Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mapping Los Santos! Building/landmark analysis

26,071 replies to this topic
Above
  • Above

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2006

#10891

Posted 12 May 2013 - 06:20 PM

Isn't there a good chance all the verticality we see in the screenshots make the map smaller? Imagine that all the mountains were flattened out and how much explorable space it would add horizontally. Some of those mountains are pretty tall and steep, so the map may not be as big one can imagine.

TheBankManager
  • TheBankManager

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 May 2013

#10892

Posted 12 May 2013 - 06:37 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:41)
You cant complain about the size of the city XZ - your only allowed to praise.

The city is too small.

This is Los Santos not Los Angeles, if you want LA either go there or play games with LA

But this is LOS SANTOS the NOT BORING version of LA get it?

bakerach
  • bakerach

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012

#10893

Posted 12 May 2013 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:41)
You cant complain about the size of the city XZ - your only allowed to praise.

The city is too small.

GPK you're such a twat, and so wrong. Laughing in your face. And sharting.

freedom
  • freedom

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2004

#10894

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:29 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:41)
You cant complain about the size of the city XZ - your only allowed to praise.

The city is too small.

Christ almighty, the game isn't even out yet!!!


gonnaenodaethat
  • gonnaenodaethat

    Yellow Car!!!

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2011

#10895

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:47 PM

QUOTE (F4t4l1ty @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:41)
QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 18:33)
Maybe someone can put those 5 eye images over each other and see what the resulting shape is?

The eye looks the same in each so use that as the constant

I tried that. Poor quality, but you can see the shape almost clearly smile.gif

user posted image

So you're saying the map is going to look like a one eyed baby elephant? Cool!

I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#10896

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:50 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 12:41)
You cant complain about the size of the city XZ - your only allowed to praise.

The city is too small.

People are just never happy. confused.gif

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#10897

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:53 PM

QUOTE (Above @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 12:20)
Isn't there a good chance all the verticality we see in the screenshots make the map smaller? Imagine that all the mountains were flattened out and how much explorable space it would add horizontally. Some of those mountains are pretty tall and steep, so the map may not be as big one can imagine.

Elevation would be included in the topography part below -

QUOTE
Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography


The flat area of the map would be 3.5 times RDR. Now that I'm thinking about it again, it's possible that the 3.5 times RDR part includes the surface of the detailed part of the ocean. That would mean both the 3.5 times part and the 5 times part would have the same footprint and cover the same area on a flat 2-D map.

So, the answer to your question is yes - the map could be smaller than most of us are predicting.


user posted image




InternetKillTV
  • InternetKillTV

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2012

#10898

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:04 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 19:53)
QUOTE (Above @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 12:20)
Isn't there a good chance all the verticality we see in the screenshots make the map smaller? Imagine that all the mountains were flattened out and how much explorable space it would add horizontally. Some of those mountains are pretty tall and steep, so the map may not be as big one can imagine.

Elevation would be included in the topography part below -

QUOTE
Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography


The flat area of the map would be 3.5 times RDR. Now that I'm thinking about it again, it's possible that the 3.5 times RDR part includes the surface of the detailed part of the ocean. That would mean both the 3.5 times part and the 5 times part would have the same footprint and cover the same area on a flat 2-D map.

So, the answer to your question is yes - the map could be smaller than most of us are predicting.


user posted image

I interpret it as 3.5 of detailed above land and the 2.5 of ocean (Or was it 1.5) make up part of the alamo sea so I guess the island shape being around 4.5 - 5 RDR.

I think that's how it's supposed to be interpreted although there is always a chance that you're right. I don't believe it.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#10899

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:10 PM

A lot of ignorance on this board. I mentioned the size as XZ was of a similar opinion to myself.

Really - do grow up people. The size of the city is intrinsically linked to 'mapping'..proportionally the city size was (prior to a few weeks ago) portrayed to be a quarter of the map !. The 3.5sq miles of city has recently been shown more accurately to be about a 1/8 of the map.

Bakerach - I think the only 'twat' is yourself for not discussing the issue. A city only an 1/8 of the map means you better bloody well love the countryside or V won't be as great an experience as it could of been.

MuXu96
  • MuXu96

    Peon

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013

#10900

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:20 PM

QUOTE (gonnaenodaethat @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 19:47)
QUOTE (F4t4l1ty @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:41)
QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 18:33)
Maybe someone can put those 5 eye images over each other and see what the resulting shape is?

