Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mapping Los Santos! Building/landmark analysis

26,300 replies to this topic
JoeM
  • JoeM

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2005

#8281

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:33 AM Edited by JoeM, 19 April 2013 - 07:25 AM.

Dont know if this will be of use, but it's a map of the LA river & seems to have some terrain on it.

user posted image

Also true life location for Salton Sea
user posted image

Dick Valor
  • Dick Valor

    Cold Ass Honky

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2011
  • None

#8282

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:01 AM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 06:19)
user posted image

So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?

ChillyPhilly
  • ChillyPhilly

    Rock 'n' roll stops the traffic.

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2007

#8283

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:16 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 16:49)
Update:

user posted image


I was playing IV and looking at a picture of Mt. Zancudo and realized it could be smaller than I had it. Making it smaller allows it to run more west to east and that makes the path of the top river match up better with the scene of Trevor flying between the mountains in trailer 2.

I figure the bottom river is the source of the Alamo Sea and I was thinking that it could begin high up in the mountains like many rivers. Perhaps the river begins up in Mt. Chiliad which could be to the west?

The proportions of this generally look quite well balanced.

InternetKillTV
  • InternetKillTV

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2012

#8284

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:47 PM

QUOTE (ChillyPhilly @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 14:16)
QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 16:49)
Update:

user posted image


I was playing IV and looking at a picture of Mt. Zancudo and realized it could be smaller than I had it.  Making it smaller allows it to run more west to east and that makes the path of the top river match up better with the scene of Trevor flying between the mountains in trailer 2.

I figure the bottom river is the source of the Alamo Sea and I was thinking that it could begin high up in the mountains like many rivers.  Perhaps the river begins up in Mt. Chiliad which could be to the west?

The proportions of this generally look quite well balanced.

I've got a number of niggles with this map and don't agree with the proportions but good job nonetheless.

Mnxanr
  • Mnxanr

    Michael

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2012

#8285

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:06 PM Edited by Mnxanr, 13 July 2013 - 01:03 AM.

del

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#8286

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 02:01)
QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 06:19)
http://i.imgur.com/hAZWbuC.png

So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?


Not including the ocean, my map is approximately 14 square miles. I'm expecting the land area of the real map to be under 20 square miles. My scale could be off and the real map could have more or less than 20 square miles of land, so... who knows?


QUOTE (InternetKillTV @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 09:47)

I've got a number of niggles with this map and don't agree with the proportions but good job nonetheless.


List your niggles and let's get them worked out to try to get everything accurate.

I believe everything on my map lines up well according to the screenshots. Also, the sizes and distances are all possible.

GtaVComments
  • GtaVComments

    MUFC Champions 2012/13!!!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2012

#8287

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:36 PM

QUOTE (Mnxanr @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 17:06)
QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 08:01)
So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?

It's not IV + RDR + SA it's IV x RDR x SA. In other words the area is multiplicative not additive, it's not going to be IV and RDR and SA side-by-side.

user posted image
Scale is off

EDIT: Added image for clarification.

May I ask where this has been confirmed?

kesta195
  • kesta195

    L.S.P.D.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2011

#8288

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:42 PM

QUOTE (Mnxanr @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 16:06)
QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 08:01)
So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?

It's not IV + RDR + SA it's IV x RDR x SA. In other words the area is multiplicative not additive, it's not going to be IV and RDR and SA side-by-side.

user posted image
Scale is off

EDIT: Added image for clarification.

I don't think this is true. It has been stated that it is possible to fit the worlds of RDR, GTAIV and GTASA in the GTAV map.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#8289

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:47 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 16:58)
QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 02:01)
QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 06:19)
http://i.imgur.com/hAZWbuC.png

So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?


Not including the ocean, my map is approximately 14 square miles. I'm expecting the land area of the real map to be under 20 square miles. My scale could be off and the real map could have more or less than 20 square miles of land, so... who knows?

I think they've stated that the map will be as big as RDR+SA+LC with room to spare without the ocean area.
Just how big would a map encompassing RDR, SA and LC be in terms of square miles?

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#8290

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:03 PM

QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 11:47)
I think they've stated that the map will be as big as RDR+SA+LC with room to spare without the ocean area.
Just how big would a map encompassing RDR, SA and LC be in terms of square miles?

From IGN:

QUOTE
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.


The playable area of RDR is 5.5 square miles. Applying that to the above quote would give you a maximum flat land area of 19.25 square miles. Land plus ocean would be 27.5 square miles.


San Andreas - 14 sq mi

IV - 6.5 sq mi

RDR - 5.5 sq mi

14 + 6.5 + 5.5 = 26 square miles (plus room to spare)


Doodling Hitman
  • Doodling Hitman

    The Doodling Assassin

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2012
  • Netherlands

#8291

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:08 PM

I need to see the actual map!!!

This is driving me insane!

Von_Von
  • Von_Von

    Vercetti lives!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2013
  • None

#8292

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

Remind me, Game informer article talked about a desert, right?

