Veo 3.1 Preview is shutting down: A guide to switching to Gemini for architectural videos

What will you learn in this guide?

Veo 3.1 Preview, used in the Gemini API, was discontinued on 22 October 2026. Google’s developer documentation recommends switching to Gemini Omni Flash for video generation and conversational video editing. This guide explains how to evaluate a new video workflow for architectural visualization and interior presentations, which input method to choose when analyzing existing videos, and how to turn requests into clearer prompts.

There’s an important distinction: generating a video, analyzing an existing video, and editing a video conversationally are not the same task. Google’s documentation describes Gemini Omni Flash for generation and multi-turn editing, while analysis of existing videos is covered in Gemini’s video understanding guide. So first, determine which category your needs fall into.

Requirements and choosing the right method

This guide is based on workflows described in the Gemini API documentation. To work through the API, you need Gemini API access and a client or API integration to send the request. The source documents don’t explain every account type, fee, or access requirement for the video workflows covered here, so check the latest API documentation before use.

For video generation or conversational video editing, the recommended model in the documentation is Gemini Omni Flash, with the model identifier gemini-omni-1.1-flash. Google also lists generally available models on the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform as a migration option. The old Veo 3.1 Preview model identifiers—veo-3.1-generate-preview, veo-3.1-fast-generate-preview, and veo-3.1-lite-generate-preview—no longer work in the Gemini API. Don’t assume your old integration will continue to work.

When analyzing existing video files, choose an input method based on file size and how you plan to use it:

The documentation recommends the File API, especially if the request exceeds 20 MB, the video is long, or you’ll use the same file in multiple requests. For Inline Data, the video understanding guide specifies that the total request size should be under 20 MB. These thresholds apply in different contexts, so when choosing a method, consider not only the file size but also the combined size of the prompt and other request data.

Step by step: Setting up an architectural video workflow

1. Identify the type of task. If you want to generate a new short video or edit a generated video across multiple turns, explore the Gemini Omni Flash workflow. If you want to summarize an existing construction-site recording, walkthrough, or presentation clip and ask questions about its contents, use the video understanding guide. Don’t treat one method as a substitute for the other.

2. Submit the file to be analyzed in a suitable way. Inline Data may work for small, one-time videos. The File API is recommended for large, long, or reusable files. If you choose the YouTube option, note that the video must be public. After uploading a file, wait until it has been processed and is ready before sending the analysis request; the official examples check the file’s status.

3. State the task and scope clearly in your prompt. The examples below are original prompts written for architectural use. They are natural-language instructions for the video, not API call code. The client or integration you use depends on your existing technical setup.

Review this interior presentation video. Summarize the spaces shown in order; for each segment, describe the notable material, lighting, and furniture choices only to the extent that they can be identified in the footage. Do not guess at details you are unsure about.

This instruction asks the response to follow the sequence of spaces and not present unobservable features as facts. This makes it possible to turn the video review into a draft of notes that the design team can check.

Find the sections in this project video that show the accessible route. For each relevant section, give the timestamp in the video and describe what is visible. Do not make claims about dimensions or code compliance that cannot be verified from the footage.

Gemini’s video understanding capabilities include referring to specific timestamps. This prompt asks the model to link what is visible to a timestamp, without assuming that dimensions or code compliance can be determined from the video.

Adjust this interior video toward a calmer, more legible flow for presentation. Let’s consider the changes one at a time: first, evaluate my request to reduce visual clutter in the frame, then explain the result without making any other changes.

According to Google, Gemini Omni Flash supports multi-turn conversational video editing and refinements such as replacing elements. Rather than asking for many changes at once, this example breaks the edit into stages; check how each request is handled in the result.

1. Review the result and narrow your request. Gemini’s prompt design guide recommends clear, specific instructions and, when needed, stating constraints and the desired response format. If the first response isn’t useful enough, break the task into parts: start with a general summary, then ask for selected timestamps, followed by a question about a particular design decision. For video editing, requesting a single change per turn also makes it easier to track which instruction affected the result.

Common mistakes

• Using discontinued Veo identifiers: As of 22 October 2026, Veo 3.1 Preview is listed as discontinued in the Gemini API. Don’t keep using the old model identifiers in a new integration; consider switching to Gemini Omni Flash or the listed generally available models.

• Confusing video generation with video analysis: The generation guide and the video understanding guide cover different tasks. Writing a generation prompt to analyze an existing clip won’t, by itself, set up the required input workflow.

• Overlooking input size: Inline Data is suited to small files, while the File API is recommended for large or reusable files. Total request size and how long you plan to use the file also matter.

• Giving vague or overly broad instructions: Instead of “Review the video,” specify what to look for, how to organize the response, and what not to infer. Gemini’s prompt guide emphasizes that examples can guide format and scope, and that prompts should be refined through experimentation.

• Treating visual output as verified project data: Video analysis can provide responses and timestamps relating to visible content; the sources don’t say that this method guarantees measurements, technical compliance checks, or accurate project documentation. Verify critical information separately against project files and with the responsible team.

Next steps for architecture and visualization workflows

For architects, interior designers, and visualization teams, the most practical applications are summarizing existing presentation videos, finding specific scenes by timestamp, and experimenting with iterative edits to short promotional videos. This approach may help with presentation preparation and internal content review; however, the source documentation doesn’t specify compatibility with any particular BIM, modeling, or rendering software. So don’t treat video output as an operation directly tied to an existing scene or project file.

As a next step, start with a small, one-time analysis task; then explore the File API for large files or files you’ll use regularly. Have your team review generated or edited videos for scene continuity and design decisions. The sources provided don’t explain hardware requirements, pricing in Türkiye, or licensing terms, so check the latest service and usage conditions separately before putting the workflow into production.

Sources and licensing

This article is adapted into Turkish from Google’s Gemini API documentation on video generation, video understanding, and prompt design. Each source is licensed under CC BY 4.0. The sample prompts were written specifically for this guide’s architecture and interior design context; no code examples were copied from the official documentation.