What are the most common 3D point cloud file format and how to solve interoperability issues

Introduction to the challenges of 3D point cloud interoperability

The explosion of 3D scanning technologies in manufacturing has generated a proliferation of point cloud file formats, creating major interoperability challenges between CAD systems. Companies face the need to process data from multiple sources—terrestrial laser scanners, mobile lidar systems, photogrammetric sensors—each generating its own proprietary formats.

This fragmentation directly impacts technical productivity, lengthening processing cycles and generating significant hidden costs. Engineering teams spend a disproportionate amount of time on conversion and validation tasks, to the detriment of high-value analysis and design activities.

Overview of formats by data structure

The fundamental distinction between ASCII and binary formats largely determines performance and functional capabilities. ASCII formats favor accessibility and universal compatibility, while binary formats optimize file size and processing times for large datasets.

ASCII formats: accessibility and limitations

The XYZ format represents the purest approach to storing three-dimensional coordinates. Its simple structure—one line per point with X, Y, Z coordinates separated by spaces or tabs—makes it a preferred choice for quick exchanges and prototyping. This simplicity is both its main strength and weakness.

The OBJ format offers remarkable versatility by supporting not only point coordinates, but also surface normals, texture coordinates, and material information. This functional richness explains its massive adoption in the 3D modeling ecosystem, especially for integration with traditional CAD software.

Binary formats: performance and rich metadata

The LAS format stands as the industry reference for lidar data thanks to its open specification maintained by the ASPRS (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing). Its compact binary structure efficiently stores coordinates, return intensity, RGB values, and point classifications according to recognized industry standards.

Proprietary binary formats like FLS (Faro) or PTG (Leica) incorporate optimizations specific to their respective scanner manufacturers. This approach ensures maximum preservation of native data and optimal performance, but at the cost of dependence on proprietary software ecosystems.

Universal interoperability standards

E57 format: reference industrial standard

Developed under the auspices of the ASTM E57 committee and formalized in the ASTM E2807 standard, the E57 format represents the culmination of standardization efforts in the field of point clouds. Its hybrid XML-binary structure combines the descriptive flexibility of XML for metadata and the efficiency of binary for large data.

How to choose the right format for the CAD workflow

Selecting the optimal format depends on three critical factors: the volume of data to be processed, metadata requirements, and compatibility with the existing software ecosystem. A methodical analysis of these parameters guides the choice best suited to operational constraints.

For projects requiring immersive visualization, the FBX format offers a decisive advantage with its native support for animations, textures, and materials. This functional richness is particularly relevant for virtual reality training applications or interactive client presentations.

Concrete industrial use cases

These industrial implementations demonstrate the crucial importance of a format strategy adapted to operational constraints. Technical selection cannot be limited to performance alone, but must integrate traceability, archiving, and solution scalability aspects.