Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mapping Los Santos! Building/landmark analysis

26,288 replies to this topic
BisP
  • BisP

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#6571

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:07 AM

I think it's the farther one, in the trailer it looks like that will most likely lead to a turn of some sort.

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6572

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:15 AM Edited by lxr, 17 January 2013 - 01:19 AM.

QUOTE (sibs44 @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 01:07)
I think it's the farther one, in the trailer it looks like that will most likely lead to a turn of some sort.

It's all a bit compressed. The bridge (or the other one) can also be seen in the beach/bench scene (link). If you continue on the (real life) highway to the second bridge, you'll see the building that's in the screenshot.

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#6573

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:20 AM

QUOTE (artificialguy @ Wednesday, Jan 16 2013, 18:45)
As this thread is so massive I might have missed that if posted already. Sorry then.

user posted image

I really hope this road is a proper parody of the Pacific Highway.
It should begin from Interstate 2(Del Perro) and head north to where you have it now, then keep heading north along the coast, hopefully passes a Malibu knock off, and then forms that famous arced bridge.

Fido_le_muet
  • Fido_le_muet

    XDBX

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2007
  • France
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#6574

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:22 AM Edited by Fido_le_muet, 17 January 2013 - 07:24 AM.

Great find that interstate sign on that scren. It also looks like a 4 to me.
About the PCH, I have the same feel as you kifflom. That road runs along the coast, north, and to that famous bridge.
But if I followed things, that's not coherent with the current mapping of the countryside...

EDIT : actually, it fits perfectly with the Grand Unifier Theory !!! Yay !!!

CaptRobau
  • CaptRobau

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2011

#6575

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:35 AM

It doe! There's nothing in the background such as mountains and while there could be flatland, I think it matches up nicely with the width of the Los Santos and the coasts to the side, that've been mapped in this thread. Look's like we're looking at our western edge of the map. I wonder how the Zancudo River, that flows on the other side of the mountain flows. Does it end in the river, meaning another bridge, or does it originate in one of the hills above Los Santos or even the mountain itself? Makes me wonder about what's out there in that western section of the map we've seen so little of. The terrain between the Zancudo River and the Los Santos hills seems to be reasonably flat, so it might be the location of the military base. Perhaps a mix of Vandenberg AFB and Edwards AFB. Vandenberg is like a second Area 51 and located on the coast, so it's not out of place and ripe for weird Green Goo like missions.

On a side note, thee course of the small river that flows from the dam above Echo Park seems to be quite straight forward. It makes a bend and then follows the contours of that promontory that you painted in in brown on the map. There it flows into the LS River.

user posted image

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6576

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:05 AM Edited by lxr, 18 January 2013 - 02:43 AM.

QUOTE (CaptRobau @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 09:35)
It doe! There's nothing in the background such as mountains and while there could be flatland, I think it matches up nicely with the width of the Los Santos and the coasts to the side, that've been mapped in this thread. Look's like we're looking at our western edge of the map. I wonder how the Zancudo River, that flows on the other side of the mountain flows. Does it end in the river, meaning another bridge, or does it originate in one of the hills above Los Santos or even the mountain itself? Makes me wonder about what's out there in that western section of the map we've seen so little of. The terrain between the Zancudo River and the Los Santos hills seems to be reasonably flat, so it might be the location of the military base. Perhaps a mix of Vandenberg AFB and Edwards AFB. Vandenberg is like a second Area 51 and located on the coast, so it's not out of place and ripe for weird Green Goo like missions.

On a side note, thee course of the small river that flows from the dam above Echo Park seems to be quite straight forward. It makes a bend and then follows the contours of that promontory that you painted in in brown on the map. There it flows into the LS River.

Regarding Zancudo River, I guess we'd first have to determine in which direction it flows. It has a small waterfall, which is also on GTAKiwi's map, and I've always interpreted it as flowing west, from the Alamo Sea to the ocean. Now if you look at the lights vs. shadows on that river, you could also argue it flows east, into the Alamo Sea, but it would come from quite far west, and in real life, that's not how you'd expect a watershed to run (i.e. water flowing from close to the ocean back inland, into a lake, and then back to the ocean, seems unlikely). Don't know what others think about this.

Either way, there should be some space along the western part of the Zancudo River, maybe even for an Air Force Base, but not too much either, since this image, on its right/northern edge, clearly shows ocean. At the same time, if there is terrain between the Zancudo River and the Los Santos Hills *at all* (other than maybe far west, close to the ocean) is an open question.

With regards to the dam, and how its outflow may lead to the Los Santos River, I don't really have a clear idea. (For example, what exactly is the dark area that your blue arrow is drawn on?) Still, I'm relatively certain that this one (orange arrow) is not far off. It may be a road, not the actual river, but I think it's close.