The eye looks the same in each so use that as the constant

I tried that. Poor quality, but you can see the shape almost clearly smile.gif

user posted image

So you're saying the map is going to look like a one eyed baby elephant? Cool!

genius xD

JH890
  • JH890

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2013

#10901

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:47 PM

user posted image
Simple sketch from all 5 "eyes" added together. Black railwayline and borders of mountains and city I made using layering these eyes..

..maybe or not, who knows R* is good with jigsaw puzzles too..

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#10902

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:15 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 15:10)
A lot of ignorance on this board. I mentioned the size as XZ was of a similar opinion to myself.

Really - do grow up people. The size of the city is intrinsically linked to 'mapping'..proportionally the city size was (prior to a few weeks ago) portrayed to be a quarter of the map !. The 3.5sq miles of city has recently been shown more accurately to be about a 1/8 of the map.

Bakerach - I think the only 'twat' is yourself for not discussing the issue. A city only an 1/8 of the map means you better bloody well love the countryside or V won't be as great an experience as it could of been.

Not to sound like a broken record, but this further supports the existence of Los Puerta.

Amazing work has been done on this thread. cookie.gif But R* has a good bit of the posters here by the balls with all of this censorship of discussion related to map size and withheld geographic content. This is the mapping thread on the GTAV section of GTAForums for Christ's sake! This sort of discussion doesn't get much more relevant than in this thread.

Sockpuppet
  • Sockpuppet

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2013

#10903

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:01 PM

There's no censorship of discussion relating to map size or withheld geographic content. If you have any evidence of other cities or the size of Los Santos relative to the whole map, then whip that sh*t out.

If you just want to whine about how the city doesn't have enough sprawl for you or insist that there just has to be other cities because you think there should be or because you saw some Spanish words on a sign somewhere, there are other threads for your tiresome bullsh*t.

uJhatafart00
  • uJhatafart00

    Zarrogante

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2012

#10904

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:18 PM

QUOTE (JH890 @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 21:47)
user posted image
Simple sketch from all 5 "eyes" added together. Black railwayline and borders of mountains and city I made using layering these eyes..

..maybe or not, who knows R* is good with jigsaw puzzles too..

Cookies to you my man, great job. cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif
I think you should move Los Santos more to the east, then it'd be perfect.

The__Phoenix
  • The__Phoenix

    aka bud23

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2012

#10905

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:48 PM

QUOTE (JH890 @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 21:47)
user posted image
Simple sketch from all 5 "eyes" added together. Black railwayline and borders of mountains and city I made using layering these eyes..

..maybe or not, who knows R* is good with jigsaw puzzles too..

user posted image

calahan59
  • calahan59

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2012

#10906

Posted 12 May 2013 - 11:19 PM Edited by calahan59, 12 May 2013 - 11:22 PM.

Hi guys,
First Im not fluent in english, so I hope it will be understable. Since R* said that GTAV map will be like 3.5 times bigger than RDR and ive red somewhere that there'll be a lot more of buildings that we can go inside. So im wondering how they count the "3.5 times bigger than RDR", do they count the interiors+ground or just the ground? I made a picture to explain myself.
user posted image

Nem Wan
  • Nem Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#10907

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:29 AM

QUOTE (calahan59 @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:19)
Hi guys,
First Im not fluent in english, so I hope it will be understable. Since R* said that GTAV map will be like 3.5 times bigger than RDR and ive red somewhere that there'll be a lot more of buildings that we can go inside. So im wondering how they count the "3.5 times bigger than RDR", do they count the interiors+ground or just the ground? I made a picture to explain myself.

This is still "Grand Theft Auto" and I don't believe Rockstar would have increasing interior space at the cost of reducing exterior area as a design goal.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#10908

Posted 13 May 2013 - 03:51 AM Edited by canttakemyid, 13 May 2013 - 06:28 AM.

QUOTE (Sockpuppet @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:01)
There's no censorship of discussion relating to map size or withheld geographic content. If you have any evidence of other cities or the size of Los Santos relative to the whole map, then whip that sh*t out.

If you just want to whine about how the city doesn't have enough sprawl for you or insist that there just has to be other cities because you think there should be or because you saw some Spanish words on a sign somewhere, there are other threads for your tiresome bullsh*t.

Where am I whining about V's map? Quote me. No criticisms, no expectations, no tiresome bullsh*t. You sound pathetic right now just pulling allegations out of your ass. This is exactly how posters like you subconsciously censor this type of discussion.


