Jumping in with the form intersections, I noticed a couple spots where you may have fallen into the trap of going on auto-pilot rather than considering the actual surfaces that were present in the given intersection - but for the most part, your work here is demonstrating a well developing understanding of the relationships in 3D space between these forms. The other category of issues I noticed was where you opted to draw "through" your intersections, which caused more visual confusion than anything else. Drawing through our forms themselves does make things more cluttered, but we get a big benefit out of it. Drawing through your intersection lines however doesn't have nearly as much benefit, while making the exercise considerably more confusing, so I'd advise against it. Better to stick to the way the exercise is performed in its instructions and demonstration.

I drew these notes directly on your work, and as they do at times address thinking about the surfaces and how the individual pairs of them along the length of an intersection interact, I think it'd be a good idea to share this diagram with you again (as I did in Lesson 6's critique).

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, it appears that you're continuing to apply the instructions for this one correctly, so all is well here. It's included here both because it helps students get in the mindset for the lesson, and also because it gives me an additional opportunity to make sure they're applying it correctly, so they can continue making full use of it in their own practice in the future.

Onto the form intersection vehicles, you've done a great job here. Many students get a little too caught up in actually drawing vehicles - in the sense of digging into way more complexity than the simple instructions for this exercise allow, and in so doing they can miss the point. The point being, to remind us that we're still working from big to small, simple to complex. A lot of the more detailed demos can make it feel more like we're setting up a forest of lines and only stitching them together into a cohesive object at the very end - like building our vehicles out of toothpicks, when really we're doing the same thing we always have (albeit with some added tools to help control proportion): whittling a block of wood down from a simple primitive down to something much more complex and detailed.

I believe your understanding of this notion carried over very well from your form intersection vehicles into your more detailed vehicle constructions, and by and large you've done pretty well. That said, I do see a noticeable choice being made where past a certain threshold of complexity/detail, you've decided that having those decisions made in the orthographic plan is no longer worth it, and so you end up approximating them instead. Many students do this as well (and still merits addressing, given the context of this course where we practice doing everything hyper-intentionally throughout our work here, so that we can better rewire our brains and build up the underlying skills and understanding that allow us to approximate such elements more effectively when drawing outside of the course), although there is definitely a shift from how thoroughly you applied those orthographic plans in your second attempt at Lesson 6, to now. You appear to be laying out the orthographic plans to lay out the major elements, but when it comes to things like car doors, door handles, and other similar small elements, you opt against defining those decisions ahead of time. Note that an explanation of the orthographic plans relevance to this lesson in particular is explained here to help address the fact that the demonstrations, being older, don't apply them as consistently or as completely as would be most beneficial to students.

Continuing on, another point I noticed was that when applying the approach for handling curves as explained here in Lesson 6, I can clearly see the signs that you are indeed using that technique, but noticed that it could be employed more effectively. I've added some notes to one of your constructions here, and they go over two main issues:

  • To the left, you've got two neighbouring corners to which you're applying curves (the top plane and the side plane). Before you can round them out together, you have to round them out separately first, so as to maintain as much of the 3D solidity of that boxy structure. The more of these little steps we skip, the more likely we are to slip back into thinking of what we're drawing as though it is just two dimensional, rather than something truly 3D.

  • To the right, I noticed that the curves you were adding to the cab of the car were blending together into a single continuous path that was always curving. This ends up becoming too aggressive of an adjustment to the silhouette that never has the opportunity to ground itself in the original straightaways of the boxy structure, and so it can feel kind of like you've pulled a sock over the whole structure - everything gets too bubbly. Instead, try and maintain those straightaways as much as possible, and focus the individual curves to the corners only.

As a side note - this is more a matter of aesthetics, so as far as this course goes, not that important - but what might help make your drawings for this course come out a little better, is two (almost contradictory but not quite) things:

  • Remember to reserve your filled areas of solid black for cast shadows only - which you are doing for the most part, but there are definitely places where you're filling in side planes or void spaces with black - for example, the wheelwells, or some of these protruding ridges on your taxicab. Cast shadows require a form casting the shadow and a surface receiving it, where the relationship between them creates a spatial relationship that is defined by the shape of the shadow itself. Cases where you fill in a side plane however simply fills in an existing shape, and does not define the spatial relationship between two separate entities, instead relying on the idea that as things turn towards the light source they get lighter, and as they turn away, they get darker.

  • The one exception to that is that you can, fill in the complete interior of the cab. One can argue that because it's on the inside, it would receive shadow from the forms enclosing the cab, but in truth it just looks better to have the interior get flattened out. Note that while you were doing this partially in your drawings, you only did it for the upper section of the cab (like the pillars/posts separating out the windows) but not the lower section. This makes things look very inconsistent.

Additionally, I find that not filling in the cast shadow of the car as a whole (which falls on the ground underneath), and instead just outlining it looks better - but again, that's a matter of taste, and not relevant to the course.

Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and mark this lesson, and the course as a whole, as complete. Congratulations! There are certainly things you can do to continue getting more out of these exercises, as I've outlined above, but I think that you are entirely capable of applying them yourself. As a whole your work demonstrates a decent understanding of the concepts and a solidly progressing understanding of 3D space. I would still encourage you to continue practicing constructional drawing exercises like those you've been introduced to throughout this course, to keep honing those skills on your own.