Methodology

When WebAR actually beats a render or a video

A practical look at when interactive 3D and AR scale views earn their cost, and the cases where a static render is still the right answer.

Most of flyAR's clients arrive with a render or a video already in hand. The real question is rarely "should we make AR?". It is "is AR actually useful here, or will a render or video do?".

When AR earns its place

When the buyer, visitor, or stakeholder needs to inspect, try, walk through, or share something in context, and the decision is worth more than a passive view. A future depot a planning committee has to approve. A media placement a buyer has to forward to a CMO. A cultural route a visitor has to follow at their own pace. In each case, a flat asset stops doing the job somewhere between "interesting" and "decided."

When the render is the right answer

If the deliverable is a brochure, a sales-suite still, or a press image, a render almost always wins on craft and cost. The decision lives in the image, not in inspection. Don't pay for AR you won't use.

The honest middle ground

A lot of projects need a 30-second AR scale view and the polished render. One to settle the size argument, one to put on the cover. Treat them as different jobs and the budget conversation gets clearer.

The longer version of this note is being edited. Until then, the short version: AR is a decision tool, not a presentation tool. Use it where the decision is.

Project where you are not sure whether AR is the right call? Send a project note. We will tell you on the first call.