Edited to add:

With Zancudo River, I think our biggest problem has to do with that one thing that neither GTAKiwi's map nor the Grand Unified Theory explains very well (see here, or search this thread for "headache" confused.gif ). Seen from the city, the peak of Mt. Zancudo appears to be east of the Observatory (or at least not far west of it). The train bridge must be even further east (see here), yet, from that bridge, you can see, looking east-southeast, three mountains (image I) that are more or less north (but rather further west than further east) of the Vinewood Sign. The most likely explanation is that multiple distorted perspectives are adding up, but still, one could propose something more radical. No idea what though.

CaptRobau
  • CaptRobau

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2011

#6577

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:54 AM

The blue arrow points at the water in the small canyon. The black bit is I suspect the canyon wall. It's quite a steep drop.

About Zancudo, I didn't notice the waterfall. Does indeed make more sense for it to flow out of the Alamo Sea. Even if the cove above 'Malibu' isn't that far inland as on fido's map, it's still pretty close to the ocean for it to flow into the Alamo Sea. Makes me thing that there's another river on the other side of the Alamo Sea feeding the large lake even if it's just mostly a mountain stream. It occurred to me very quickly that in the situation with two rivers flowing out, that it didn't have a source (doubt it's only precipitation). That would occur to experienced world builders like R* as well.

Ferocious Banger
  • Ferocious Banger

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2012
  • India

#6578

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:57 AM

I have a doubt:

Gta SA + GTA IV + RDR = 13.9+6.3+7 =27.2 sq miles, right?

3*RDR = 21sq miles.

Gtav can't be 27 and 21 at the same time. confused.gif

Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    It is a false flag

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#6579

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:58 AM

QUOTE (Ferocious Banger @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 10:57)
I have a doubt:

Gta SA + GTA IV + RDR = 13.9+6.3+7 =27.2 sq miles, right?

3*RDR = 21sq miles.

Gtav can't be 27 and 21 at the same time. confused.gif

Then it's somewhere between, they didn't calculate it precisely before announcing.

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6580

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

QUOTE (Ferocious Banger @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 10:57)
I have a doubt:

Gta SA + GTA IV + RDR = 13.9+6.3+7 =27.2 sq miles, right?

3*RDR = 21sq miles.

Gtav can't be 27 and 21 at the same time. confused.gif

SA + IV + RDR = 3 x RDR is a bit more complicated than that.

Ferocious Banger
  • Ferocious Banger

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2012
  • India

#6581

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:16 AM

QUOTE (lxr @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 16:29)
QUOTE (Ferocious Banger @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 10:57)
I have a doubt:

Gta SA + GTA IV + RDR = 13.9+6.3+7 =27.2 sq miles, right?

3*RDR = 21sq miles.

Gtav can't be 27 and 21 at the same time. confused.gif

SA + IV + RDR = 3 x RDR is a bit more complicated than that.

That was neat. But..but ~50 sq.m? panic.gif

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6582

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:21 AM Edited by lxr, 17 January 2013 - 11:25 AM.

QUOTE (CaptRobau @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 10:54)
Makes me thing that there's another river on the other side of the Alamo Sea feeding the large lake even if it's just mostly a mountain stream. It occurred to me very quickly that in the situation with two rivers flowing out, that it didn't have a source (doubt it's only precipitation). That would occur to experienced world builders like R* as well.

Totally agree with that. You can make a similar "realism argument" about the reservoir, which would imply quite a bit of high-up mountain territory east-northeast of the city.


QUOTE (Ferocious Banger @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 11:16)
QUOTE (lxr @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 16:29)
SA + IV + RDR = 3 x RDR is a bit more complicated than that.

That was neat. But..but ~50 sq.m? panic.gif

If you want to be more conservative, see here.

LotusRIP
  • LotusRIP

    King of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2011

#6583

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:30 PM

Damn, you guys are getting WAY too formulaic with your calculations/dimensions and what not.

CaptRobau
  • CaptRobau

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2011

#6584

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:38 PM

QUOTE (lxr @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 11:21)
[QUOTE=CaptRobau,Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 10:54][QUOTE=Ferocious Banger,Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 11:16][QUOTE=lxr,Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 16:29] SA + IV + RDR = 3 x RDR is a bit more complicated than that. [/QUOTE]
That was neat. But..but ~50 sq.m? panic.gif [/QUOTE]
If you want to be more conservative, see here.

Where is the quote that says that V's land is 3x RDR and the 5x with the ocean included? I've only ever read the 'with room to spare' one.

