I know you're aware of the whole "no self critique" thing, but in the future, it's still best to avoid extraneous comments so that any questions you may have don't risk being missed. I'm going to critique your homework as I normally would, but if there are any questions you have afterwards that are not addressed in the feedback, feel free to ask (although again, focus just on the questions).

Starting with your cylinders around arbitrary minor axes, I did notice a few issues.

  • Cases like 5, 11, 14, 21, 25 appear to have the wrong side of the cylinder filled with hatching. The last one I noted was 100 so it appears you may have caught the mistake after that point, although whether or not you understood why it was incorrect is unclear. While it's not technically an issue that the wrong side was filled with hatching, that is how it appears. What is actually happening is that the two visual cues that tell us about how foreshortened a given cylinder is - the shift in the overall scale from the ellipse closer to the viewer to the ellipse farther away (where the scale shrinks as we move farther back) and the shift in degree (where the closer end has a narrower degree than the farther end, which is proportionally wider) get reversed. So in effect, one end would be larger in overall scale, but proportionally narrower, while the other end should be smaller in its overall scale, but proportionally wider. These cases had one end that was both larger in scale and proportionally wider, and the other being smaller in scale and proportionally narrower. This leaves us with no way to actually decide which end is closer to the viewer, and which is farther away.

  • Cases like 6, 19, 33, all the way through to 141 and 149 appear to be cases where you've forced the vanishing point for the cylinder's length-wise dimension to infinity, resulting in the side edges of the cylinder effectively being parallel on the page. This is incorrect, as explained in the second point of this section of reminders. Because our cylinders are rotated randomly throughout this challenge, we cannot force any vanishing points to infinity (which would only happen if the cylinder was specifically aligned perpendicularly to the viewer's angle of sight, which does not appear to have been your intent.

These issues aside, you have varied the rate of foreshortening of your cylinders, and the last 50 or so do demonstrate a decent grasp on how to approach this going forward - just be mindful of what I've called out here, and in the case of avoiding forcing those vanishing points to infinity, be sure to take more care when going through the instructions.

Continuing onto the cylinders in boxes, overall your work has come along decently, although I am noticing a few cases where you've extended some of your lines incorrectly (153, 154, 189). While this didn't come up a ton in your work here, honestly any cases where it happens is a little alarming, as it's an issue that is specifically addressed in the 250 box challenge, along with this strategy for ensuring they're always extended correctly. When students run into issues with this later into the course, it usually implies that they may not have been including the freely rotated boxes (and their line extensions) from the box challenge into their regular warmup routine, thus falling out of practice with it.

I also did notice this page where you skipped the line extensions entirely, as well as 213 where you only extended one set of lines.

This exercise is really all about helping develop students' understanding of how to construct boxes which feature two opposite faces which are proportionally square, regardless of how the form is oriented in space. We do this not by memorizing every possible configuration, but rather by continuing to develop your subconscious understanding of space through repetition, and through analysis (by way of the line extensions).

Where the box challenge's line extensions helped to develop a stronger sense of how to achieve more consistent convergences in our lines, here we add three more lines for each ellipse: the minor axis, and the two contact point lines. In checking how far off these are from converging towards the box's own vanishing points, we can see how far off we were from having the ellipse represent a circle in 3D space, and in turn how far off we were from having the plane that encloses it from representing a square.

So, needless to say, those line extensions are important. Now, for the most part you still did apply them correctly, although I did notice that the way in which you were approaching them is a little susceptible to errors when the proportions of those faces are intentionally drawn way off from being squares in 3D space. For example, if we look at 203 and identify their actual minor axes (I've used a digital tool here for accuracy's sake), you'll find that it doesn't coincide with any of the line extensions present, and more importantly, it doesn't coincide with any of the red line extensions there (which is the colour you were using for the lines that were meant to extend in that direction). Now I don't think you actually skipped out on drawing them - rather, there's two possible things that occurred. Either you fell into the habit of drawing your minor axis lines as never deviating that far from where they ought to be, and you simply drew them incorrectly, missing the fact that they were wildly off base, or you saw the green line extension for the contact point and mistakenly interpreted that as being the same thing and figured the minor axis line was already identified. In the case of the latter, it helps to pay attention to the colours we're using. Often students will think of them as being based on the direction in which the line extends, but the better way to employ them is to have the colour denote which VP they should be converging towards. That way if you end up seeing a red line that is wildly off from where it should be, you'll understand it to be a significant mistake and at least look into why it may have happened.

Through the second half of your cylinders in boxes, you do largely improve, and towards the end I can certainly see your estimation of those proportions coming together quite well. Part of this, I believe, is that you shifted towards more dramatic foreshortening which moved you away from the tendency to draw your boxes as though at least one of their vanishing points was forced to infinity (which again, would be incorrect due to the forms being freely rotated).

One last point about the "Why does this line feel better?" in regards to 210 - that would be because it is correct. For the purposes of this exercise it doesn't actually matter, but in terms of drawing actual cylinders, the way you approached it in 209 by connecting the contact points of each ellipse does not give you a complete silhouette of the cylinder itself. 210 is correct because it encloses the whole cylinder.

Anyway, all in all you've done well, though you certainly would have benefited from paying closer attention to the instructions - especially these reminders and the section discussing the degree shift (which itself echoes the concepts introduced in Lesson 1's ellipses section). Do be sure to take more care going forwards.

And of course, when submitting your homework, stick to just listing whatever questions you may have. While I understand it is not the intent, anything else will derail our flow when working, causing things to take a lot longer than they need to.