How AR/VR Designers Build Future Space
- Raffles Jakarta
- 3 days ago
- 11 min read
A client occupies a nonexistent space. They pivot, gaze upward, approach the window, and express that the area appears more confined than anticipated. They are likely correct, yet simultaneously incorrect.
Investigations spanning numerous studies have revealed that individuals in virtual settings gauge distances at approximately seventy-five percent of their actual dimensions. The space indeed appears more confined. It is not genuinely diminutive.
A designer unaware of these factors will make choices influenced by an unseen systematic flaw. That solitary discovery encapsulates the essence of immersive design work: it necessitates comprehension of human perception within the technology rather than mere enthusiasm for it.
How do AR/VR designers build future space?
Augmented and virtual reality designers create prospective spaces by crafting environments that individuals can inhabit and assess prior to actual construction while accounting for the unique variations in perception that occur within these spaces.
Virtual reality engenders an illusion of presence in a non-existent environment, facilitating the evaluation of spatial choices, sightlines, and dimensions with clients and stakeholders instead of relying on illustrations.
Augmented reality superimposes suggested components onto current circumstances, facilitating on-site validation. The technical skill resides in comprehending presence, the process that renders a virtual environment authentic, and in adjusting for recognized perceptual inaccuracies, particularly the habitual misjudgment of distance that could lead a designer to erroneous interpretations of a precise model.
What makes a virtual place feel real
The concept underpinning the discipline is presence, and the most influential account divides it into two components. Place illusion is the sensation of being in the depicted location, produced primarily by the sensorimotor contingencies the system supports, meaning whether the world responds correctly when you move your head or your body.
The plausibility illusion is the sense that events occurring are actually happening, produced by the credibility of what the environment does (Slater, 2009). Both can be present or absent independently, and both are needed for a virtual space to be evaluated as real.
A subsequent survey of the field catalogued presence and related concepts across the literature, reflecting how central the construct has become to immersive systems research (Skarbez, Brooks, & Whitton, 2017).
For a designer, the practical implication is that fidelity of rendering matters less than fidelity of response. A photorealistic environment that fails to track head movement correctly produces a weaker presence than a simply rendered one that tracks perfectly.
The finding every designer should know
This is the outcome that should dictate the application of immersive tools in real-world scenarios. A comprehensive review analyzing 78 studies over a span of 19 years determined that the average estimation of egocentric distances in virtual settings is approximately 74 percent of the modeled distances (Renner, Velichkovsky, & Helmert, 2013).
Egocentric distance refers to the perceived spatial separation between an observer and an object, which is precisely the evaluation a client conducts when determining if a room is sufficiently spacious.
Subsequent research validated and enhanced the depiction. A comparative analysis assessed 40 investigations into distance perception in actual settings over four decades, revealing an average accuracy of approximately 92 percent, contrasted with a ratio of about 74 percent for assessments in virtual contexts.
An examination of 20 studies conducted from 1998 to 2020 yielded a ratio of approximately 77 percent for real to virtual distance estimations, with an average accuracy close to 95 percent in actual conditions (Feldstein, Kölsch, & Konrad, 2020, as summarized in Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 2023).
The impact is substantial. Individuals consistently misjudge distances, irrespective of the measurement technique employed (Feldstein et al., 2020). The outcome of practice is immediate. If a client navigates a virtual apartment and expresses that the living room appears confined, that response may indicate the medium instead of the design. Altering the furniture or expanding the space would be rectifying an anomaly.
What actually corrects it
The study also recognizes mitigations, which renders it beneficial rather than simply prohibitive.
Walking and interaction. Interaction with an immersive virtual environment has been found to correct users' distance estimates, meaning that a session in which the participant physically moves through the space produces more accurate judgments than one in which they stand still (Richardson & Waller, 2007).
A visible body. Participants exploring near space without a visual avatar underestimated egocentric distances compared with those viewing a fully articulated avatar, indicating that seeing a representation of one's own body provides a scale reference (Ries, Interrante, Kaeding, & Phillips, 2009).