Chris Fromage
  • Chris Fromage

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2012
  • Japan

#6585

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:40 PM

I think we will never know how big the map is until R* releases it confused.gif

Mrthingus
  • Mrthingus

    Snake Eater

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2011

#6586

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:32 PM

So what landmarks will we not be seeing? So far I don't think the Tar Pits, McArthur Park, Crossroads of the World or LA Public Library will appear. I'm pretty sure Pershing Square is there, we just haven't seen it. Any more landsmarks we should be looking out for?

Archangel-Game
  • Archangel-Game

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2013

#6587

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:35 PM

user posted image

Is that Century Plaza Hotel, Century City ???

user posted image

Kifflom112
  • Kifflom112

    I like to spam

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2012

#6588

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:49 PM

^^^That was found way back in the 120-130 pages. smile.gif

CaptRobau
  • CaptRobau

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2011

#6589

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:03 PM

Upped the contrast on the Zancudo pic. I think what we see is two additional ridges that make it seem that Mt. Zancudo curves inwards, tapering towards the coast. On the left hand side it looks like the terrain is becoming quite flat.

user posted image

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#6590

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:11 PM

QUOTE (Mrthingus @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 08:32)
So what landmarks will we not be seeing? So far I don't think the Tar Pits, McArthur Park, Crossroads of the World or LA Public Library will appear. I'm pretty sure Pershing Square is there, we just haven't seen it. Any more landsmarks we should be looking out for?

Why don't you think those places will appear?

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6591

Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:28 PM Edited by lxr, 17 January 2013 - 04:33 PM.

QUOTE (CaptRobau @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 12:38)
Where is the quote that says that V's land is 3x RDR and the 5x with the ocean included? I've only ever read the 'with room to spare' one.

If you search for it, you'll see that "room to spare" was part of the other equation (SA + IV + RDR + room to spare).

Edit: Ah ok, you're probably looking for the original source of "3xRDR/5xRDR". Astonishingly hard to find. Wrongly attributed to both gamer.nl and mutliplayer.it - but I think I had in fact seen it at least once, so I'll keep looking... (Actually, IGN claims yet another thing, namely that "Rockstar has already gone on record and said Grand Theft Auto V will be around five times bigger than its predecessor, and whatís visible from the chopper is about three-and-a-half times bigger than the sprawling deserts of Red Dead Redemption.")


QUOTE (Mrthingus @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 13:32)
So what landmarks will we not be seeing? So far I don't think the Tar Pits, McArthur Park, Crossroads of the World or LA Public Library will appear. I'm pretty sure Pershing Square is there, we just haven't seen it. Any more landsmarks we should be looking out for?

You can see a bit of Pershing Square here, at the bottom of the image.

Fido_le_muet
  • Fido_le_muet

    XDBX

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2007
  • France
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#6592

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:52 PM

Many landmarks won't make it into the game. The oil company tower, AON Center, ARCO Tower, Wells Fargo buildong and many other downtown buildings.
Of course, R* can't include every buildings...
We haven't seen the Tar Pits and the other that you mentionned but that doesn't mean they're not there. We just haven't seen them yet.
And maybe they won't include them.
They also could move the landmarks somewhere else in the city.

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6593

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:02 AM Edited by lxr, 18 January 2013 - 12:05 AM.

QUOTE (lxr @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 15:28)
Edit: Ah ok, you're probably looking for the original source of "3xRDR/5xRDR". Astonishingly hard to find. Wrongly attributed to both gamer.nl and mutliplayer.it - but I think I had in fact seen it at least once, so I'll keep looking... (Actually, IGN claims yet another thing, namely that "Rockstar has already gone on record and said Grand Theft Auto V will be around five times bigger than its predecessor, and whatís visible from the chopper is about three-and-a-half times bigger than the sprawling deserts of Red Dead Redemption.")

It would be more fun to chase Malibu beach houses, but as I'd find it truly embarrassing if that "3xRDR/5xRDR" thing was just collective or personal hallucination, I spent some more time digging for it. Here's a sample query. Most occurrences of that quote seem to come from a point-by-point English translation of this Italian article, but the quote itself does not appear in the text. But then there are some references to this Dutch article, which doesn't say the exact same thing, but something very similar: "gigantisch, want vijf keer groter dan de wereld van Red Dead Redemption en dat is inclusief een groot deel onder water dat te verkennen is". Not hard to make sense of it, Dutch is close enough to English. I'll keep on digging for a better source, but if, in the meantime, you want to rely on some map math that's not based on this quote, I recommend this post by Magic_Al.

inflamedeyeball
  • inflamedeyeball

    New Carcass album coming this year!

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2011

#6594

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:09 AM

QUOTE (lxr @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 02:02)
"gigantisch, want vijf keer groter dan de wereld van Red Dead Redemption en dat is inclusief een groot deel onder water dat te verkennen is".

