Starting with your form intersections, overall you're doing quite well, and demonstrating a strong, well developing understanding of how these different forms relate to one another in 3D space. There is however one area where I still think you understand how to approach it, and know what you're doing, but where things can be made a little more clear and intentional - and that's in intersections between spheres and cylinders where both the rounded surface along the length of the cylinder and the flat surface at one end participate in the intersection.

Overall, it's pretty clear that you understand how each intersection is essentially broken down into pieces - rather than being a matter of this form intersecting with that form, it's really about different surfaces. A curving surface intersecting with a curving surface, a flat with a flat, a curved with a flat - and how they all are stitched together to define the whole relationship between the forms.

That said, it did stand out that the transition point, where the intersection here hits the cylinder's edge, that the intersection line is not quite as sharp as it should be. There are definitely cases where we want a more gradual transition from one "piece" to another (like where at the very tail on the left side of the line I'd drawn in red twists back around to go from tracing more obviously along the sphere, to allowing the sphere to take dominance.

But there are also points where sharp, immediate jumps from one trajectory to another are also required - specifically when we hit the edge of one form, which always marks a jump from one surface to another. You can also see this concept demonstrated here in this diagram.

Continuing onto your object constructions, you have done an excellent job. I have a couple suggestions to offer, but they're on fairly minor points. Honestly, right now I noticed one main thing, but I'm hoping that by the time I'm done writing some filler, I'll figure out another.

One of the most important things you've done here is to work with a very high degree of precision in your constructions. 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.

Throughout the lesson, you've done an excellent job of first analyzing the object (by doing those plan view subdivisions) to identify at what proportion along each major dimension each feature lays, and then applying those same steps to your three dimensional construction.

So, I fortunately have come up with a few different things to call out - though as promised, they're all quite minor.

• Firstly, line weight. You haven't done this very much, but i can see it being a bit more of an issue when you hit Lesson 7. Keep in mind that you should not be going back over your object construction with a thicker pen, or to otherwise arbitrarily put down line weight and separate the drawing into an underdrawing/clean-up pass. Keep focusing your line weight on areas where there are actual overlaps, and restrict them to those limited localized areas, as shown here. Note also that this is mentioned in the part of the instructions where I give students permission to work with ballpoint. To that point, I strongly recommend that in the last lesson, you do use ballpoint pen (proper ballpoint that allows you to draw more faintly, rather than a fineliner or gel pen that'll produce very rich, dark lines). All of the reasons we avoid it in earlier lessons are effectively negated by the use of the ruler, when putting down the subdivisions and bounding boxes.

• Secondly, hatching. I can see that you've made some pretty extensive use of the kind of thicker hatching shown in the bluetooth speaker demo, and I feel I should elaborate on the purpose it serves, and where it's most suitable. This of course is subjective, and entirely subject to what it is you're looking to achieve, so you can take the more as recommendations that pertain especially to the limitations we have here in this course (working with ink and construction lines). So the main thing to keep in mind is that when a viewer sees a primitive form - like a sphere, a cylinder, or a cone, it's very obvious that it's a rounded surface. When we take a box and round out the corners however, it's somewhat less clear - so in some places, adding the hatching lines can help to reinforce that illusion. I would however be quite conservative in where I use them. You can also refer to these notes about hatching in general.

• At this point I'm being nitpicky in order to earn my keep - but I did notice that there were some cases where you opted not to push forward on capturing additional elements of some constructions. For example, the scale construction's buttons have a couple elements to them that you did not add. There's the recessed ring around them, and then the fact that the buttons are ever so slightly raised. Now, in all honesty I'm not sure if I would have done it differently from you - but I did want to shine light on it just in case it wasn't a conscious decision, with a reason behind it.

• I should also point out that those buttons in your top view did not actually occupy a specific, defined position in either axis - they're floating there, not quite grounded against any particular landmark. The way you approached them in the construction itself is better (and the way you've laid out does at the very least maintain symmetry), but this also means that no clear decision was made about where they should be positioned. It's just an area where more precision could have been maintained.

And that about covers it! I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the great work.