Wikipedia says yes!
It had potential. So Flame like.
Also already with the requested features 
Not to derail this whole thread, but⌠god-awful name. Toxik. Not just unappealing because you know, you shouldnât be associating your software with toxicity, but also just sounds like the name of some band that opened for Korn in Cleveland in 2002.
1 Like
Nope. This is 100% technological debt from the origin of Flame 30 years ago.
1 Like
very good point @ALan - i think they will prob need to update this, even from a naming convention standpoint at the very least to avoid appearing archaic. True multi-channel workflow is a LONG requested feature⌠but i imagine it touches every single node, every single workflow in the entire application and is a herculean, multi-year undertaking with not a whole lot of PR value⌠it will need to be done at some point however⌠just when is the question. for really massive comps (hello CG) the efficiencies you speak of are huge
2 Likes
Big +1.
This is one example Nuke has right. Putting things down one pipe is definitely simpler and easier in a bigger batch.
Thank you @ALan for your video and post. I think if we are going to change it we should just go the whole hog and get the one pipe.
And go for infinite bounding box too. Iâve defended flame for years on this because it was wisywig. But maybe I was wrong.
Why donât I use nuke? Paint is better in flame. It just together feels like I am working with the picture in flame. Itâs more tangible.
1 Like
None of us will ever see this, and we all know it.
1 Like
Thatâs what they said about Batch in smoke.
Well Phil, we had a good run. It was nice knowinâ ya.
-Matt
1 Like