Feedback training. Distance estimation improves with feedback, and studies have shown judgements becoming nearly accurate after forms of feedback are displayed (Richardson & Waller, 2005).
The operational procedure is as follows. Provide the observer with an avatar or discernible hands. Permit them to traverse on foot instead of utilizing teleportation where space permits. Initially, adjust them in relation to a recognized benchmark, like a well-known door height or a space they have previously encountered physically. Consider scale assessments from a stationary observer as the most unreliable information generated during the session.
Real time changes what a visualisation is
A production transformation exists beneath this situation that warrants acknowledgment, as it alters the skills being imparted. Conventional architectural visualization generated static images. A camera angle was selected, a scene was rendered for several hours, and the client viewed the designer's choice. Real-time rendering reverses that association.
The observer determines their focus, necessitating the resolution of every surface, intersection, and angle, rather than solely those oriented toward the selected camera. This impacts the construction of models.
Geometry must be refined to ensure frame rates remain sufficiently elevated to preserve immersion, as lost frames disrupt both the perception of location and the viewer's physical ease. Materials must exhibit appropriate behavior when subjected to varying viewing angles. Illumination should be calculated in ways that remain consistent during motion rather than solely from a fixed location.
Investigations into the display and rendering attributes have revealed that the functionality of head-mounted devices affects distance assessments, indicating that production choices have perceptual implications in addition to mere esthetic considerations (Willemsen, Colton, Creem Regehr, & Thompson, 2004).
Previous research investigated the precision with which individuals can navigate to targets they have previously observed in both real and virtual environments, providing initial evidence of the disparities between the two (Witmer & Sadowski, 1998).
For a learner, the practical consequence is that immersive production aligns more with game development than with rendering, and the limitation is performance instead of image quality.
Two technologies, two jobs
Augmented reality and virtual reality often appear together and serve various purposes. Virtual reality supplants the physical realm, making it ideal for assessing spaces that are yet to be realized.
Its advantages include spatial understanding, visual perspectives, progression, and the emotional resonance of a proposal, while its drawback is the aforementioned perceptual distortion. Augmented reality superimposes suggested components onto the current surroundings, making it more suitable for validation than creativity.
Verifying if a designated unit accommodates a specific alcove, ascertaining an appropriate placement on location, or demonstrating a finish against a client's actual wall are enhanced challenges.
The actual environment provides a scale reference, significantly mitigating the issue of distance underestimation. The decision hinges on the current phase of the project. Preliminary conceptual and spatial choices prioritize immersion. Validation in relation to reality supports overlay.
Where these tools genuinely earn their cost
Three applications repay the effort reliably.
Client comprehension. Most clients cannot read a plan, and many who claim they can are reconstructing something inaccurate. Reviews of immersive technology in architecture, engineering, and construction have documented design review and client communication as among the most consistently reported applications (Wang, Wu, Wang, Chi, & Wang, 2018). A walkthrough removes that ambiguity, which reduces the late changes that arise when a client finally understands what the drawings show.
Stakeholder consultation. In institutional and public projects, the people who will use a building are rarely design literate. Immersive review lets nurses, teachers, or residents comment on a proposal in terms of their experience.
Design review and coordination. Reviewing a coordinated model immersively surfaces problems of clearance, sightline, and sequence that plans conceal, complementing the automated clash detection that structured models provide. Studies of immersive design review have reported improvements in error identification compared with conventional drawing-based review, though sample sizes in this literature remain modest (Liu, Castronovo, Messner, & Leicht, 2020).
What immersive tools do not replace is measurement. A dimension is verified by a number, not by a feeling, and this is precisely where the perceptual research argues for discipline.
Comfort, access, and who gets excluded
Any designer suggesting an immersive review must consider the expenses incurred by the participant. Stereoscopic displays are linked to visual discomfort and fatigue, as extensively examined in the imaging literature (Lambooij, Fortuin, Heynderickx, & IJsselsteijn, 2009). Consequently, sessions must be brief, as a client who feels uneasy will not assess a design effectively.
