Factors Affecting 3D Customizer Complexity

Category	Factor	Lower LOE (Simpler)	Higher LOE (More Complex)	Notes
Modeling	Product type	Rigid hard goods with clear CAD/scan	Soft goods / deformables (bags, straps, apparel) needing realism passes	Soft goods require iterative sculpting, wrinkle/fold tuning, and stakeholder review loops.
	Source quality	Accurate CAD / high-quality scans / clean reference pack	Photos only / inconsistent references / missing dimensions	Poor references increase rework, validation effort, and approval cycles.
	Part breakdown for customization	Few parts, clear boundaries	Many parts, ambiguous boundaries, frequent re-cutting	Effort comes from separating parts for options and keeping seams/edges clean.
	Variant modeling approach	Material-only variants (same geometry)	Geometry variants (swappable parts), multiple SKUs	Geometry variants require additional modeling, rigging, QA, and option logic.
	Detail that must be modeled (vs textured)	Most detail can be in textures/normal maps	Stitching, piping, embossed details must be geometry	Geometry detail increases authoring time and iteration risk.
	Fit/assembly constraints	Simple assembly, no moving parts	Tight tolerances, moving parts, alignment constraints	More effort in ensuring parts align across all option combinations.
Perspectives	Perspective complexity	1 or 2 perspectives, fixed	High image count, dynamic perspectives, show/hide models in certain views	Effort increases with number of perspectives and parameters for each
UVs & Textures	UV requirements	Basic UVs acceptable	Precise UVs required for patterns/branding	Pattern alignment and repeat control drives UV iteration time.
	Texture authoring workload	Few textures, minimal map set	Many textures, full PBR map sets per material/variant	Effort increases with number of unique textures and map types to produce/QA.
	Pattern/print alignment rules	No alignment rules	Must align across seams/panels; directional constraints	Requires test renders and repeated adjustment cycles.
	Decals/graphics method	Fixed art baked in	Configurable placements; multiple placement zones; wrapping	More effort for placement constraints, scaling rules, and previews.
Materials	Material system complexity	Simple color swaps	Physically-based materials with tunable parameters and presets	Defining consistent look across lighting + variants requires iteration.
	Material libraries / presets	Small set of shared presets	Large catalog with many unique presets and edge cases	Effort shifts to curation, naming, versioning, and QA across combinations.
	Special material behaviors	Standard opaque materials	Transparency, iridescence, clear coat, anisotropy, subsurface/translucency	Special shaders require tuning, testing, and consistent UX controls.
	Cross-part material consistency	Each part independent	Materials must match across multiple parts/panels	Effort in rules that enforce consistency or gracefully handle mismatches.
Business Logic	Option count & structure	Few options, mostly independent	Many options with nested groups/steps	Effort grows with configurator structure, validation, and edge-case handling.
	Dependencies / rules engine	No dependencies	Many conditional rules (if/then), exclusions, prerequisites	Requires a maintainable rule model, testing matrix, and UI state management.
	Hide/show & filtering behaviors	Static UI list	Dynamic filtering, hide/show, auto-selection, disabling	More effort in deterministic behavior, preventing dead-ends, and clarity to users.
	Multi-part mapping per selection	1 selection → 1 material on 1 part	1 selection → multiple parts/materials/variants	Mapping tables and consistent application across scenes increases setup/QA.
	Fallbacks & conflict resolution	No conflicts expected	Conflicts possible; need priority rules & fallbacks	Define what wins, what resets, what is preserved; increases QA and client sign-off.
	State persistence & serialization	No saving; simple default	Save/share configurations; deep links; versioned configs	Effort in schema design, backward compatibility, and migration handling.
	Pricing / SKU / ERP mapping	No pricing; simple SKU	Dynamic pricing, SKU resolution	Requires robust mapping and validation across option combinations.
	Validation & guardrails	Minimal validation	Hard constraints (invalid combos), warnings, required steps	Effort is in UX-friendly errors and preventing invalid orders/configs.
UX / Interactivity	Camera & hotspots	Basic orbit controls	Guided views, hotspots, step-based tours	Effort in authored camera targets, transitions, and keeping views relevant per option.
	Animations / interactions	None	Open/close, rotate parts, exploded views	Authoring + syncing animations across variants adds time and QA.
	Configurator flow	Single page	Multi-step wizard with conditional steps	More effort in navigation, completion rules, and preventing confusing jumps.
	Accessibility / localization	English-only	Multi-language, strong accessibility requirements	Effort in UI text management, layout variation, and keyboard/screen reader support.
Process	Stakeholder review cadence	Single review pass	Multiple structured review rounds with change requests	Iteration time is often the biggest LOE driver for realism-heavy products.
	Asset governance	Ad-hoc assets	Versioned asset pipeline, naming rules, approvals	More effort up-front but reduces long-term maintenance and mistakes.
	QA matrix size	Few combinations to test	Many combinations + device/browser coverage	Effort scales with the combinatorial space, even when performance is fine.