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#8293

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:42 PM

I just dont know how they will make V an island realistically...

SA had such a poor draw distance that it didnt matter so much.

Carmelo2
  • Carmelo2

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2013

#8294

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:52 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 18:03)
QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 11:47)
I think they've stated that the map will be as big as RDR+SA+LC with room to spare without the ocean area.
Just how big would a map encompassing RDR, SA and LC be in terms of square miles?

From IGN:

QUOTE
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.


The playable area of RDR is 5.5 square miles. Applying that to the above quote would give you a maximum flat land area of 19.25 square miles. Land plus ocean would be 27.5 square miles.


San Andreas - 14 sq mi

IV - 6.5 sq mi

RDR - 5.5 sq mi

14 + 6.5 + 5.5 = 26 square miles (plus room to spare)

Was San Andreas really three times as big as RDR??

The RDR world seemed HUGE, surley San Andreas couldnt have been that much bigger.

Maybe its because we were on horses all the time, probably made the world seem a lot bigger.

Boss7dm
  • Boss7dm

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2012

#8295

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:30 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 06:19)
Update:

user posted image


I was playing IV and looking at a picture of Mt. Zancudo and realized it could be smaller than I had it. Making it smaller allows it to run more west to east and that makes the path of the top river match up better with the scene of Trevor flying between the mountains in trailer 2.

I figure the bottom river is the source of the Alamo Sea and I was thinking that it could begin high up in the mountains like many rivers. Perhaps the river begins up in Mt. Chiliad which could be to the west?

The size of Los Santos is just ridiculous.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#8296

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:47 PM

Why Boss too small ?

DS 17
  • DS 17

    om nom nom

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2008
  • Germany

#8297

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE (JoeM @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 07:33)
Dont know if this will be of use, but it's a map of the LA river & seems to have some terrain on it.

user posted image

Compare the LA river map with the map of Choco Taco. There is clearly a relation visible.

llllI1llllI1
  • llllI1llllI1

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#8298

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:50 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 12:42)
I just dont know how they will make V an island realistically...

SA had such a poor draw distance that it didnt matter so much.

I think the beaches they speak of in the official announcement will have more to do than we think.

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#8299

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:53 PM

QUOTE (Carmelo2 @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 12:52)

Was San Andreas really three times as big as RDR??

The RDR world seemed HUGE, surley San Andreas couldnt have been that much bigger.

Maybe its because we were on horses all the time, probably made the world seem a lot bigger.


Part of the reason is seemed so big was that you could see areas you couldn't get to.



QUOTE (Boss7dm @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 13:30)
QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 06:19)
Update:

http://i.imgur.com/hAZWbuC.png


I was playing IV and looking at a picture of Mt. Zancudo and realized it could be smaller than I had it.  Making it smaller allows it to run more west to east and that makes the path of the top river match up better with the scene of Trevor flying between the mountains in trailer 2.

I figure the bottom river is the source of the Alamo Sea and I was thinking that it could begin high up in the mountains like many rivers.  Perhaps the river begins up in Mt. Chiliad which could be to the west?

The size of Los Santos is just ridiculous.


Pick 2 points on my map which you think the distance between them is wrong and we'll examine it.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#8300

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:54 PM

and people think im wrong when I say LS is f*ckING TINY !!!!!!!!!!!!

bakerach
  • bakerach

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012

#8301

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:58 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 19:54)
and people think im wrong when I say LS is f*ckING TINY !!!!!!!!!!!!

That's because you're clueless and hopeless.

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#8302

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:05 PM

QUOTE (Mnxanr @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 16:06)
QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 08:01)
So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?

It's not IV + RDR + SA it's IV x RDR x SA. In other words the area is multiplicative not additive, it's not going to be IV and RDR and SA side-by-side.

user posted image
Scale is off

EDIT: Added image for clarification.

How did you work out additive or multiplicative? If its multiplicative as you say then you only one of the maps as comparison (the largest one). But r* have mentioned three maps - combined.

-Eddie-
  • -Eddie-

    Respect list?

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007

#8303

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:08 PM

Ignore.

GTAfan786
  • GTAfan786

    Gangsta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013

#8304

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:10 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 19:53)
QUOTE (Carmelo2 @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 12:52)

Was San Andreas really three times as big as RDR??

The RDR world seemed HUGE, surley San Andreas couldnt have been that much bigger.

Maybe its because we were on horses all the time, probably made the world seem a lot bigger.


Part of the reason is seemed so big was that you could see areas you couldn't get to.



QUOTE (Boss7dm @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 13:30)
QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 06:19)
Update:

http://i.imgur.com/hAZWbuC.png


I was playing IV and looking at a picture of Mt. Zancudo and realized it could be smaller than I had it.  Making it smaller allows it to run more west to east and that makes the path of the top river match up better with the scene of Trevor flying between the mountains in trailer 2.

I figure the bottom river is the source of the Alamo Sea and I was thinking that it could begin high up in the mountains like many rivers.  Perhaps the river begins up in Mt. Chiliad which could be to the west?

