What File and Model Inputs a VR Walkthrough Needs
A VR walkthrough is built from four input groups: geometry (a 3D model, or drawings we model from), finishes (a schedule and product references), lighting and site data (fixture layout, orientation, surrounding context), and a written statement of what is committed versus proposed. Geometry is the one that sets the schedule. Finishes are the input we most often see arrive late and force rework.
Every virtual reality project we have scoped has been decided in its first week by the completeness of this package.
Geometry: what actually helps
A native model from the design software is best, sent with its linked files intact. What we need out of it is the built geometry: walls, floors, ceilings, structure, openings, fixed casework and the MEP elements that intrude into occupied space.
What we do not need is documentation apparatus, annotation, sheet setup, or the deep component detail that documents fabrication. Those slow preparation and never appear in a headset.
If there is no model, we can build from a coordinated drawing set, and that is a modeling scope rather than a preparation scope. Say so early and it is a schedule fact rather than a surprise.
Finishes: the late input
A finish schedule with actual product references lets us build what will be installed. A mood board lets us build something that resembles it and will be corrected later.
If finishes are genuinely unsettled, the right move is to build the shell and fixed elements, label materials as placeholder on screen, and plan one defined update when the package lands. That is cheaper than rebuilding after a review.
Input reference
| Input | What it is used for | If it is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Native 3D model with links | The base geometry of every space | We model from drawings; adds scope and time |
| Coordinated drawing set | Verifying dimensions the model does not resolve | Dimensional questions go unanswered and get flagged |
| Ceiling and MEP information | Real clear heights and anything overhead | Heights get depicted too generously, which is a defect |
| Finish schedule with product references | Materials as specified rather than approximated | Placeholder materials, labeled, plus a later update |
| Furniture and equipment schedule | Clearances, circulation and realistic occupancy | Generic pieces that cannot be used for clearance review |
| Lighting design and fixture layout | How the space reads under its actual lighting | Generic lighting; finish approval becomes unreliable |
| Site plan with true orientation | Daylight direction, views out, surrounding context | Views and daylight cannot be trusted |
| Committed versus proposed statement | What gets labeled as an alternate on screen | We cannot label, which is a claims risk for you |
Formats and transfer
Send native files where possible and a neutral exchange format as a backup. Send the whole linked set rather than a single detached file. Use a transfer service with versioning rather than email attachments, and name versions with dates.
The preventable delay we see most often is not a wrong format. It is three partial packages arriving over two weeks with no statement of which one is current.
What to send in the first package
Model, drawing set, finish schedule if it exists, site plan with orientation, and one page saying what is committed and what is not. That is enough to scope accurately and start without a second round of requests.
Not sure what you have is usable? Send it and ask. Assessing a model is faster than describing it.
How to start
Gather the four input groups, mark what is missing, and send it as one package with a current date.
Related reading: hotel and resort projects shows how a late finish package changes a schedule, retail and mixed use projects covers site and context inputs, office and workplace fitouts covers furniture-driven builds, and what a package includes covers what comes back.
Send us your current model package and we will tell you what is usable and what is missing.