Make the asset rest on the intended placement surface

Define the intended relationship to a surface

Name the presentation category and the part of the product that should meet the reference surface. A tabletop object, a wall-mounted illustration and a hanging product do not necessarily share the same useful reference point. Describe the intended contact or attachment relationship in plain language and a simple annotated reference view. Do not infer the asset origin from the center of an attractive thumbnail.

Khronos’s geometry summary recommends a bottom-center origin generally while recognizing category-specific alternatives, including top-center for a ceiling product. Treat this as production guidance to adapt, not a universal rule. Confirm what the intended receiver expects before choosing an origin that looks convenient only in the authoring application.

Inspect the delivered hierarchy and surrounding scene

Ask the technical owner to identify the exported root, orientation, origin and any helper or staging objects. Record which parts belong to the product and which were included only to make an authoring preview attractive. Inspect the complete delivery scene rather than only the selected mesh. An unnoticed helper surface can create an apparent contact relationship that disappears in another viewer.

Apple’s 2023 Quick Look session for visionOS describes automatic ground and shadow presentation and advises against adding an authored ground plane and shadows for that experience. Keep that recommendation scoped to the described receiver. For other destinations, establish the actual scene contract instead of assuming every viewer supplies the same support. Do not remove real product bases or feet while cleaning up staging geometry.

Test the reference relationship rather than visual size

Use an authorized receiver test or controlled fixture to inspect the delivered placement. Record the product’s orientation, its relation to the reference surface and whether unwanted scene elements appear. Check from more than the front view; a floating base may be hard to notice from above. Keep the size acceptance record separate so a placement repair is not achieved by scaling the whole object until an error becomes less visible.

When the relationship is wrong, distinguish an asset-origin problem, an orientation problem and a receiver-placement rule. Ask the responsible owner to demonstrate which stage causes the discrepancy. A viewer offset that compensates for one export may fail on the next revision. Prefer a documented asset or receiver correction with a clear owner over an unexplained combination of transforms that nobody can reproduce.

Accept the anchor contract and protect it during revision

After repair, repeat the placement views with the exact delivery candidate and confirm that the previously accepted dimensional extent remains intact. Verify that the intended front and surface relationship survive reloading, not merely a manual adjustment performed during review. If the receiver does not support the requested placement category, choose an honest alternative presentation instead of describing an accidental pose as supported behavior.

Keep the origin/orientation specification, staging-element decisions, receiver configuration and acceptance views together. Recheck them when geometry is replaced or the export hierarchy changes. The artifact should let a future producer understand where the product is supposed to sit in the virtual scene without suggesting that the visualization establishes real mounting feasibility or structural safety.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A fictional wall-clock model has verified dimensions but opens as if it were a tabletop object, with an old studio pedestal still included in the export. The producer suggests shrinking and rotating it manually for the review screenshot.

The team chooses the package correction, retests placement and confirms the verified dimensions have not changed. It makes no claim that the preview approves mounting hardware or wall suitability.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Relationship

   Which product point or surface should meet the virtual reference?

2. Asset contract

   What origin, orientation and hierarchy does the receiver expect?

3. Scene contents

   Which elements are product geometry versus authoring-only staging?

4. Diagnosis

   Does the discrepancy originate in the asset or receiving placement rule?

5. Acceptance

   What repeatable views prove placement while preserving verified dimensions?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Using scale to conceal an origin problem.
• Removing real product supports as though they were staging.
• Treating a virtual placement as installation approval.

Sources & scope

Workflows, worksheets and fictional examples are original editorial analysis. Sources support only specifically attributed principles. Platform guidance can change; legal requirements depend on jurisdiction and context. No measured results or named human reviewer are claimed.

• Khronos: Real-time Asset Creation Guidelines, version 2.0.0 →Primary asset-production guidance · Supports: The Geometry Summary gives general origin guidance and category-dependent alternatives.
• Apple WWDC23: Create 3D models for Quick Look spatial experiences →Primary platform session, 2023 · Supports: The 2023 visionOS Quick Look session describes its automatic ground/shadow presentation. The acceptance workflow is original analysis.