Although the chaos game guarantees that fractal will be filled out provided is described by an IFS where each transformation is a contraction and the probabilities associated with each are nonzero, there are some practical considerations.
The first is that on a computer a ``random'' sequence usually means a pseudo-random sequence with a finite (though large) period. Thus, you'd better be sure that the number of points required to fill out to the desired resolution is substantially smaller than your pseudo-random number generator's period.
Another consideration becomes obvious when you play with the probabilities associated with the IFS for . Some choices fill out certain addresses much more quickly than others. Indeed, the choice of probabilities adds some extra structure to : the density or measure associated with subsets of .
Barnsley (Fractals Everywhere) describes one implementation of this measure, defined for a grid containing : for each grid point in the grid the density is the fraction of total game points generated by the chaos game that land on . This measure combines both the size of 's intersection with and how efficiently the chosen probabilities fill in .
I have chosen a slightly different approach. For each sub-square of a grid containing a fractal-like object , I first approximate the size (``area'') of its intersection with by counting the number of addresses of to an arbitrary depth ( for example). I then divide the number of ``hits'' generated by the chaos game on this sub-square by the ``area'' of its intersection with to determine a density. I re-colour to indicate the relative density of various sub-squares, the densest coloured white, the sparsest red. The size of the sub-squares is user-selectable (by selecting address length). I think this approach gives a good qualitative description of how efficiently is being filled out.