I can certainly see many of the concerns I'd called out previously addressed, and while there are some points I would like to offer to ensure you can make the most of these exercises going forward, I think you've by and large done a pretty great job here.

Starting with your form intersections, your work here demonstrates a strong, well developed understanding of the relationships between these forms as they sit in 3D space. My only concerns in regards to this exercise fall to some of the choices you've made when executing the linework itself, or constructing some of the forms. For instance:

• It doesn't appear that you're using the ghosting method (or at least not applying it in its entirety), and as a result your linework does appear ever so slightly hesitant and tentative, rather than having each stroke being executed with confidence. The ghosting method is all about working through the 3 distinct phases for every stroke - first identifying the nature of the mark you wish to execute, then going through the motion repeatedly to familiarize your arm with the motion required of it, and finally a singular stroke with confidence, free from hesitation, committing to the prepared action rather than trying to control or steer it in any fashion. While previously I believe I called out sketchy/hesitant linework in your previous submission, your linework here isn't sketchy - it's a much reduced concern, and mainly falls to the hesitation behind the linework and the apparent skipping of the "planning" phase where we mark out where we want our lines to start and end.

• Cylinders and cones benefit greatly from the use of a minor axis line to help in the alignment of those ellipses relative to the form itself. Don't skip this when performing this exercise.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, your work here is looking solid. The ellipses and linework is all confidently drawn, and is definitely not hesitant in the manner of the form intersections. You're also applying the line extensions correctly and effectively, so to inform yourself on how your approach can be adjusted in subsequent pages of the exercise.

Moving onto the form intersection vehicles, overall your work here is well done. I am counting only 3 of the 4 pages of this exercise that were requested, but while you may want to reflect upon why the quantity was not delivered correctly for yourself, I'm happy to overlook it. One point to keep in mind for this however is that you should be drawing every form in its entirety, exactly as we would for the form intersections. You do not appear to be drawing through your forms here, both in terms of drawing the edges on the opposite sides of your boxes, as well as in terms of drawing every cylinder in its entirety rather than allowing them to be cut off from one another. Additionally, as noted above in regards to your form intersections, do not skip using your minor axes to help with aligning your cylindrical forms.

Jumping on down to your last two vehicle constructions, you've definitely pushed yourself to make much more thorough and effective use of the orthographic plans, and you did a good job of transferring them over to your 3D constructions. You've certainly poured a ton of time into them, have absolutely met the larger goal of executing the work to the best of your current ability, and as a result your vehicle constructions came out very solid and well defined.

The only piece of advice I have to offer in regards to this is that there are subdivisions that are directly useful and valuable - these are the ones that directly relate to a specific landmark, defining one of its boundaries so that a given form can be drawn within a specifically defined space - and then you've got the ones that are useful, but in a more general sense, and require additional consideration. These would include the kind of subdivisions we get when we make a more general grid, where not everything aligns so perfectly to the grid lines, because they're more about maintaining consistent spacing.

In your work, you've used both - you started with a more generalized grid, but you also used more valuable, specific and decision-driven subdivisions to ensure that the structures you built up in your construction were placed in explicitly defined locations. So that's great, but the thing I wanted to mention is that a generalized grid can have its uses (for example, creating a grid that extends from the front wheel of a car to the back wheel) can be useful, but you'll find that you end up investing a lot more time if you lay out a grid over the whole thing, without it necessarily making anything easier or better.

Long story short - don't feel compelled to lay down a consistently spaced grid over everything. You can jump straight into the more direct, landmark-based subdivisions, and can even use your grids on smaller scales, but always try and tailor your approach to the specific object you're constructing. That way your time can be focused on where it's most useful.

Anyway, all in all solid work. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson, and the course as a whole, as complete. Congratulations!