Hey Mitch,
I think maybe I see the issue. Currently the algorithm calculates the distance to the projected point from the surface, not the closest point on the surface. But I feel like intuitively it would make sense for it to do the latter. To be honest, I implemented that setting like 5 years ago so I'm not sure why I chose to do the former. I'm sure at the time I had my reasons but in retrospect it doesn't seem obvious, so I'll change it.
Attached is a playblast of behavior you can expect in the next build. Does this seem more like what you want? Further particles from the actual surface (rather than their projected locations) are less influenced....
I think maybe I see the issue. Currently the algorithm calculates the distance to the projected point from the surface, not the closest point on the surface. But I feel like intuitively it would make sense for it to do the latter. To be honest, I implemented that setting like 5 years ago so I'm not sure why I chose to do the former. I'm sure at the time I had my reasons but in retrospect it doesn't seem obvious, so I'll change it.
Attached is a playblast of behavior you can expect in the next build. Does this seem more like what you want? Further particles from the actual surface (rather than their projected locations) are less influenced....