All I'm saying is that not I or anyone else should be apprehensive on a GTAV mapping thread every time they account for the potential (big or small) existence of another city or region to gain a more sound perspective on mapping issues. Plain and simple. Get off your high horse.



OT:
Where is the topic sentiment leaning with regards to this location? I've been absent from the V section for a while and could have missed some new conclusions.
user posted image

Sockpuppet
  • Sockpuppet

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2013

#10909

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:23 AM Edited by Sockpuppet, 13 May 2013 - 05:26 AM.

QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Monday, May 13 2013, 03:51)
QUOTE (Sockpuppet @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:01)
There's no censorship of discussion relating to map size or withheld geographic content. If you have any evidence of other cities or the size of Los Santos relative to the whole map, then whip that sh*t out.

If you just want to whine about how the city doesn't have enough sprawl for you or insist that there just has to be other cities because you think there should be or because you saw some Spanish words on a sign somewhere, there are other threads for your tiresome bullsh*t.

Where am I whining about V's map? Quote me. (...)
All I'm saying is that I or no one else shouldn't be apprehensive on a GTAV mapping thread every time they account for the potential (big or small) existence of another city or region to gain a more sound perspective on mapping issues. Plain and simple. Get off your high horse.



OT:
Where is the topic sentiment leaning with regards to this location? I've been absent from the V section for a while and could have missed some new conclusions.
user posted image

Generic "you", obviously. Would you prefer I had said "y'all" and "y'all's"? tounge.gif

There's been plenty of whining in this thread about the city being too small and I think everyone's tired of it. I know I am.

As far as other cities go, like I said, if you have evidence, whip it out. But GTA fans have a tendency to believe any crazy thing based on even the slightest hint that it might be possible, which adds nothing to this thread. Especially when they insist that they MUST be right about their wild-ass guess. We've had people saying there must be a "Bay City" because they saw the name on a sign, same with "Los Puerta" (because there has to be a San Diego in the game, there just has to), I've seen people say that San Fierro and Las Venturas are coming back and we're stupid if we don't realize it, etc. Basically makes you want to backhand a bitch.

Oh, and that pic? AFAIK, no one's got a positive ID on where that's from, just guesses. Looks like a classic R* bullshot to me. Trees are way too detailed and the lighting on the people is weird. Might be somewhere in the game, but I wouldn't bet on it looking exactly like that.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#10910

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:22 AM Edited by canttakemyid, 13 May 2013 - 06:26 AM.

QUOTE (Sockpuppet @ Monday, May 13 2013, 00:23)

Generic "you", obviously. Would you prefer I had said "y'all" and "y'all's"? tounge.gif

There's been plenty of whining in this thread about the city being too small and I think everyone's tired of it. I know I am.

As far as other cities go, like I said, if you have evidence, whip it out. But GTA fans have a tendency to believe any crazy thing based on even the slightest hint that it might be possible, which adds nothing to this thread. Especially when they insist that they MUST be right about their wild-ass guess. We've had people saying there must be a "Bay City" because they saw the name on a sign, same with "Los Puerta" (because there has to be a San Diego in the game, there just has to), I've seen people say that San Fierro and Las Venturas are coming back and we're stupid if we don't realize it, etc. Basically makes you want to backhand a bitch.

Oh, and that pic? AFAIK, no one's got a positive ID on where that's from, just guesses. Looks like a classic R* bullshot to me. Trees are way too detailed and the lighting on the people is weird. Might be somewhere in the game, but I wouldn't bet on it looking exactly like that.

Y'all would be more appropriate because all deviating map theories are in the same boat? I doubt that. Disparaging the LP theory by grouping it with the baseless LV, SF, Bay City theories? The believe everything R* conveys crowd constantly uses this rhetorical technique.

There have been many detailed posts that support the theories of Los Puerta much more than those of LV and SF. Anyone who knows a thing or two about video editing and/film knows that content is never irrelevant when centered on the screen as "Los Puerta" was 00:31 to 00:33 in trailer one. This is especially the case when the camera continuously zooms onto that content as it did in that trailer. This supports LP's significance and that it isn't "some Spanish written on a sign". Besides, Los Puerta isn't even proper Spanish; it's another one of R*'s parodies. It also isn't comparable to Bay City which wasn't camera-focused. Attention to detail. monocle.gif

I've gone beyond cinematic interpretation and into much more material detail in the past; but it seems useless with "y'all" face value folks so I won't bother. Anyway, I never said I was right. It's just a theory as with 90% of all posts in this thread about a map no one (besides R*) has ever seen. As for the mountain pic. I agree. With the low camera angle to make the mtns appear taller, it appears to be pageantry more or less but I doubt it down right won't be in the game.