Equity factors must also be considered. Individual susceptibility to simulator and cybersickness exhibits considerable variability and has been systematically assessed since the early 1990s (Kennedy, Lane, Berbaum, & Lilienthal, 1993).
Not all individuals can endure head-mounted displays, and mandating immersive engagement as the sole means of comprehending a proposal marginalizes certain individuals. Effective practice provides an engaging review experience as an additional medium alongside sketches, tangible models, and visual renderings instead of substituting them.
The Indonesian application
Two factors render this practice beneficial within the locality. The initial aspect pertains to distance and coordination. Design and construction teams are often dispersed across various cities and nations, and an immersive review eliminates the need for travel while yielding superior understanding compared to a video conference discussing drawings.
This approach has commercial significance in a marketplace where global clients engage Indonesian designers and local clients hire international consultants. The second pertains to current structures. Renovation and fit-out projects prevail in congested urban markets, with the majority of rework arising from existing conditions rather than new designs.
The augmented overlay on assessed existing conditions precisely tackles that issue and aligns seamlessly with the modeled workflows facilitated by structured information management. An audience element is also present. In 2025, Indonesia's creative economy engaged 27.4 million individuals, constituting approximately 18.7 percent of the national labor force, with over half of its employees being under the age of 40 (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2025; Antara, 2025).
A youthful workforce and clientele tend to be more amenable to engaging presentations rather than technical illustrations, thereby reducing the barriers to adoption.
The truthful boundaries
Four qualifications.
Perceptual distortion is systematic, not occasional. The 74 percent finding is an average across dozens of studies, not an artifact of poor equipment, and better hardware has reduced rather than eliminated it.
Production costs are real. Preparing a model for immersive review takes time that must be justified by the decisions it improves.
Impressiveness is not evidence. A compelling walkthrough can secure approval for a weak scheme, and the persuasive power of the medium is a professional responsibility rather than a selling point.
The medium is not the design. An immersive presentation improves how a proposal is understood. It does not improve the proposal.
What the discipline requires
The position occupies a space between spatial design and technical production. It necessitates spatial design discernment, as the foundational proposal is under evaluation. It necessitates technical proficiency in modeling, optimization, illumination, and real-time rendering, which is a separate expertise from creating static images.
Proficiency in perception research is essential, as understanding how individuals misinterpret virtual environments distinguishes valuable evaluations from deceptive ones. It necessitates facilitation expertise, as an immersive review session is a structured dialog that must be conducted rather than merely hosted.
Pursuing Interior Design in conjunction with Digital Media Design, Visual Communication Design, and Psychology creates a direct synergy, linking spatial concepts to the practical skills necessary for their execution and to the perceptual principles that influence their reception. Instructing by practicing professionals is significant as hardware and engines evolve more rapidly than any educational syllabus, and industrial internships via the Center of Professional Development immerse students in evaluative sessions with actual clients and tangible outcomes.
The title assertion is correct with one notable exception. These designers create prospective environments by allowing individuals to engage with a concept prior to its finalization.
They must also comprehend that the future environment, as perceived through a headset, is inherently different from the actual space that will be constructed and adjust for this discrepancy prior to any decision-making.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do people perceive virtual spaces accurately? No, and the effect is well documented. A review of 78 studies conducted over 19 years found that people estimate egocentric distances in virtual environments at about 74 percent of their modeled size. Comparative work found average accuracy of around 92 percent in real environments, compared to roughly 74 percent in virtual ones, with underestimation occurring consistently regardless of the measurement method.
Why does distance underestimation matter for design? Because clients evaluating a virtual room may report it feels too small when the design is correct. Responding by enlarging the space or reducing furniture would be correcting for a perceptual artifact of the medium rather than a genuine design problem.