The size of Los Santos is just ridiculous.


Pick 2 points on my map which you think the distance between them is wrong and we'll examine it.

Bro, the map isn't multiplative, it's f*cking additive because R* have already said this. You're making LS look smaller than it is.

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#8305

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:28 PM

QUOTE (GTAfan786 @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 14:10)

Bro, the map isn't multiplative, it's f*cking additive because R* have already said this. You're making LS look smaller than it is.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#8306

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 20:28)
QUOTE (GTAfan786 @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 14:10)

Bro, the map isn't multiplative, it's f*cking additive because R* have already said this. You're making LS look smaller than it is.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

See my post above. If you use your multiplicative example then RDR is the largest map therefore there would be no need to include the SA map or the GTA IV map as comparison as they're smaller. BUT - R* mentioned all three maps combined not overlapping

And not derail the thread any further if you watch the second trailer where Trevor jumps out of the plane between 1:22 - 1:24 you can see further land mass in the top right of the screen through the clouds (near the horizon) in addition to the 'prison/airport' structure at the bottom of the screen. That's a lot of draw distance indicating a big map.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#8307

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:13 PM Edited by RockStarNiko, 18 April 2013 - 09:40 PM.

I just done a VERY BASIC map to show how I think the layout of map will look

user posted image

Grey = Los Santos City SOUTH
Yellow = Desert CENTRAL and NORTH
Green = Farm country and wine country WEST
Brown = Forest and wilderness EAST
White = Chiliad mountain range EAST
Blue = Ocean and Alamo Sea

I think the various mountain screenshots we see with the river and bridges and trains etc are part of the Chiliad mountain range.
The huge mountain we see in trailer one I think could be Chiliad and we are viewing it from one of the other mountains in the range.
Alamo Sea connects the desert with wilderness and Chiliad mountains
The river source is somewhere high within the Chiliad mountain range and flows INTO the Alamo Sea
Another river flows OUT from the Alamo Sea, through the desert and passes by the triangular mountain we see in various screenshots from the city
This triangular mountain is placed north of Los Santos within the desert region and is the main mountain for the desert but much smaller compared to the Chiliad range

So that is my alternative layout for the map.


user posted image


I believe we are stood in the Northern region of the Chiliad mountains, looking west, across the Alamo Sea towards the desert region, which is North of Los Santos.

At the top left of screenshot, you can see a triangular shaped mountain, I think this is the same mountain we see in various city screenshots, just North of Los Santos.

Also, the river is very wide in above screenshot, compare it to the other screenshots where we see a river. Rivers start narrow and become wider, not vice versa.
That river is flowing into the Alamo Sea in my opinion.

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#8308

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:16 PM

QUOTE (AlienWillHeMonsta @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 14:42)
If you use your multiplicative example then RDR is the largest map

What?

The total size of GTA V was described in 2 ways:

1. 5 times RDR ( 5 x 5.5 = 27.5 square miles)

2. SA + IV + RDR with room to spare (14 + 6.5 + 5.5 = 26 square miles)

Both methods give you about the same size.

omawnakw
  • omawnakw

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013

#8309

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:32 PM

QUOTE (AlienWillHeMonsta @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 20:05)
QUOTE (Mnxanr @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 16:06)
QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 08:01)
So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?

It's not IV + RDR + SA it's IV x RDR x SA. In other words the area is multiplicative not additive, it's not going to be IV and RDR and SA side-by-side.

user posted image
Scale is off

EDIT: Added image for clarification.

How did you work out additive or multiplicative? If its multiplicative as you say then you only one of the maps as comparison (the largest one). But r* have mentioned three maps - combined.

Ignore him, he is crazy math troll. When i talked about multiplication i mean that the game will be huge in all dimensions and it is great. Let's stop sh*tting about square miles.

Mnxanr
  • Mnxanr

    Michael

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2012

#8310

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:59 PM Edited by Mnxanr, 13 July 2013 - 01:02 AM.

QUOTE (omawnakw @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 21:32)
QUOTE (AlienWillHeMonsta @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 20:05)
QUOTE (Mnxanr @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 16:06)
QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Thursday, Apr 18 2013, 08:01)
So, assuming IV+RDR+SA+room to spare = 30 square miles or so, is this known area you've depicted roughly half of the map?

It's not IV + RDR + SA it's IV x RDR x SA. In other words the area is multiplicative not additive, it's not going to be IV and RDR and SA side-by-side.

image
Scale is off

EDIT: Added image for clarification.

How did you work out additive or multiplicative? If its multiplicative as you say then you only one of the maps as comparison (the largest one). But r* have mentioned three maps - combined.

Ignore him, he is crazy math troll. When i talked about multiplication i mean that the game will be huge in all dimensions and it is great. Let's stop sh*tting about square miles.

I hope you're not calling me the troll, when what I said makes complete sense.

EDIT: Again, to clarify, I'm one of the people who support the notion that the map will be huge/big enough. I was just tired of people assuming that rockstar meant additive, when they clearly did not.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users