same areas. In taking a bit more time to identify these ahead of time, we avoid having to make all these decisions while putting the marks down, thus leaving ourselves with a much simpler problem to tackle.

Taking it even further however, we could first make all of these decisions on an orthographic plan, similarly to what was introduced here on the computer mouse section. This is actually something I'm going to be pushing a lot more in the overhauled version of this lesson (when I get there) - the benefits of doing more orthographic studies. Some students do end up jumping on the tool and push them to varying degrees, but what's shown in the computer mouse is a pretty bare use of the technique.

The great thing about taking an orthographic plan to its fullest extent - effectively finding as many major landmarks in your object from a given view point and identifying specifically how far along each dimension they'll sit - is that it eliminates the vast majority of problems and uncertainty when we're actually making the construction... since all the decisions are already made.

That said, we don't have to be hyper accurate here - because nailing all the proportions perfectly is still not necessary for our purposes in this course. So "rounding" - that is, putting something at 4/5ths instead of 39/50ths - is perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't end up conflicting with something else that also gets rounded. Again, it all comes back to making decisions - asserting something about the construction you're going to produce is what matters, not being entirely "correct".

It's also worth mentioning that there are different kinds of decisions that can be made. For example, for the panel along the far right of the microwave, we could ostensibly say that the spacing along either side of that top circle.. ring.. thing... are going to be some arbitrary, undefined distance, but the same distance upon either side of it. As shown here, we can achieve this by using the mirroring technique - while it's less precise than having a specific margin on either side, having them be equal is almost as good for our purposes in this case.

Anyway! I've already rambled for a good while - fortunately that covers most of what I wanted to say. I'll just add a few quick notes about some other points I noticed:

• So in general, I would recommend establishing a basic rectangular "footprint" for each circular button/knob/whatever you want to put down. It's a lot easier to establish the specific position for something square/rectangular, and then put an ellipse inside of it, than just placing ellipses arbitrarily on their own. Precision! This would be especially useful for your switch, because it'd help you establish the footprint for the thumbsticks and buttons as being right on the surface of the object. Right now they look pretty lopsided and misaligned, since you ended up jumping into making more decisions all at once.

• For this pepper grinder (or at least that's what I assume it is, you have a pretty big jump from the subdivided box to the final object - you effectively lay out your major subdivisions then draw the whole object within it, rather than building up to it. Ideally you'd be building up those curved structures using flat surfaces/boxy structures first (as per what's explained here - that is first building it out in a boxy manner then rounding it out), but at the very least you should be drawing each major cross-sectional ellipse in full, rather than jumping straight to the curves you'd be able to see.

So! There's plenty to work on, but you're still doing great for our purposes here. Just remember - this lesson is the introduction to working with greater precision. Lesson 7 is going to be vastly more demanding in this regard.

I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.