"gigantic, because (it's) five times bigger than the world of Red Dead Redemption and that includes a large underwater area which can be explored".

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6595

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE (inflamedeyeball @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 00:09)
QUOTE (lxr @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 02:02)
"gigantisch, want vijf keer groter dan de wereld van Red Dead Redemption en dat is inclusief een groot deel onder water dat te verkennen is".

"gigantic, because (it's) five times bigger than the world of Red Dead Redemption and that includes a large underwater area which can be explored".

Yup. Similar statements on some German video blogs, but I wouldn't count those as original sources.

Could be the original quote was just in some video, but I don't feel I'm up to watching all that IGN stuff again.

J-B
  • J-B

    The Benz

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011
  • United-Nations

#6596

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:48 AM

QUOTE (lxr @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 18:02)
It would be more fun to chase Malibu beach houses, but as I'd find it truly embarrassing if that "3xRDR/5xRDR" thing was just collective or personal hallucination, I spent some more time digging for it. Here's a sample query. Most occurrences of that quote seem to come from a point-by-point English translation of this Italian article, but the quote itself does not appear in the text. But then there are some references to this Dutch article, which doesn't say the exact same thing, but something very similar: "gigantisch, want vijf keer groter dan de wereld van Red Dead Redemption en dat is inclusief een groot deel onder water dat te verkennen is". Not hard to make sense of it, Dutch is close enough to English. I'll keep on digging for a better source, but if, in the meantime, you want to rely on some map math that's not based on this quote, I recommend this post by Magic_Al.

IGN uses 3.5x RDR 5x with underwater areas figure in this article: http://www.ign.com/a...now-about-gta-v

I don't know if that helps you much or not.

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6597

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:14 AM Edited by lxr, 18 January 2013 - 01:17 AM.

QUOTE (J-B @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 00:48)
IGN uses 3.5x RDR 5x with underwater areas figure in this article: http://www.ign.com/a...now-about-gta-v

I don't know if that helps you much or not.

It does help. The quote as I recall it (but maybe my recollection is wrong) had some slightly different wording following the "5 times bigger if", not just "ocean" or "underwater", but also "interiors" and/or "explorable", but this is at least something. Even if the numbers are different again confused.gif

"Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography, as representatives kept talking about be depths of the ocean. In fact, itís so big, you could fit the Red Dead, GTA IV and GTA: San Andreas maps into the GTA V map and have room to spare."

SocalZHP
  • SocalZHP

    Yeah buddy

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#6598

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:34 AM

QUOTE (lxr @ Wednesday, Jan 16 2013, 03:46)
QUOTE (SocalZHP @ Wednesday, Jan 16 2013, 04:20)
QUOTE (lxr @ Tuesday, Jan 15 2013, 07:49)
user posted image

If those are suburbs I'm seeing, god I hope that's true...

Ah, that's one thing I forgot to mention in my previous post: Any fictitious element will of course be taken for real, used to prove or disprove various expectations, and inspire long discussions... wink.gif


Yeah... I never said it was for real. Just said I hope it turns out that way. Thanks for not being a dick about it tho wink.gif

lxr
  • lxr

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

#6599

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:09 AM Edited by lxr, 18 January 2013 - 02:13 AM.

Now that we've got the references sorted out, here's the updated math:

SA = 36 km2 (100% explorable)
IV = 22.8 km2 (~60% land = 13.68 km2)
RDR = 41.25 km2 (~60% explorable = 24.75 km2)

Quote 1:

V land = 3.5 x RDR = 144.38 km2 (or 86.63 km2)
V total = 5 x RDR = 206.25 km2 (or 123.75 km2)

Quote 2:

V = SA + IV + RDR + X = 100.05 km2 + X (or 74.43 km2 + X)

Suggests that in quote 1, RDR means explorable.

Quote 3:

V = 5 x IV = 114 km2 (or 68.4 km2)

Also looks more like RDR means explorable.

Conclusion:

V land = 86.63 km2 = 9.31 x 9.31 km (= 33.45 mi2 = 5.78 x 5.78 mi)
V total = 123.75 km2 = 11.12 x 11.12 km (= 47.71 mi2 = 6.91 x 6.91 mi)

Disclaimer:

None of the above is supposed to be exact. All it suggests is "probably about 70% land on map that's maybe 12 by 12 kilometers (about 50 square miles) or a little less".

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#6600

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:53 AM

QUOTE (lxr @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 21:09)


SA = 36 km2 (100% explorable)
IV = 22.8 km2 (~60% land = 13.68 km2)
RDR = 41.25 km2 (~60% explorable = 24.75 km2)


I think these might be wrong.

San Andreas is 22 square kilometers (14 square miles).




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users