Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mapping Los Santos! Building/landmark analysis

26,009 replies to this topic
jbte
  • jbte

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2011

#5551

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:29 PM

QUOTE (lxr @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 14:41)
QUOTE (Money Over Bullsh*t @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 14:02)
I also think you might have north west and south east mixed up

I don't think the new map has this mixed up, but I would like to make one suggestion for future mapping efforts.

We can't agree on a common scale yet, and we don't agree on certain locations... but can we agree on a common "north"?

This "north" is not something we can measure, it's something we would have to decide.

My impression is that it would make mapping easier if we assumed the following (I hope it's all the same thing):

- The Vinewood sign runs from west to east

- The mast above the sign is north from the center of the sign

- The two red logos on top of the US Bank Tower face north and south

- The downtown grid is aligned with the compass

Also consider the position of the sun, a sunset in RL LA always should be west, look at most of the images you see with a red tone (evening) and afternoon. Apparently most of those images points to the west, and only one to the east (morning image), the sun position is a good mark for orientation, if you don't see the sun, look for the shadows could give you a great signal to where is west and east.

Later i'll explain my conclusions about my map and some more details and finds.

Eternal Moonshine
  • Eternal Moonshine

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2011

#5552

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 14:21)
NML ...since when ?..the past is the past. Lets see some innovation - a cut down city sure...but there are shades of grey ffs !.

Give us a 30 sq mile city....still tiny, but at least resembling a metropolis - RESEMBLING urban sprawl , what we have is a suburb masquerading as a metropolis. Raise your expectations - R* could of made a far larger city with comparatively few assets. Lets see generic , identitkit houses , I dont care if its boring, THATS the suburbs. Crossing the town in under 2 minutes on a highway is a joke.

I'm so glad you don't work at R*. GTA made by you would lack gameplay, be boring as hell and would overally suck balls

AceHigh11
  • AceHigh11

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2012

#5553

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

QUOTE (Eternal Moonshine @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 15:42)
QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 14:21)
NML ...since when ?..the past is the past. Lets see some innovation - a cut down city sure...but there are shades of grey ffs !.

Give us a 30 sq mile city....still tiny, but at least resembling a metropolis - RESEMBLING urban sprawl , what we have is a suburb masquerading as a metropolis. Raise your expectations - R* could of made a far larger city with comparatively few assets. Lets see generic , identitkit houses , I dont care if its boring, THATS the suburbs. Crossing the town in under 2 minutes on a highway is a joke.

I'm so glad you don't work at R*. GTA made by you would lack gameplay, be boring as hell and would overally suck balls

A huge city full of life made by R* will never be boring. This is talk for GTA VI though. Coming 2018 smile.gif

lxr
  • lxr

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#5554

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

QUOTE (jbte @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 15:29)
Also consider the position of the sun, a sunset in RL LA always should be west, look at most of the images you see with a red tone (evening) and afternoon. Apparently most of those images points to the west, and only one to the east (morning image), the sun position is a good mark for orientation, if you don't see the sun, look for the shadows could give you a great signal to where is west and east.

Later i'll explain my conclusions about my map and some more details and finds.

Cool.

Agree about the position of the sun... just that sometimes it bites you, like in that IAA building descent shot with lens flare from the north, or in your image 80. I also thought it must looking west at first, but koeklin and Fido had been looking at the buildings for much longer than me, and they were right.

JoeM
  • JoeM

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2005

#5555

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:09 PM Edited by JoeM, 23 November 2012 - 04:11 PM.

QUOTE (vLife @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 15:29)
I think it will be like this:

Please for the love of god, remove that image from your post.
Im on a 100mb internet connection and it just took a minute to load!

Also, sorry to pick faults but LA is on the west coast not east so it cant possibly be laid out like that.

Also on a side note, R* said the main city bit of V would be the same size as GTA IV so people complaining saying thats to small, please stop it.

That would leave the surounding areas being the size of RDR & SA combined. The map will be huge!

