jumping stright to 3d

Do what feels right for you. Don't let others tell you how to do things. If you think you're ready to work on 3D, then do it. If you have trouble and think you should go back to try 2D, then do that.

As ScottC said, if you want to do 3d work, do 3d work. It sounds like you've already made a few 2d games which should mean you have a decent idea of what you're up against, I wouldn't think making some incredibly complex 2d game is a pre-requisite for 3d. Make sure you're strong in the mathematical background though, like vectors and matrices.

Heh. Well Scott, I won't tell him what to do -- though I will offer him some advice.

Species, I think the question at the heart of all of this is really whether you want to focus on 3D graphics or on making a game. The reason why people so often strongly recommend completing a 2D game first before taking on 3D is not because 3D graphics are so difficult in and of themselves -- it's because making a game is so involved otherwise. There are many different complicated components that make up a game, and careful design and thorough methods are required to bring everything together effectively. If things are handled poorly, you end up with a mess that's very hard to work with -- and that will make you tired and irritable, and likely bored. If there is no other impetus to work on it besides your own desire to do so (which is waning at this point), then you will leave it behind and take up another, more interesting new idea. This can lead you down a path of many half-finished projects, which is quite common among hobbyist game developers.

The knowledge required to actually finish games is borne of discipline and forged with experience. It is a knowledge of rigorously enforced slow-and-steady methodology. Most anyone schooled in these truths can assure you that you want to minimize complexity when working with new, unexplored technology -- that is, if you're still figuring out what is involved in making a stable and complete game engine (and if you think graphics and input are it, you've a lot to still pick up grasshopper), doing that at the same time as figuring out what is involved in 3D graphics is indeed taking quite a massive bite for yourself, which you'll find difficult to chew. It's encouraged to do 2D first because, with the graphics so simple, it's a fine grounds to let the logical organization of a simple game engine framework come to fruition before upping the ante to 3D. It's building a backbone before you walk, basically...and it's much easier to do this than it is to arrange an effective game engine design around some quickily hacked up 3D code (which your first explorations into 3D graphics surely will be, as most everyone's are).

If, however, you are less interested in making a game engine than in playing around in 3D graphics -- which I don't mean to insult; it can certainly be a lot of fun and a very worthwhile activity -- then by all means screw 2D and go to 3D. It's basically a question of what you want to explore and focus on first -- 3D graphics, or a proper game engine. You can best make that call because you know best about what you want to achieve.

thansk for your advice people,
screw the 2d stuff. im jumping right in at the deep end!