A friend of mine on FaceBook asked me this question:
“Can Blender do simulations and modelling same as the quality of this video?”
I can see the modelling side but not sure on other physic simulations and video editing stuffs, so can you help me answering this, please? I am more inclined to think this is the product of a game engine like Unity or of other 3D softwares such as 3D max or Maya. Am I right?
Those simulations of rigid bodies or particles are not particularly realist.
They consist in representations of flows in tanks of machines, bu they are not very high detailed or corresponding to millions of particles or rigid bodies.
You can do that by using old particles following curves, geometry nodes or mantaflow.
Most of animations in this video are not simulations at all.
They are just animated arrows or animated curves or animated textures.
And there is no complicated video editing stuff, too.
Blender can do that and a lot better.
You can show the Made with Blender playlist of showreels on blender.org youtube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa1F2ddGya__fTBj6FlL39NEBPZLB50ey
The old demos have more simulations and less grease pencil than recent ones.
Thank you ever so much. Do you know what software would produce the video I asked?
Honestly, that could have been done with any 3D animation software.
The only way to know is to ask the creators of the video.
There are software for CAD work that have basic rendering and animations abilities.
The video is just a camera following objects, particles along a path.
Sometimes, camera stops to demonstrate an exploded vision of machine or a flow inside it.
That does not require complicated animation rigs like for a character of a cartoon movie.
That is just requiring to have particles and few physics solvers.
Blender has that, since decades. So, a lot of other software have that, too.
Generally, 3dsmax and After Effects are used a lot. 
※ The link below is someone who creates infographics using blender.
I think we can look at it as an example of the possibility.
You might refer to Natron if your friend is on a budget and doesn’t want to invest in After Effects. Natron is Open Source…
Yeah, they definitely aren’t.
OP - For something like this, they often don’t need to be… product demos don’t need to have accurate physics, they just need to look good - so, i’d advise to fake it when possible.
Yes, it can and I would argue a good artist can easily exceed this level of quality.
While Blenders simulation tools are somewhat old and not as good as some of the competitors, the detail level of simulation shown in the video is not really high, nor really accurate or especially demanding. Neither for the artist nor the computer.
There is nothing in this video that couldn’t be done with 10 year old software (and even hardware).
It is essentially more like art directed motion graphics rather than hardcore simulation.
Simulation in Blender gets into critical territory when you want to simulate large scale destruction, high density and highly detailed fluid simulations like an ocean breaking on the shore or big explosions.
The shown example is several orders of magnitude less dense, but it is very detailed in animation and therefore demands a lot of effort and work in regards to that.
My best guess here is that this probably was produced directly by CAD software. Which could produce a visualization that was “good enough,” based only on the existing CAD model. This video achieves the business purpose: it illustrates the function of the machinery well enough to be understood, and does so with an economy of visual production effort.
In that respect, I think it’s a lot like “a slide show,” and for the same reasons. You want to depict and hopefully sell the machine. To do this, you need “clarity,” and of course “rendering speed.” Photorealism is not important here. Blender, therefore, is “not the tool for the job.”
You do have a point.