NML
  • NML

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2007

#5556

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (GetBentSaggy @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 13:30)
QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 12:21)
NML ...since when ?..the past is the past. Lets see some innovation - a cut down city sure...but there are shades of grey ffs !.

Give us a 30 sq mile city....still tiny, but at least resembling a metropolis - RESEMBLING urban sprawl , what we have is a suburb masquerading as a metropolis. Raise your expectations - R* could of made a far larger city with comparatively few assets. Lets see generic , identitkit houses , I dont care if its boring, THATS the suburbs. Crossing the town in under 2 minutes on a highway is a joke.

Since they were catering to current-gen, no, they couldn't have made a "far larger city" AND also have kept in many other features. You'd have sacrificed a lot for those villages in South Los Angeles to have been put into GTA at an accurate scale.

If they catered for Wii U, PS4 and 720 then it would be a lot bigger, the Wii U is 50% more powerful than the 360/PS3 and so will the next Xbox/PS (or else they'll sell something too expensive and fail).

This.
And we would get a new game every 15 years or so.
plus it would become really boring if we would need to drive for an half hour or more just to get to the next mission, and if the traffic would be realistic we would just be stuck there.
R* knows how to make games fun, and if the cities would be the size of the real cities it wouldn't be fun anymore.

koeklin
  • koeklin

    - - - - cut here - - - -

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2011
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#5557

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

Wilshire Boulevard: Wiltern Theatre (Pellissier Building)

Turquoise, oblique orientation relative to the street...

user posted image

Jonny04
  • Jonny04

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2007

#5558

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:48 PM

QUOTE (NML @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 10:51)
QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 10:09)
Not so Gouranga...True Crime SOLA had a 240 sq mile rendition of LA. Yes there were a lot of repetitive buildings but all the same .

LS in V is a sh*tty cut down, corners cut , lowest common denominator pleasing shambles. LS is around 3 maybe 4 sq miles at most. What a f*cking joke. In other words, its about the size of a town of perhaps 20 000 people...not several million.


Most folk like the size of the GTA maps, this is the biggest map they have ever made. I used to be young and would possibly think the same way as the thousands of people whining. I now simply think its great, the map will be epic. Countryside looks amazing, everything is way better than San Andreas. Map size is irrelevant, how many times do you play LA Noire or true crime or just cause 2. Most people probably never.

I used to play it for about a day then quit it, they are boring empty worlds with no life in them, no interaction.

We have not even seen the tip of the iceberg with GTA V, the map is not fully shown, but is only one part of the advances. Such as:

Multiplayer
Planes
New mission styles
Protoganists
San Andreas style RPG elements
Small towns
Scuba diving
Wildlife

So many whiners, but I'm not bitching to you mate, just so happens this is my post directed to all haters, just so happens to come in this thread.

Think of it this way Manhattan has over 150 Numbered streets. LC had at most 40 from top to bottom, in other words in real life you would only be 7 streets north of Empire State bld if you were on 40th street Manhattan.

Scaling it is way better, the game will deliver in spades.

Bravo to everyone's contributions in the thread. Every page is brilliant, read it all. Bring on GTA V

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#5559

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:52 PM Edited by Kifflom112, 23 November 2012 - 04:54 PM.

QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 04:09)
Not so Gouranga...True Crime SOLA had a 240 sq mile rendition of LA. Yes there were a lot of repetitive buildings but all the same .

LS in V is a sh*tty cut down, corners cut , lowest common denominator pleasing shambles. LS is around 3 maybe 4 sq miles at most. What a f*cking joke. In other words, its about the size of a town of perhaps 20 000 people...not several million.

confused.gif I really don't know what to say. Not only is your stupid "4square miles at the most, d-hoyee" calculation wrong, but there is just so much wrong with this post.
You want stupid ass repetitive buildings and 200sqmile over a detailed 10sqmile city full of unique buildings and culture? Wow mercie_blink.gif
I know everyone should accept others opinions but I'll be blunt, that is just stupid. GTA's biggest city is only 6-8 square miles yet you were expecting some half assed 200square mile repetitive ass city?
When did you start playing GTA, with IV?

