>Mentally rotate boxes >Keep drawing and going >No longer

If you have no idea what you're doing, you aren't learning.

Be careful about that.

I did mindless drawing all the time in Art class and on the test I realized those On-par sketches I did didn't mean crap.

So, make sure your brain is not hamfisting.

boxes are easy to understand when you learn about VPs

Before that it seems like there are infinite amount of ways it can go

>>2929739
That's the issue.
I've internalized it to the point that it's completely intuitive.

I never expected for this to happen.

They used to be difficult.

Be careful, you're probably not thinking about all the possibilities.

Did you try both light and heavy perspective (i.e. close-ups/high FOV with severe convergence, and far-away boxes with low convergence?)

Did you handle positioning? Cases where the box is rotated but not a lot, so only two faces are visible? Cases where three faces are visible, but because of position, not rotation?

Can you keep dimensions of the box consistent under rotation? Did you try narrow boxes, cubes? Can you keep multiple boxes consistent in the same scene?

If so congrats, just make sure you're not getting overconfident

>>2929731
if you think this is right you're wrong.
if you think anything ever is right chances are you're wrong.

Be careful. You don't want to be wrong, which you are. Did you finish those errands? I don't think so.

>>2929833
You're pushing art into a sacred, un-learnable mystic skill by saying such a thing.

It's not exactly animation, and perspective is completely mechanical. There's an objective answer to these boxes, but I don't feel like plotting it out in perspective because it's just not worth the time.

>>2929836
Once you get to arbitrary rotations, the pure technical approach is way too complicated to ever use. Intuition is the only way, or 3D if you absolutely must be accurate.

As long as everything stays parallel to the ground I guess it's not too bad, but even then measuring distances can be a pain unless you are drawing perfect ellipses every time. Even with infinite time, I suspect intuition might be more accurate for most due to the problem of compounding small errors.

>>2929851
It sounds like you're trying to become more of an industrial designer than an illustrator.

I feel like you failed to clarify what you mean by "measuring distances".

I'm not sure if you mean in perspective (how many feet from point A to point B), or if you mean on a cube itself (ellipse on ground plane to rotate cube, etc)

Can you give me an example of an arbitrary rotation? Do you mean taking a pre-tilted cube (up or down) and then rotating it to the side?

Personally, I would never do that in the first place.

>>2929856
Nah, it's the opposite, I was just saying the intuition is important and mechanical approaches don't get that far

>Can you give me an example of an arbitrary rotation?
If you represent the torso/hips of a figure with boxes, you'll get this. Nothing is parallel to the ground plane, the boxes tilt on multiple axes, they are still related in an important way.

Not saying it's hard to deal with, just that it would be very difficult (and not worth it) to deal with 'mechanically' as in >>2929836

>>2929883
You're absolutely correct.
I strike a middle ground between mechanics and intuition, and I can focus more on the figure itself because of it.

It would be an absolute nightmare to make everything perfectly square and related to a vanishing point.

>>2929731
>but it's completely correct

but it isn't tho