I'm gonna have to meet you half way, I think the fire should be casting very subtle shadows. The scene is not very bright, perhaps under a bridge? And the fire is clearly bright enough to illuminate the environment with an orange glow. Now, keeping in mind that shadows are merely the ABSENCE of light, there should obviously be some obstructed areas where the orange glow doesn't exist. These obstructed (occluded) areas would be called shadows.
Sure, i would have no problem with that. However, isn't that already the case here? The highly reflective, polished car trunk to the left is only partially coloured by the yellow light, the other parts are illuminated by white daylight. Same for the puddles: They are showing strong reflections of the fire (like a mirror), just like the car. Or the white skylight reflections on the chairs arm rest vs. the yellow fire tint on the sitting surface. I'm actually amazed by how well even small variations are lit here, e.g. the light distortion on the car by the trunks curved surfave.
The white skylight reflections on highly reflective surfaces - asphalt is only highly reflective if wet - show the scene is illuminated by skylight quite strongly. Also its diffuse skylight. What i mean by this, the scattering is stronger than on a clear sunny day when its just atmospheric shattering by air molecules. As soon as the day is cloudy, or the air isn't 100% clear (smog, dust, fog etc), there will be less sunlight directly from the sun, but (if the clouds are not that thick = white) more indirect light those extra scattering sources - basically the whole cloud cover / smog serves as additional reflectors. Thats why you would get a strong shadow below a bridge on a sunny day (since most sunlight is direct) and a weak one without shadow contours (just general darkening) on a day with cloud cover.
Example of fire color tone but no visible shadow in daylight (also shows how only high reflection surfaces show color change unless extremely close, no fire tint otherwise):
Many pics from fires are during the night where - absent other sources - the fire creates dramatic illumination and strong shadows. But on a cloudy day, or in direct sunlight, the extra illumination from fire won't even make a dent of a shadow (well physically yes, but not visible for humans). Maybe think of open fire while the other lamps are on in the living room, or a barbecue on a cloudy day...
To put it another way, I don't want to see anything added to that scene, I want to see something subtracted.
If the fire was pinpoint or small area like a torch and there was a obstucting object between fire and viewer, e.g. a big box instead of the chair, and it was close enough to the fire to be inside the area where the fire colors the (nonwet) asphalt, then the area behind that obstruction should not be tinted in the fire spectrum.
Sure, i would have no problem with that, thats correct. But adding a visible and contoured chair shadow from that gasoline fire - which is what some seem to expect, while strong daylight illumination (not direct sunlight, see above) is present - would not reflect reality. Might work as expected on a very clear sunny day, when the sun is directly above the bridge and everything below is in deep shadow.
I have no problem saying the graphics - especially in the deep dive video - still need adjustments. I'm just a little surprised that people took offense in the fire example specifically, cause that is more realistic than most other games or movie SFX fires i know.