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#5560

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:03 PM Edited by GKP, 23 November 2012 - 05:07 PM.

Kifflom. Since 1998.

And no I did not expect 240 sq miles.

Lets say 30 square miles though...or a mere 5 by 6 miles in size. That is 5 minutes to cross at a very average highway speed. Not so large is it ?...not so repetitive ...
The future is coming anyway , and it will be reflected by larger, more realistic cities. A paradigm shift will come and procedurally generated large cities will be the order of the day. It doesnt have to be
'boring' , 5 or 10 minutes to drive somewhere should be an absolute minimum for immersion. Nevermind eh...you know best.

expand your minds and realise there are high end tools out there that can create cities in a very short amount of time.


NML
  • NML

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2007

#5561

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:18 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 17:03)
Kifflom. Since 1998.

And no I did not expect 240 sq miles.

Lets say 30 square miles though...or a mere 5 by 6 miles in size. That is 5 minutes to cross at a very average highway speed. Not so large is it ?...not so repetitive ...
The future is coming anyway , and it will be reflected by larger, more realistic cities. A paradigm shift will come and procedurally generated large cities will be the order of the day. It doesnt have to be
'boring' , 5 or 10 minutes to drive somewhere should be an absolute minimum for immersion. Nevermind eh...you know best.

expand your minds and realise there are high end tools out there that can create cities in a very short amount of time.


There are tools like that, but R* is never going to do a city with these kinds of tools.
Then it would be like Just Cause, R* always makes every place unique and very detailed.
So it would take a very long time for them to make cities like this. Or then they could have a huge city and no country side, but I think it's much more fun with variation.

lxr
  • lxr

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#5562

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 17:03)
A paradigm shift will come and procedurally generated large cities will be the order of the day. It doesnt have to be
'boring' , 5 or 10 minutes to drive somewhere should be an absolute minimum for immersion.

This may be true, and I see why lots of people would like it... it's just that GTA is a different genre, a different game. At least since IV, it's about a meticulously handcrafted city where almost every tiny detail is a copy, reflection or parody of something that actually exists in RL.

But I think this whole discussion rather belongs in the wishlist thread, no? Since "mapping" is more about making sense of what we can actually see...

lxr
  • lxr

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#5563

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:53 PM

One more detail: the pier.

(Which means, just to be clear, that on a proper map, a straight line from the camera position to the bridge will run through the pier.)

user posted image

DS 17
  • DS 17

    om nom nom

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2008
  • Germany

#5564

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:34 PM

QUOTE (NML @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 18:18)
QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 17:03)
Kifflom. Since 1998.

And no I did not expect 240 sq miles.

Lets say 30 square miles though...or a mere 5 by 6 miles in size. That is 5 minutes to cross at a very average highway speed. Not so large is it ?...not so repetitive ...
The future is coming anyway , and it will be reflected by larger, more realistic cities. A paradigm shift will come and procedurally generated large cities will be the order of the day. It doesnt have to be
'boring' , 5 or 10 minutes to drive somewhere should be an absolute minimum for immersion. Nevermind eh...you know best.

expand your minds and realise there are high end tools out there that can create cities in a very short amount of time.


There are tools like that, but R* is never going to do a city with these kinds of tools.
Then it would be like Just Cause, R* always makes every place unique and very detailed.
So it would take a very long time for them to make cities like this. Or then they could have a huge city and no country side, but I think it's much more fun with variation.

If you don't know any fact, then save these statements for yourself.
R* bought licenses years ago for CityEngine, which is a city generator from Switzerland. So no company would ever spend money for a software which won't be used anyway. It's possible, that they tested it or maybe we will see it used in another game, but they ARE using softwares like that.

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#5565

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE
Lets say 30 square miles though...or a mere 5 by 6 miles in size. That is 5 minutes to cross at a very average highway speed. Not so large is it ?...not so repetitive ...

