Re: fcpx or not?

Brian, I'd like your opinion on using Smoke for effects work for what I'd call "eye candy" - effects and such to spice up an edit, not necessarily the "destination", if you will. For example, some of my work is corporate, where often it's not a complicated promo effects stack, just some glows, particles, sizzly transitions, the like. Back in the day on Quantel, I could get exactly the look I wanted, but it'd be a lengthy process of "designing" a unique effect. Fast forward a decade to FCP7, and tons of plugins, and it's simply "preview a few plugs, find something that's pretty close, and away we go". Sort of how I think of Motion vs AE; Motion is great for fast comps that look good, easy behaviors, etc, but if I need precise control I head over to AE. So while I don't think Motion is overall as good as AE, I'll often use it because it gives a decent fx look, quickly.

So in Smoke, I'm wondering if the "depth and finesse" would tend to slow down the "quick n' dirty eye candy" type of work, mostly relating to using 3rd party plugs in FCP/Motion/AE (often with many presets), where on Smoke, it's Genarts and....?

Caveat - I'm framing my question as a "one man band" workflow.

Thanks!

"Constituo, ergo sum"

Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
CMX-Quantel-Avid-FCP-Premiere-3D-AFX-Crayola
"What a long strange trip it's been...."