The things clients ask us most.

Enough design information to understand the scheme – and it doesn’t need to be a final, fully-detailed set. Usually a site plan and a few example elevations from your architect are enough to begin, together with a rough idea of how many views you want, whether photography is needed, and what the images are for (planning, marketing, or both).

We identify anything missing early rather than letting it hold things up later.

Broadly the same information – enough to understand the size and complexity of the job: a site plan and example elevations, a rough idea of how many CGIs you think you need, whether verified views or photography are required, and your deadline.

From that we can give you a considered, fixed price. Pricing takes a little care – there are a lot of variables – so we’d rather get it right than give you a number we can’t stand behind. There’s more on how pricing works on our pricing page.

Usually in a short interactive “views meeting”. We share our screen and move around the 3D model with you live, agreeing exactly which viewpoints, angles and framing to produce – so you see precisely what you’re commissioning before we render anything.

It takes the guesswork out and avoids costly changes further down the line.

Often, yes. If you have suitable site or context photography, we can work to it. For planning verified views, though, the photography usually needs to meet specific survey and GPS standards, so we’ll check it’s fit for purpose first.

If what you have isn’t quite right, we can arrange our own drone or ground photography to match.

Frequently, yes. If you can share a usable model – often from your architect – we can build on it rather than starting from scratch, which can save both time and cost.

How much depends on the model’s quality, format and level of detail. We’ll assess it up front and tell you honestly whether it helps, and by roughly how much.

It depends on the number of views, the type of output, and how much can be reused. As a rough guide: around 2-6 weeks for a set of still CGIs, and 6-12 weeks for film or animation. Structured draft stages are built in, so you’re involved at the milestones rather than shown a single reveal at the end.

Once we’ve seen your brief we’ll give you a realistic timeline, and we work to it.

Often, yes – compressed timelines are familiar territory, especially where we can reuse existing models or images. Genuinely urgent turnarounds may carry a premium, and we’ll always tell you that up front, never after.

Send us the deadline with your brief and we’ll tell you honestly whether it’s achievable.

Brief & scope → cost & instruction → design information → view selection → photography capture (where needed) → CGI production with structured draft stages → review & sign-off.

You’re involved at each key milestone, so nothing arrives cold. The full six-step process is set out on our about page.

It helps enormously to have a single decision-maker who gathers feedback from your team. When the work is pulled in competing directions by different stakeholders, it slows things down and adds cost. One clear voice keeps the project moving – and keeps it on budget.

Designs evolving is completely normal, and structured review stages are built into our fee – so refining and iterating within the agreed scope is expected, not an extra. About 95% of projects run to the price we originally quoted.

Where something is a genuine change of scope – a different building, or a substantially reworked design after sign-off – we pause, re-quote just for the extra work, and confirm it with you in writing before we act. You decide whether to proceed, so the invoice always matches what we agreed.

Typically 50% on instruction and 50% on final sign-off, invoiced on 30-day terms. We agree the fee in writing before any production begins, so the figure you approve is the figure you pay.

Yes. Once the model is built, showing alternative cladding, materials or colour options is usually straightforward – it’s a common request for both resolving design decisions and for marketing.

We’ll agree how many options are included when we scope the work, so it’s clear from the outset.

We use AI where it genuinely adds value – not as a shortcut. We’ve a team member dedicated to testing tools, so we only use them where they improve the work: exploring more options earlier, adding atmosphere, or enhancing aerial context where a drone shoot isn’t possible.

What AI can’t do is judge what a planning authority needs, what will persuade an investor, or whether an image honestly represents your scheme. That judgement stays with us – so your imagery is human-directed and accurate, with AI helping behind the scenes.

For quick internal exploration, AI images can be useful. But something that looks convincing isn’t the same as something that’s verified – and for planning especially, imagery has to be accurate and defensible under scrutiny.

An AI render that “looks right” can’t stand up to that, and it doesn’t know what good looks like for your audience. We’d rather give you something genuinely right than merely plausible.

It’s a fair question, and one we’re happy to talk through. An elevation drawing shows a material flat-on, under one idealised, even light. In a 3D view that same material is seen in real light and at an angle – so reflections, sheen and shadow all change how it reads. A single cladding or brick can look lighter, darker or more reflective from one part of a scene to another, exactly as it would on the finished building.

That’s deliberate: we model materials to behave realistically rather than to match a flat swatch. If you’d prefer a material tuned closer to how it appears on your elevation, just tell us and we’ll adjust it – realism is our default, but the look is always something we can dial in with you.

Planning images – including verified views (AVRs) – prioritise accuracy and evidence. They show a scheme honestly, in verifiable context, to help an authority assess it. Marketing images prioritise persuasion: presenting the scheme at its best to engage investors, occupiers and buyers.

The underlying craft is the same; the emphasis differs. Plenty of schemes need both – see planning and marketing.

If your imagery is going into a planning application in a sensitive or contested context, very likely yes – authorities and inspectors expect accurate, verifiable representations. If the imagery is purely for marketing, usually not.

If you’re unsure, tell us the situation and we’ll advise honestly. We won’t sell you an AVR you don’t need. More on our planning page.

Yes – and it’s one of the most cost-effective things we do. From a single 3D model we can produce different fit-out scenarios for different occupiers – logistics racking for one, manufacturing for another, offices and labs for a third – so each prospect can picture their own operation in the space.

Several targeted versions from one base model cost far less than commissioning separate visuals. Flexibility, after all, is only a marketing asset if it’s visible.