You really don't understand do you?
It doesn't matter how big it is. It matters how detailed and unique it is. With today's hardware there is not enough space to utilize with unique props and whatever R* does with their cities. This would lead to a boringer city. Not as many neighborhoods would be unique from each other because if they were it would take up lots of space.

And I'm just saying. Does it really effin' matter? You got a city as big as LC maybe a few square meters bigger, and then you've got tons of countryside and lots of sea life too. And that cake is topped with frosting: R*'s level of detail from IV, even better maybe. If you're still complaining while knowing what I just said is true, then you've really got a lot of nerve and that's just ridiculous.
I swear, we can't even get good info without people still complaining about something menial.
That'll be all though. I don't want to mess up this decent topic.

SCLASS
  • SCLASS

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2008

#5566

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:10 PM

Kifflom - its all relative. ( I am GKP btw)

Taking your argument then ..would a GTA3 size city be ok with you ?...where do you draw the line.

The current city sizes are FAR too small. A 30 sq mile city is a MINIMUM for a decent sprawl. Look at GTA neighbourhoods and they are literally a few blocks its a disgrace, ...jarring differences in 10 seconds of driving. The next gen will have larger cities. THEN what would you say ?....would you be complaining then ?..that is the way its going to go. If its ok to have larger cities for future GTA's on future consoles then its ok now.

2 minutes to cross a city on the highway is very immersive. There is plenty of room on the disc if R* would make a few identikit blocks of warehouses / factories / houses etc...ie like real life.

initium
  • initium

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2012

#5567

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:22 PM

QUOTE (DS 17 @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 18:34)
QUOTE (NML @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 18:18)
QUOTE (GKP @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 17:03)
Kifflom. Since 1998.

And no I did not expect 240 sq miles.

Lets say 30 square miles though...or a mere 5 by 6 miles in size. That is 5 minutes to cross at a very average highway speed. Not so large is it ?...not so repetitive ...
The future is coming anyway , and it will be reflected by larger, more realistic cities. A paradigm shift will come and procedurally generated large cities will be the order of the day. It doesnt have to be
'boring' , 5 or 10 minutes to drive somewhere should be an absolute minimum for immersion. Nevermind eh...you know best.

expand your minds and realise there are high end tools out there that can create cities in a very short amount of time.


There are tools like that, but R* is never going to do a city with these kinds of tools.
Then it would be like Just Cause, R* always makes every place unique and very detailed.
So it would take a very long time for them to make cities like this. Or then they could have a huge city and no country side, but I think it's much more fun with variation.

If you don't know any fact, then save these statements for yourself.
R* bought licenses years ago for CityEngine, which is a city generator from Switzerland. So no company would ever spend money for a software which won't be used anyway. It's possible, that they tested it or maybe we will see it used in another game, but they ARE using softwares like that.

LA Noire?

Def. not GTA

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#5568

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:24 PM

QUOTE (SCLASS @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 13:10)
Kifflom - its all relative. ( I am GKP btw)

Taking your argument then ..would a GTA3 size city be ok with you ?...where do you draw the line.

The current city sizes are FAR too small. A 30 sq mile city is a MINIMUM for a decent sprawl. Look at GTA neighbourhoods and they are literally a few blocks its a disgrace, ...jarring differences in 10 seconds of driving. The next gen will have larger cities. THEN what would you say ?....would you be complaining then ?..that is the way its going to go. If its ok to have larger cities for future GTA's on future consoles then its ok now.

2 minutes to cross a city on the highway is very immersive. There is plenty of room on the disc if R* would make a few identikit blocks of warehouses / factories / houses etc...ie like real life.

bored.gif 2 accounts???

Anyways, whatever dude. Maybe you don't like a 10 square mile city, but me and many others don't care. Especially when that city is a VERY good size for a city of that level of detail and with the fact that you've got loads of countryside. Such beautiful and vast countryside that some don't even care about the city.
There is nothing wrong with the city. dozingoff.gif

Big_Mitch_Baker
  • Big_Mitch_Baker

    =Ĺ= Angels of Death - Founder

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2005

#5569

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:30 PM

QUOTE (SCLASS @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 19:10)
Kifflom - its all relative. ( I am GKP btw)

Taking your argument then ..would a GTA3 size city be ok with you ?...where do you draw the line.


