Ok not sure if this is gallery worthy or if its got flaws, I need some objective points of view. I've used a jet by Quest, thanks Quest, and the flock of birds by Kemal, thanks Kemal. I guess since I don't know squat about jets, is the flame out of it realistic or unrealistic? Any tips or pointers are welcome. Thanks (the sky is a photo I took)

I actually like it, maybe airplane is not posed as it should be in relation to POV, flame could be bit better, I would delete all those rockets of the plane, silhouette looks bit complicated ! :D Good job ! :D

For a jet to be below the birds it would need to be much bigger in relation to them. Either that or those are some humongous birds.

I used to see F-18's going around like this when I used to live in Hampton, Virginia. So it's really not that far off from being realistic. If anything is off it's the lighting on the jet when compared to the background clouds. (Darker perhaps?) They look smallish in photos too. It wouldn't hurt to use a hint of a dark exhaust trail. I think it could be better composition-wise. (If you're going to have the jet, why not make it the subject and get in closer?)

On myyoure quite welcome Ang and thanks for the credit! I love seeing what other people do with my models. I get the illusion as if someone was casually walking by with camera in hand when all of a sudden they turn and see an aircraft going through maneuvers and clicked a picture and caught the moment frozen in time. No posing, just instant reflex, just as a photograph would be taken in the spur of the moment with little opportunity on the photographers part for artistic composition, one of those gotcha moments. I think its great that you as an artist, can capture and deliver that moment. Missing that centrality of compositional focus, esthetically speaking, its as beautiful as any warplane going through maneuvers from a distance would be. If on the other hand you depicted the warplane up close and personal, say, breaking the sound barrier, just barely skimming over the oceans surface displacing and spewing mountains of water in its wake, you would then get a different reaction. I see no problem with the birds since everyone knows intuitively that birds are smaller than planes and to see them there only means that they are much closer to the viewer than the plane is. Perhaps they were startled by the buzzing of the jet, or the breaking of the sound barrier. The trees and the sky work is fantastic and really lends credibility to the jet, since any aircraft aficionado would instantly know that such an aircraft doesnt really exist. If you wanted contrails then perhaps blending some narrow, slender cylinders with some transparent cloud texture as a contrail behind the wings and tail is possible, that is, if you really wanted contrails but I think that gets a bit tricky. I think the afterburner flame looks fine given the color of the sky for contrast, they often have a ting of blue in it, just a smidgen but I dont think its necessary. You could, you know, if you werent aware, ungroup the model in Bryce and subtract, or add for that matter, any piece you want. I think it looks good as is and comes quite close to the illusion of being photorealistic if that is, and I think it is what you were after.

Thanks! Ok so I'll try a few things later on this. And this pic is one of the first ones I was doing, when I was trying for a contrail. But the more I worked on it the worse it got till I ended up deleting it, lol.

Actually, Ang, you're right to delete the con-trail. Con-trails (Condensation trails, AKA vapour-trails) don't usually appear til the aircraft is high enough that air-temperature has dropped considerably, thus cooling the water vapour from the exhaust. The same thing happens with car exhaust - you don't see it unless the weather is cold. And Jet engines expel water vapour at a much higher temperature...:-)) Nice pic!! Cheers, (just showing off...) Diolma

I liked post #6 best. This looks like a plane in trouble, just been hit by an AA missile but not yet got to the point of the big explosion. You should see these buggers over my house on tuesdays and thursdays, the only difference being that the RAF doesn't use these planes. BTW - I've yet to see engine exhaust flares during the day on the RAF planes - from any angle...... just my 0.02p. Well done Ang! Sure beats my condom!

Not all vapor trails are high altitude or cold weather... On a day with high enough humidity condensation trails can show up just above sea level. All it takes is a pressure differential big enough over the surface of aircraft, usually seen in the turbulent areas at the wingtips. (Mostly seen when an aircraft is going very fast or pulling a hard manuever.) Low altitude vapor trails usually have nothing to do with engine exhaust and is just ambient moisture being condensed from the air. The noticable difference is the low altitude ones usually dissappate almost as soon as they are formed and wouldn't trail very far from the aircraft. The high altitude thing only applies to vapor trails that stay long after the aircraft has departed. In which case the jet exhaust explanation applies. BTW, the exhaust trail I suggested earlier isn't a condensation trail. Just some soot particles. You cold easily postwork it and make the sky just a tint darker where it would follow the aircraft. If you look at some photos you'll see what I mean.

@pauljs: I agree with every word you said. I was just trying to keep things fairly simple... Cheers, Diolma