Sockpuppet
  • Sockpuppet

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2013

#10911

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:51 AM Edited by Sockpuppet, 13 May 2013 - 07:01 AM.

QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Monday, May 13 2013, 06:22)

Y'all would be more appropriate because all deviating map theories are in the same boat?


S'what I'm saying, yes.

QUOTE
Disparaging the LP theory by grouping it with the baseless LV, SF, Bay City theories?


Right where it belongs, until we see some proof.

QUOTE
There have been many detailed posts that support the theories of Los Puerta much more than those of LV and SF.  Anyone who knows a thing or two about video editing and/film knows that content is never irrelevant when centered on the screen as "Los Puerta" was 00:31 to 00:33 in trailer one.  This is especially the case when the camera continuously zooms onto that content as it did in that trailer.  This supports LP's significance and that it isn't "some Spanish written on a sign".


LOL. Are you trolling?

It says "Los Puerta Fwy". As in freeway. As in, "Los Puerta" is the name of the freeway. Not a city. If there is a city called Los Puerta, we don't have even a shred of evidence for its existence.

Going on about rhetorical techniques and cinematic interpretations but your theory is the same old baseless bullsh*t... yeah, you have to be trolling. Or a dumbass. Do us a favor and let us know which.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#10912

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:35 AM

QUOTE (Sockpuppet @ Monday, May 13 2013, 01:51)
QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Monday, May 13 2013, 06:22)

Y'all would be more appropriate because all deviating map theories are in the same boat?


S'what I'm saying, yes.

QUOTE
Disparaging the LP theory by grouping it with the baseless LV, SF, Bay City theories?


Right where it belongs, until we see some proof.

QUOTE
There have been many detailed posts that support the theories of Los Puerta much more than those of LV and SF.  Anyone who knows a thing or two about video editing and/film knows that content is never irrelevant when centered on the screen as "Los Puerta" was 00:31 to 00:33 in trailer one.  This is especially the case when the camera continuously zooms onto that content as it did in that trailer.  This supports LP's significance and that it isn't "some Spanish written on a sign".


LOL. Are you trolling?

It says "Los Puerta Fwy". As in freeway. As in, "Los Puerta" is the name of the freeway. Not a city. If there is a city called Los Puerta, we don't have even a shred of evidence for its existence.

Going on about rhetorical techniques and cinematic interpretations but your theory is the same old baseless bullsh*t... yeah, you have to be trolling. Or a dumbass. Do us a favor and let us know which.

Trolling or a dumb ass because I disagreeing with you without resulting to name calling? It must be that time of the month for you. Your logic is all over the place right now. This is the kind of middle school sh*t that made me take a brake from the V section until more info came out. lol.gif

San Diego Freeway
user posted image
Los Puerta Freeway
user posted image


If it's not in the game, then so be it. But it's a far from baseless theory. Especially considering that out of 100+ screens and multiple trailers, R* just so happens to not show what's directly E or SE of Los Santos. We've seen no land, no water, no nothing from that region. That just so happens to be the direction of the LP Freeway, its real life counterpart (San Diego Freeway), and the city of San Diego IRL. Just a coincidence right?

...and don't give me that "R* said" bullsh*t because R* has contradicted themselves time and time again. Don't give me that "entire city...fitting on the map" BS either because if R* can get away with making LS 1/8 of the map then they could fit a smaller city easily. Not 100% expecting it, but it's a possibility.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#10913

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:44 AM Edited by GKP, 13 May 2013 - 07:47 AM.

QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Monday, May 13 2013, 03:51)
QUOTE (Sockpuppet @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:01)
There's no censorship of discussion relating to map size or withheld geographic content. If you have any evidence of other cities or the size of Los Santos relative to the whole map, then whip that sh*t out.

If you just want to whine about how the city doesn't have enough sprawl for you or insist that there just has to be other cities because you think there should be or because you saw some Spanish words on a sign somewhere, there are other threads for your tiresome bullsh*t.

Where am I whining about V's map? Quote me. No criticisms, no expectations, no tiresome bullsh*t. You sound pathetic right now just pulling allegations out of your ass. This is exactly how posters like you subconsciously censor this type of discussion.


