|06 June 2013||#1|
Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Join Date: Jun 2010
new Stoke mx or FumeFX, how do they compare?
The new stoke mx give fluid capabilities.
So what are their common points? Is FFX better?
And can stoke be enough for fluid generation, for someone who can't afford both, or ffx?...
|06 June 2013||#2|
Join Date: Feb 2004
It looks like it is not an alternative to FumeFX but rather a high-volume particle simulator that you could use with FumeFX since it would be faster.
|06 June 2013||#3|
still wandering the binary void
salt lake city, USA
Join Date: Oct 2003
They are different tools that can do similar things. Stoke can be used for things like adding density to existing systems, as a particle birth system, or as a simple particle advector (is that a word LOL) I suspect (hope) Bobo will jump in and give you an eloquent description of what it is and isn't, I always seem to forget something.
Not to oversimplify things, basically:
Stoke has a simple advection solver.
Fume has a complex advection solver.
Stoke channels Velocity
Fume channels Velocity, Fuel, Temp, ect.
Stoke is more of a part of a system
Fume is a complete system
Fume has its own Shading and Illumination system, Stoke does not.
They are more complimentary tools, meaning they use each other well.
Which one to buy versus the other really depends on what you do. In most cases I would say Fume, as with max you need no other tools to do a huge amount of interesting effects. Stoke is part of a pipeline of tools, while it holds well on its own, it does so much more in conjunction with other tools.
My 2 cents on my limited exposure to it.
Last edited by JohnnyRandom : 06 June 2013 at 09:11 PM.
|06 June 2013||#4|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Thread automatically closed
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
|Thread Closed share thread|