FumeFX vs. Afterburn

#1

I’ve used Afterburn for a few projects on clients machines but not FumeFX.
Now I’m at the point where I want to get my own license.
From what I can see, FumeFX and Afterburn do the same thing. So I’m wondering if this is the case or are they complementary? If you had to pick one over the other, which would you have in your toolbox?

#2

Nope, completely different, fume is a fluids simulator (ie dynamics), afterburn is an atmospheric shader (ie no dynamics)

They can definitely be complimentary.

Really both should be in your toolbox IMO. Fume is so versatile, you can do WAY more than just fire and smoke with it.

Mule through that long as hell sticky FumeFX thread then drop in to the Krakatoa thread in the Particle Flow sub-forum, and check out some of the crazy stuff being done :slight_smile:

#3

Thanks for the info, I’ll take your advice.

-M

#4

FumeFX allows fine control over fire and smoke with real world motion, or computational fluid dynamics. AferBurn cannot do the detailed motion of vortices we see in real smoke and fire. The more RAM you have and the more CPU cores the better, because it will simulate and cache data first, then you render the sim, similar to RealFlow.

AfterBurn, as you know is great for quick fast puffs, blasts, cig smoke, or far off smoke and clouds, however FumeFX sims fire and smoke to real motion flow, based on a grid size. They are different tools, and if you can grab it, as both are useful for different vfx.

Go to those forums Johnny mentions, or try You Tube for FumeFX.

#5

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.