Hey @solub, thanks for the reply! No worries, this thread is not that old and I’m still thinking about this topic.

Here’s an output I got

I initially suspected the same thing as you did. However, Sage Jenson mentioned that all he did was played with the parameters he listed in his article. I’ve thought of a few ways one could play with the parameters. Here are a few:

- Scaling the deposition amount by the particle’s velocity
- Scaling the particle’s velocity by the intensity of the trailmap
- Scaling the turning angle by the particle’s velocity
- Scaling particle velocity by distance to center of screen

and so on…

I’m quite sure by playing with the parameters like this in a creative way and in creative combinations, we could arrive at similar outputs as Sage did. After all, this is the part of creative coding that’s for the artist to play with!

The animations are much more fluid, material transportation and deposit looks incredibly more organic.

I believe this has to do with how he implemented it: fully on the gpu. The sheer amount of particles (5-10 million) will definitely make the simulation look more refined. My simulation had only 5,000 particles because I implemented it on the CPU.

Thanks for the link to the new document! I will check it out.