Dafuq you need 2 accounts for?

A GTA III size city would be great if it was super detailed in proportion to the scale of V. like a III size map where every building is enterable, there were sewer systems and such, and NPCs had lives instead of being randomly generated. Detail > Scale, R* understand this. Like someone else said, its like handcrafted artistry vs. assembly line production. It will be a long time before a company has the tools & time to put R*s level of detail into a Massive map

lxr
  • lxr

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#5570

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:32 PM Edited by lxr, 23 November 2012 - 07:37 PM.

Mapping the area directly north of the Vinewood Sign... 4 images.

I'm very confident that #1 is looking NE, towards the boxy mountain at NE edge of the Alamo Sea -- especially now that one can see, very faintly, the diagonal structures of the mountain across the Alamo Sea, like in #3. And from this perspective, it makes a lot of sense for the two small triangles on the right to be the top sections of two radio telescopes. In the scene with Trevor driving past them, the two telescopes furthest from the highway are obscured, but in #3 and #4, it looks like they're facing, very roughly, NW.

Now in #2 the three small triangles on the left look like they're exactly the same kind of thing, and the spacing also seems good. But where is #2 in relation to #1? Judging by the telescopes -- very difficult -- #2 should be a bit further to the left. Maybe on the imaginary road that connects the buildings in the left half of #1, or even hidden by the driver? And where is #1 on #3, other than just vaguely "behind the top of the hill"?

#1
user posted image

#2
user posted image

#3
user posted image

#4
user posted image

Redemption96
  • Redemption96

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012

#5571

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:02 PM

Well this ia amazing work








SCLASS
  • SCLASS

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2008

#5572

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:08 PM

BMB - I posted from work ...didn't recall my original password.


FunGt
  • FunGt

    GTA-Modding.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2005
  • Italy

#5573

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:15 PM

QUOTE (jbte @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 04:32)
Hey all, made this new map using the latest images available and second trailer video.
http://s10.postimage...all_GTAPrev.jpg
Click on image for better resolution and size, 4204x3804 pixels.

I did everything according to the image analysis, 3D modeling references and digital mapping of the terrain. And of course some help from this thread  smile.gif
Hope you like, any corrections let me know!

OMG awesome work !

Hardly
  • Hardly

    Square Civilian

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2012

#5574

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:54 PM

QUOTE (jbte @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 15:29)
QUOTE (lxr @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 14:41)
QUOTE (Money Over Bullsh*t @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 14:02)
I also think you might have north west and south east mixed up

I don't think the new map has this mixed up, but I would like to make one suggestion for future mapping efforts.

We can't agree on a common scale yet, and we don't agree on certain locations... but can we agree on a common "north"?

This "north" is not something we can measure, it's something we would have to decide.

My impression is that it would make mapping easier if we assumed the following (I hope it's all the same thing):

- The Vinewood sign runs from west to east

- The mast above the sign is north from the center of the sign

- The two red logos on top of the US Bank Tower face north and south

- The downtown grid is aligned with the compass

Also consider the position of the sun, a sunset in RL LA always should be west, look at most of the images you see with a red tone (evening) and afternoon. Apparently most of those images points to the west, and only one to the east (morning image), the sun position is a good mark for orientation, if you don't see the sun, look for the shadows could give you a great signal to where is west and east.

Later i'll explain my conclusions about my map and some more details and finds.

Could you explain why you put screenshot 50 in the south like that? I'm guessing it's based off of the assumption that you believe a city is seen off in the distance, but that city could very well be a factory of some sort. Even if you could prove it was a city, it makes no sense why you would jump to the conclusion that it is Bay City.

Also, why did you place the prison where it is now? None of the screenshots pointing towards it have a prison visible anywhere. The one building that is believed to be a prison is confirmed to be in both 47 and 7, which is inconsistent with what you have.

