Mapping Los Santos! Building/landmark analysis

[Stephan90]

Most people who are able to work with CAD programs properly have visited university.

[Andriese]

Hi. I created these maps in vector CAD program. I used traniers to find out ingame coordinates and find out coordinates of most western and most eastern points on the map (you can see it in some images). Then it's easy put image into the program and resize it correctly. Islands are basically traced(outlined?) 2D polygons and I can determine their area. Maybe it's useful for someone

 

IMAGES:

A is area (km^2)

P is perimeter (km)

 

LC:

not in scale with SA image!!!

 

SA:

not in scale with LC image!!!

 

SA + LC in scale:

 

Links to other images:

 

How accurate outline is:

http://i.imgur.com/cmSq5.png

http://i.imgur.com/7Mxad.jpg

 

Areas as squares, rectangles... These are IN SCALE

Green square means whole area, blue square/rectangle (they have the same area) means land area.

 

http://i.imgur.com/IF9HX.png

http://i.imgur.com/F3ahN.png

 

NUMBERS: (easy to copy and paste )

 

IV [km^2]:

land area:

2,396067593

0,812829107

0,113625854

0,085870403

2,590697386

2,275042850

0,0770387288

_______________

sum=8,35117192

 

whole area:

16,926357

 

---------------

 

SA [km^2]:

land area:

10,89199658

1,794137002

6,491151755

6,929379868

0,106944812

2,475209007

______________

sum=28,688819

 

whole area:

35,701523

 

---------------

 

LC+SA [km^2]:

 

52,62788

WTF you are crazy

[G-Eazy]

Hi. I created these maps in vector CAD program. I used traniers to find out ingame coordinates and find out coordinates of most western and most eastern points on the map (you can see it in some images). Then it's easy put image into the program and resize it correctly. Islands are basically traced(outlined?) 2D polygons and I can determine their area. Maybe it's useful for someone

 

IMAGES:

A is area (km^2)

P is perimeter (km)

 

LC:

not in scale with SA image!!!

 

SA:

not in scale with LC image!!!

 

SA + LC in scale:

 

Links to other images:

 

How accurate outline is:

http://i.imgur.com/cmSq5.png

http://i.imgur.com/7Mxad.jpg

 

Areas as squares, rectangles... These are IN SCALE

Green square means whole area, blue square/rectangle (they have the same area) means land area.

 

http://i.imgur.com/IF9HX.png

http://i.imgur.com/F3ahN.png

 

NUMBERS: (easy to copy and paste )

 

IV [km^2]:

land area:

2,396067593

0,812829107

0,113625854

0,085870403

2,590697386

2,275042850

0,0770387288

_______________

sum=8,35117192

 

whole area:

16,926357

 

---------------

 

SA [km^2]:

land area:

10,89199658

1,794137002

6,491151755

6,929379868

0,106944812

2,475209007

______________

sum=28,688819

 

whole area:

35,701523

 

---------------

 

LC+SA [km^2]:

 

52,62788

[123-bob]

 

 

Sorry for my bad english. I try my best.

 

Here it is. Give me a little feedback

I'd be very happy if we got this map in the game

 

Awesome job

[lxr]

do u guys have jobs or a life

With a username like "YouthGamer", do you? Be grateful you have people actually taking the time out of their own lifes to do something like this. .

Nah, I think the question is totally appropriate. Even though I see the irony of getting told to get a life on a GTA Forum.

 

A lot of people here have produced truly crazy stuff, shown silly levels of dedication and persistence, and spent more time in this thread than I think even folks at R* would have imagined anyone could possibly spend on the game, before it's even out.

 

But I guess for quite a few people it's a lot of fun precisely because at the moment, "Mapping Los Santos" is probably the closest you can get to actually playing GTA V. You'll get to know the game very well.

 

Personally, I'm not even sure if I'm going to buy a console just for this. So maybe I can still get a life later this spring, when you're all giving up yours...

[GTAgamersquirrel]

 

 

 

Sorry for my bad english. I try my best.

 

Here it is. Give me a little feedback

I'd be very happy if we got this map in the game

 

Awesome job

Im betting the map will be really damn close to this one!

[lxr]

 

Here it is. Give me a little feedback

I'd be very happy if we got this map in the game

 

Awesome job

Im betting the map will be really damn close to this one!

@wingbert69: See what I mean?

 

The map looks great, and many people like it. But if this thread turns into "WTF? SANTA CATALINA IS HARDLY BIGGER THAN BOHAN?!??" or "ROCKSTAR LIED! ALL OF MEXICO COMBINED SMALLER THAN LIBERTY CITY!!", then you'll have to clean up that mess, ok?

Edited January 18, 2013 by lxr

[Gtafanbobo]

Hi. I created these maps in vector CAD program. I used traniers to find out ingame coordinates and find out coordinates of most western and most eastern points on the map (you can see it in some images). Then it's easy put image into the program and resize it correctly. Islands are basically traced(outlined?) 2D polygons and I can determine their area. Maybe it's useful for someone

 

IMAGES:

A is area (km^2)

P is perimeter (km)

 

LC:

not in scale with SA image!!!

 

SA:

not in scale with LC image!!!

 

SA + LC in scale:

 

Links to other images:

 

How accurate outline is:

http://i.imgur.com/cmSq5.png

http://i.imgur.com/7Mxad.jpg

 

Areas as squares, rectangles... These are IN SCALE

Green square means whole area, blue square/rectangle (they have the same area) means land area.