All I'm saying is that not I or anyone else should be apprehensive on a GTAV mapping thread every time they account for the potential (big or small) existence of another city or region to gain a more sound perspective on mapping issues. Plain and simple. Get off your high horse.



OT:
Where is the topic sentiment leaning with regards to this location? I've been absent from the V section for a while and could have missed some new conclusions.
user posted image

cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif


V is supposed to be LS plus the surrounding countryside - suggesting an emphasis on the city. The extreme city to country ratio is just too much when a similar ratio of LS to country in SA included other cities. I dont want so much country in other words. Why is the Salton sea nearly the same size as the city ?...waste of space ffs.

hulkhogan1
  • hulkhogan1

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2013

#10914

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:44 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Monday, May 13 2013, 07:44)
QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Monday, May 13 2013, 03:51)
QUOTE (Sockpuppet @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 17:01)
There's no censorship of discussion relating to map size or withheld geographic content. If you have any evidence of other cities or the size of Los Santos relative to the whole map, then whip that sh*t out.

If you just want to whine about how the city doesn't have enough sprawl for you or insist that there just has to be other cities because you think there should be or because you saw some Spanish words on a sign somewhere, there are other threads for your tiresome bullsh*t.

Where am I whining about V's map? Quote me. No criticisms, no expectations, no tiresome bullsh*t. You sound pathetic right now just pulling allegations out of your ass. This is exactly how posters like you subconsciously censor this type of discussion.


All I'm saying is that not I or anyone else should be apprehensive on a GTAV mapping thread every time they account for the potential (big or small) existence of another city or region to gain a more sound perspective on mapping issues. Plain and simple. Get off your high horse.



OT:
Where is the topic sentiment leaning with regards to this location? I've been absent from the V section for a while and could have missed some new conclusions.
user posted image

cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif cookie.gif


V is supposed to be LS plus the surrounding countryside - suggesting an emphasis on the city. The extreme city to country ratio is just too much when a similar ratio of LS to country in SA included other cities. I dont want so much country in other words. Why is the Salton sea nearly the same size as the city ?...waste of space ffs.

Because people complained that GTA IV was nothing but city. So GTA V will not only feature a city just as large, but a bunch of wide open space surrounding it. Which should satisfy everyone. They wanted to give us as many varied environments as possible. I'm not sure how any of that is a "waste of space".

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#10915

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:49 AM

We haven't even seen the military base yet either. I think R* is saving a lot of the map/marketing firepower for later since we have 4 months left for them to market the game consistently/reveal info all while not spoiling most of the game. V will amaze everyone no doubt.

omawnakw
  • omawnakw

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013

#10916

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:48 AM Edited by omawnakw, 13 May 2013 - 10:55 AM.

> I dont want so much country in other words.
Oh, who really cares what do you want? Go ask your mom or dad for it. "Mom, tell R* to put more city and less contry, pleaseeee!!! cryani.gif "

This thread goes into a sh*t without new info from R* and when GKP and other annoying pricks come.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#10917

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:01 AM Edited by Raavi, 13 May 2013 - 11:08 AM.

@Everyone posting off-topic; Please do not derail this wonderful informative thread arguing about city size, countryside size or anything of that order. We already have this "Los Santos Size" thread for that. This is a mapping thread, keep it at that. Also keep your personal arguments out of this thread, we have PM for that.

@GKP : I'm not going to argue with you, just keep on topic anything related to size goes into the Los Santos Size thread. Thank you.

OT: Has anyone yet identified the W hollywood hotel and/or Residences as that's a pretty iconic landmark in Hollywood.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#10918

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:03 AM

The issues are linked if the proportions are wrong. Who are you Raavi - your no higher authority than anyone else.

Another 'high horse' poster like the legions of others here.

Trevor_Phillips
  • Trevor_Phillips

    Welcome to Sandy Shores

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2013

#10919

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:20 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Monday, May 13 2013, 11:03)
The issues are linked if the proportions are wrong. Who are you Raavi - your no higher authority than anyone else.

Another 'high horse' poster like the legions of others here.

The guys in here did an AWESOME JOB and put a lot of EFFORT IN IT mapping whole San Andreas!!!
and what do you contribute to this topic??? NOTHING!!!
SO JUST GO AWAY AND LEAVE US ALONE, if you do not contribute to this topic!

nigelhere9901
  • nigelhere9901

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2013

#10920

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:25 AM

-------------------------
QUOTE (canttakemyid @ Monday, May 13 2013, 07:35)
Los Puerta Freeway

Didn't they changed it to La Puerta?




3 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users