Finally, where did you find screenshot 68? I've never seen that before anywhere.

Sorry, I know you put a lot of effort into making this map smile.gif

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#5575

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:57 PM

QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 11:52)
Not only is your stupid "4square miles at the most, d-hoyee" calculation wrong


I'm curious. How many square miles do you think this area is - http://i.imgur.com/lFnIL.jpg


Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#5576

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:07 PM Edited by Kifflom112, 23 November 2012 - 09:33 PM.

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 14:57)
QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 11:52)
Not only is your stupid "4square miles at the most, d-hoyee" calculation wrong


I'm curious. How many square miles do you think this area is - http://i.imgur.com/lFnIL.jpg

That screen doesn't show the whole city for the 15th time.
No offense Taco, but please F off with this Los Santos is small crap towards me, it's getting old. You think LS is small, so what? Let's just agree to disagree. It's been proven that LS is the size of LC and that's all that matters.
And let's be honest. When you look at all of LS or all of what's been shown, does it only look like 2 miles in length and 2 miles in width altogether to you?
Below me: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say, but he no comprehendé
d:/ D-hoy

Hardly
  • Hardly

    Square Civilian

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2012

#5577

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:24 PM

Shut the f*ck up about saying the city is small. It's comparable to the size of Liberty City, yes. Just like Vice City was comparable to the size of Liberty City. And Los Santos. And San Fierro. And Las Venturas. Why would you expect any different?

Just wait until you've played the game. Then tell me if you still think the city is too small.

SCLASS
  • SCLASS

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2008

#5578

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:49 PM Edited by SCLASS, 23 November 2012 - 09:53 PM.

Choco was stating waaay back from the first trailer that the city was small...with lots of analysis.

Those who want us to 'f*ck off' are taking things rather personally. Can you not be objective ?...look at the facts...the 'big city pic' above is virtually the entire city.
Deal with it. IT IS SMALL....realise that R* have concentrated on the countryside this time , to the detriment of the city. Not what I wanted but ..thats the way it is.

Is is BARELY 2 mile in 'length'...how do we know such things ....well analyze GTAIV pics...the island of Algonquin is 1.7 miles long, and frankly from the POV of the cam , the far bridge airport area barely looks much further. 3.5 sq miles if were lucky. Use your heads kids, and understand there are people more observant with more years / experience under their belt who can deduce facts better than you can.

QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 11:52)
Not only is your stupid "4square miles at the most, d-hoyee" calculation wrong


I'm curious. How many square miles do you think this area is - http://i.imgur.com/lFnIL.jpg

Hell - you can just put the US bank tower on its side a few times and work out the square mileage fairly easily. Its small , far too small for a so called sprawling city.

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#5579

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:53 PM Edited by Kifflom112, 23 November 2012 - 10:01 PM.

QUOTE (SCLASS @ Friday, Nov 23 2012, 15:49)
Choco was stating waaay back from the first trailer that the city was small...with lots of analysis.

Those who want us to 'f*ck off' are taking things rather personally.  Can you not be objective ?...look at the facts...the 'big city pic' above is virtually the entire city.
Deal with it. IT IS SMALL....realise that R* have concentrated on the countryside this time , to the detriment of the city. Not what I wanted but ..thats the way it is.

Have you been ignoring what's been going on in the news section? It IS! I repeat, it IS the biggest city in GTA!
It's already been said that it's a few square meters bigger than LC.

I swear getting to you people is the hardest f*cking crap ever.
PM me so we don't ruin this thread with a crappy never ending argument.
suicidal.gif Seriously I'm in lost for words in how stupid this is.
Calm down? This debate is stupid and pointless. And ruining this great thread.
I'm sorry for the contributors of this thread.

SCLASS
  • SCLASS

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2008

#5580

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:55 PM

Yeah ...sure R* ..if you include some sparsely populated Vinewood hills areas as 'city'.......where does one draw the boundary ?....If you put a road with a houses on either
side leading away from the city you can include that as 'city'... Calm down Kifflom , were just debating.




4 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users