How can the distortion be reduced? Three approaches have support in the research. Interaction with the environment, particularly physically walking through it, improves distance estimates. Providing a visible avatar provides a scale reference, and participants without one underestimated more than those viewing a fully articulated avatar. Feedback given within the display also improves accuracy.
What is presence in virtual reality? Presence is commonly divided into two components. Place illusion is the sensation of being in the depicted location, produced mainly by whether the system responds correctly to head and body movement. The plausibility illusion is the sense that what is happening is actually happening. Both are required for a virtual space to be evaluated as if real.
When should augmented reality be used instead of virtual reality? Augmented reality suits verification against existing conditions, such as checking whether a specified unit fits an actual alcove or showing a finish against a real wall, and the real environment provides a scale reference that reduces distance distortion. Virtual reality is best for evaluating spaces that do not yet exist, where understanding spatial relationships and the sequence of elements is most important.
What are the drawbacks of immersive review? Stereoscopic displays are associated with visual discomfort and fatigue, so sessions should be short. Tolerance varies between individuals, so requiring immersive participation as the only route to understanding a proposal excludes some people. Immersive review should complement drawings, models, and rendered images rather than replace them.
Marketing Manager
References
Antara. (2025). Indonesia's creative economy beats jobs target in 2025. https://en.antaranews.com/news/396817/indonesias-creative-economy-beats-jobs-target-in-2025
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2025). BPS: Creative economy employs 27.4 million workers in 2025. https://www.bps.go.id/en/news/2025/11/17/805/bps--creative-economy-employs-27-4-million-workers-in-2025.html
Feldstein, I. T., Kölsch, F. M., & Konrad, R. (2020). Egocentric distance perception: A comparative study investigating differences between real and virtual environments. Perception, 49(9), 940 to 967. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0301006620951997
Journal of Human Computer Interaction. (2023). Quantifying egocentric distance perception in virtual environments. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10447318.2023.2234117
Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 203 to 220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
Lambooij, M., Fortuin, M., Heynderickx, I., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2009). Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: A review. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 53(3), 030201. https://doi.org/10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2009.53.3.030201
Liu, Y., Castronovo, F., Messner, J., & Leicht, R. (2020). Evaluating the impact of virtual reality on design review meetings. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000856
Raffles Jakarta. (2026a). Interior design. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/interiordesign
Raffles Jakarta. (2026b). Programs offered. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/programmes
Raffles Jakarta. (2026c). International academic team. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/international-creative-practitioners
Raffles Jakarta. (2026d). Raffles career development. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/raffles-career-development
Renner, R. S., Velichkovsky, B. M., & Helmert, J. R. (2013). The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments: A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(2), Article 23, 1 to 40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2543581.2543590
Richardson, A. R., & Waller, D. (2005). The effect of feedback training on distance estimation in virtual environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(8), 1089 to 1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1140
Richardson, A. R., & Waller, D. (2007). Interaction with an immersive virtual environment corrects users' distance estimates. Human Factors, 49(3), 507 to 517. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X200139
Ries, B., Interrante, V., Kaeding, M., & Phillips, L. (2009). Analyzing the effect of a virtual avatar's geometric and motion fidelity on ego centric spatial perception in immersive virtual environments. Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 59 to 66. https://doi.org/10.1145/1643928.1643943
Skarbez, R., Brooks, F. P., & Whitton, M. C. (2017). A survey of presence and related concepts. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(6), Article 96. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134301
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1535), 3549 to 3557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H. L., & Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6), 1204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061204
Willemsen, P., Colton, M. B., Creem Regehr, S. H., & Thompson, W. B. (2004). The effects of head mounted display mechanics on distance judgments in virtual environments. Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, 35 to 38. https://doi.org/10.1145/1012551.1012558
Witmer, B. G., & Sadowski, W. J. (1998). Nonvisually guided locomotion to a previously viewed target in real and virtual environments. Human Factors, 40(3), 478 to 488. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779591340
