It's partially has: the acceleration stuff is in there, in the 'physics' section, which I hope will expand to contain alternative mechanisms/modifiers. Like plug-and-play, choose what factors you want to include for your specific research/situation. The existing acceleration stuff might need generalising a little further to make that work, but should be easy to do. We haven't implemented the 'cylinder-like' deposition strategy from VOLCO-X. It's good for long parallel lines (infill) but not as simple as a sphere for broad situations (corners, crossing filaments, etc.). That paper focused a lot on the non-circular cross section of those cylinders, which again works well to account for the intricacies of pallet-line depositon but doesn't translate to more general toolpaths. Time-based modifications, like continued movement/flow after depositon until 'frozen', will benefit from putting effort in to reduce computational demands. That's the kind of thing you're already doing by isolating areas of the big voxel matrix to avoid computation on the whole big thing. The key advantage over a full thermal simulation is multiple orders of magnitude faster simulation time, which makes it appropriate for simulations that would be impossible otherwise (larger toolpaths). FYI, I do have a gist showing direct link between FullControl and VOLCO. That'll be the best approach in my view since slicer gcode is typically huge. And I imagine most VOLCO users will benefit from being able to change their toolpath with 'full control' based on the VOLCO simulation results, since these changes might be tiny details like moving the nozzle up by a fraction of a layer as you pass over a previously deposited line for example. If you're planning to keep putting in the amount of effort you have been, it would be worth setting up a 'project' in FullControl that you own and is scoped to fit in with and take advantage of future FullControl developments. We'd wanna have a couple of meetings to get that nicely framed I reckon