# Influence of spacing on quality

**URL:** <https://discourse.slicer.org/t/influence-of-spacing-on-quality/14999>\
**Category:** Support\
**Created:** [December 10, 2020, 10:34pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/influence-of-spacing-on-quality/14999 "2020-12-10T22:34:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lassoan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/lassoan/32/13_2.png) [@lassoan](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/lassoan)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 2020, 2:01am UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/influence-of-spacing-on-quality/14999/6 "2020-12-15T02:01:34Z")

</div>

In most cases **option A or B** works best, as it is robust and allows easy editing of the shell.

If you need extremely thin walls then **option C** may be the best because option B would require too much memory and while option C is generally unreliable, it works acceptably well for thin shells. You can get a shell model of a segment as shown in this [example](https://www.slicer.org/wiki/Documentation/Nightly/ScriptRepository#Create_a_hollow_model_from_boundary_of_solid_segment). You need to then cut off the caps, for example using “Plane cut” tool of Dynamic modeler module:

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/uploads/slicer/original/3X/a/d/ad9317a30b8a3dfb156d4bd9197b968d5b7f6b4a.jpeg)

Based on what you describe, option C seems to be the most suitable solution for your particular use case.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/influence-of-spacing-on-quality/14999)._