Sorry I'm late. I wasn't saying all they needed to do to get perfectly realistic fire in all scenarios is hire one guy with a 1950x. Our pipeline still ends on

Sorry I'm late. I wasn't saying all they needed to do to get perfectly realistic fire in all scenarios is hire one guy with a 1950x. Our pipeline still ends on a supercomputer. I'm saying if you see a garbage fire in a film you don't need to write an article about "why fire hard". The answer is "they were unwilling to pay for a realistic fire". We're not talking billions of dollars here. Not everything is Avatar. But like I said, studios often expect miracles for little to no money. Fire isn't like skin/faces which is actually genuinely ridiculously hard to pull off. >Although I really do wonder if we have accurate enough physics models of the igniting gases to truly realistically show the way licks of flames ignite in a strong wind -- as opposed to a more bog-standard campfire type That would make an excellent article because you don't actually want a "realistic" fire. Don't forget we're doing entertainment, not science. Turbulence in media is just a noise function. I want a pretty vector field visual to indicate where and how my sim will move. Pyrotechnics is the same. We want control. Realism is undesirable. It's like asking for realistic silencers. John Wick is amazing because the silencers aren't realistic. The explosions and fires you see in film/tv aren't functionally realistic (though manipulated to appear so) and that's a good thing.