diferences betwen a object with thicness and another without

[silver]

hey guys, i 've been looking for an answer for this question for a long time, and i've been read plenty of times that there is a diference, but in the other side, when we put thicness at objects , the render times are also increased . So i would like to know if really worths drawing things as they are in the real world. I could give you some examples like the water of swiming pool or the glasses of windows. PLease, tell me your experiences about this issue in order for i finally take my conclusions.

thanks mates

silver

[flipside]

Depends on what your doing. Are these objects transparant? If you can't see the interior or the sides, you don't have to model it, but many times the purpose of a cad model is not only rendering, so you'll need thickness and realistic modeling.

[silver]

yes flipside, i am talking about transparent objects, as i said, glasses, water, lamps... this kind of objects. IMO, i think refraction its diferent when we have for example a water with only a surface than when we have it as it is in the real world, but i was looking for a more truthful word, because i am always in doubt if i need them or not...

[flipside]

For windows, If you make it only a plane, then you need to turn down your IOR to 1.0 otherwise everything behind it will get distorted very heavily. (because the rays get bend by the plane and never get bend back because there's no other side)

Same thing for lamps, if you make it without thickness, you need ior=1.0 otherwise it will look like your lamp is a solid object.

For water in a pool you must use a plane or else a box that is wider and deeper than your pool. I would not create a water bow that just fits your pool walls, because you will have faces lying in the exact same place and this cause weird artifacts in your render.

For glasses and liquid inside, do a search here because this topic has already endless discussions