Show HN: I've spent nearly 5y on a web app that creates 3D apartments

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall Reception

  • Many commenters are impressed that a largely solo side project reached this level of polish, especially the smooth 3D demo, disappearing walls, reflections, and mobile performance.
  • Several say it looks better than most existing 3D floor plan tools and praise the landing page design and pricing concept.
  • A few say it’s not something they personally need, but still enjoyed the demo.

Product Concept & Use Cases

  • Tool converts 2D floor plans into interactive 3D apartment walkthroughs, with options for 3D images, video tours, and planned AI interior design.
  • Intended primary customers: real estate agencies, builders, “online floor plan aggregators,” and similar B2B users; individual renters/owners are seen as secondary.
  • Some see strong potential for real-estate listings, rentals (e.g., NYC), Airbnbs, and pre-construction marketing.
  • Others suggest broader uses: Home Assistant / digital twins, indoor-maps backdrops for workplace apps, or technical layers (electrical, network, studs).

Onboarding, UX & UI Feedback

  • Many users struggled to find and activate the demo (“Try it out” button and logo-as-button are too subtle, especially on mobile).
  • Strong calls for:
    • An obvious sample project for new accounts.
    • A short onboarding/video tutorial.
    • Clearer guidance on acceptable floorplans, required image quality, and why floor area is needed.
  • Navigation feedback: desire for full screen, WASD/arrow key movement, clearer “walk” controls, better rotation pivot behavior, and less extreme perspective at viewport edges.

Pricing, Payments & Business Model

  • Pay-per-project pricing (~$17 for small areas, higher for larger) is generally seen as reasonable vs. hiring 3D pros.
  • Multiple reports of checkout issues:
    • Being quoted ~$17, then charged $33 or $50, sometimes multiple times.
    • Losing projects when canceling or leaving payment flow.
    • Support widget errors.
  • Author states pricing is area-based, denies hidden charges, and temporarily disables payments while refunding affected users.
  • Some suggest focusing on higher-priced B2B/architect subscriptions instead of many small consumer transactions.

Technical & Feature Discussions

  • Built with Three.js; infrastructure details are requested but mostly not provided yet.
  • VR/WebXR is described as “ready” at a tech level, but actual WebXR support is not yet implemented; several VR users are disappointed when trying on headsets.
  • Feature requests include:
    • Room-based pivoting in top view.
    • Measurement tools (distances, ceiling heights) for renters.
    • Multi-room/floor support and PDF uploads.
    • Better devicePixelRatio handling; some deliberate resolution caps for performance.
    • AI interior design that responds to prompts and possibly product catalogs; this is “coming soon.”

Comparisons & Positioning

  • Compared to tools like Matterport, Polycam, Metaroom, Floorplanner, Planner5D, Homestyler, Hover, ArchiCAD, HomeByMe, and others.
  • Differentiators highlighted:
    • Works from floor plans instead of requiring expensive 3D camera rigs or LiDAR scanning.
    • Focus on automated conversion + high-quality real-time 3D, not manual drawing or only static renders.
  • Some note that competitors already provide rich editors, photorealistic textures, or scanning-based 3D; they question what unique advantage this product offers beyond aesthetics and simplicity.

Bugs, Browser Issues & Reliability

  • Reported issues:
    • Firefox-specific problems: missing furniture textures, disappearing geometry on clicks, “walk” mode not working.
    • Chrome-based white-canvas flashes, suspected due to recent browser changes.
    • Account settings and company profile bugs, particularly with OAuth logins.
    • Broken images, confusing status (“Submit for AI” queue), and inability to save without a company profile.
  • Author acknowledges many of these and claims to have fixed several during the thread.

Concerns & Critiques

  • Some critique the marketing emphasis on “5 years” of development instead of leading with value.
  • Copywriting and English phrasing on the landing page are called out as slightly unpolished; suggestions are made and partially adopted.
  • One commenter notes that part of the name sounds like “turd” in French.
  • A few worry that glossy 3D “remodel” visuals can mislead buyers compared to bare, measured floor plans, especially for older properties.