 

http://i.imgur.com/IF9HX.png

http://i.imgur.com/F3ahN.png

 

NUMBERS: (easy to copy and paste )

 

IV [km^2]:

land area:

2,396067593

0,812829107

0,113625854

0,085870403

2,590697386

2,275042850

0,0770387288

_______________

sum=8,35117192

 

whole area:

16,926357

 

---------------

 

SA [km^2]:

land area:

10,89199658

1,794137002

6,491151755

6,929379868

0,106944812

2,475209007

______________

sum=28,688819

 

whole area:

35,701523

 

---------------

 

LC+SA [km^2]:

 

52,62788

very accurate.

[Fail_At_GTA]

That map comparison gives a very accurate scale. If its possible, RDR should be done aswell so we can see a landmass thats GTA IV, San Andreas, and RDR put together or 3.5 RDR. Those are the two measurements for the size of the GTA 5 map.

[gta5freemode4eva]

Nice work Fatality. I agree with the above comment which was if you can do RDR then we'll have a good insight into the size of GTA5.

[Death2Drugs]

Great work Fatality, it definitely gives us a look at how big the map might be.

[SilentnElite]

F4t4l1ty's area measurements (land size and whole area respectively) in sq. miles:

 

IV:

 

Land area: 8.35117192 sq. km = 3.22441 sq. miles

Whole Area: 16.926357 sq. km = 6.53530297396 sq. miles

 

 

SA:

 

Land area: 28.688819 sq. km = 11.0768149419 sq. miles

Whole area: 35.701523 sq. km = 13.7844350936 sq. miles

 

 

IV+SA:

 

Land area: 37.03999092 sq. km = 14.3012 sq. miles (rounded)

Whole area: 52.62788 sq. km = 20.3197 sq. miles (rounded)

 

 

Great job by the way @F4t4l1ty

Edited January 19, 2013 by SilentnElite

[Fail_At_GTA]

In my opinion, 20sq miles is a good size for GTA 5. Theres still RDR to add to that, which makes the map even more massive.

[SilentnElite]

Rockstar Niko got some close estimates to F4t4l1ty for his analysis of IV and SA's map sizes.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=531982

 

 

He estimated that the full map size for RDR was 11.984 sq. miles (rounded) so if you take F4t4l1ty's measurements for the other two and this one for RDR you get 32.3037 sq. miles (rounded). Give or take a few miles and I think you have a close estimate of all three maps combined.

[LotusRIP]

I don't get why the size of the map is the only concern around here. It'll be huge enough. I'm more worried about the lack of variety in terrain.

 

So far, I haven't seen anything like this:

 

 

Edited January 19, 2013 by LotusRIP

[Fail_At_GTA]

I don't get why the size of the map is the only concern around here. It'll be huge enough. I'm more worried about the lack of variety in terrain.

 

So far, I haven't seen anything like this:

 

 

Rockstar isnt going to give the entire game away. Weve seen maybe 20% of the content the game has to offer. Areas like forests and the desert will most likely be shown off in the next trailer or screenshot batch. Then again, Rockstar might not show us any of that so we are actually surprised.

[dewan2000]

I don't get why the size of the map is the only concern around here. It'll be huge enough. I'm more worried about the lack of variety in terrain.

 

So far, I haven't seen anything like this:

 

 

There appears to be plenty of variety in terrain from what we have seen. So not sure why you are worried or what you are pointing out exactly in the video. In Socal there really is only a few mountains and desert. If they are staying true to the location you cant really get much more variety than that lol.

[Magic_Al]

 

F4t4l1ty's area measurements (land size and whole area respectively) in sq. miles:

 

IV:

 

Land area: 8.35117192 sq. km = 3.22441 sq. miles

Whole Area: 16.926357 sq. km = 6.53530297396 sq. miles

 

 

SA:

 

Land area: 28.688819 sq. km = 11.0768149419 sq. miles

Whole area: 35.701523 sq. km = 13.7844350936 sq. miles

 

 

IV+SA:

 

Land area: 37.03999092 sq. km = 14.3012 sq. miles (rounded)

Whole area: 52.62788 sq. km = 20.3197 sq. miles (rounded)

 

 

Great job by the way @F4t4l1ty

It is a great job. It's clear from this and other member's work that my idea that the radar map image of GTAIV had 1 pixel/meter scale is wrong, but not far off. The map image must be shrunk about 5% to have 1-meter scale. I think the same is true of the RDR radar map image because that explains a small discrepancy between my original in-game distance measurements and the exact 1-meter scale I wanted the radar map image to have.

 

Anyway, it's a small adjustment. The sum of the three games' in-bounds land area is still about 20 square miles.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Magic_Al

[lxr]

 

F4t4l1ty's area measurements (land size and whole area respectively) in sq. miles:

 

IV:

 

Land area: 8.35117192 sq. km = 3.22441 sq. miles

Whole Area: 16.926357 sq. km = 6.53530297396 sq. miles

 

 

SA:

 

Land area: 28.688819 sq. km = 11.0768149419 sq. miles

Whole area: 35.701523 sq. km = 13.7844350936 sq. miles

 

 

IV+SA:

 

Land area: 37.03999092 sq. km = 14.3012 sq. miles (rounded)

Whole area: 52.62788 sq. km = 20.3197 sq. miles (rounded)

 

 

Great job by the way @F4t4l1ty

Looking at these numbers again, I have to make a few, um, cautionary remarks.

 

These numbers are suggesting a precision that they cannot satisfy. "IV land = 8.35117192 sq. km" means 8,351,171.92 square meters, and however precise you've drawn the outline of that land, you cannot claim this is accurate by 1/100th of a square meter. You will have missed a few square meters here and there.

 

How many? Well... I have just counted every single square meter in GTA IV, using the original data from the actual game, and there are exactly 8,484,807 square meters that are above water. The main difference are probably bridges, which are technically part of the land. But even this number is not fully accurate, as I have only taken one elevation sample per meter, and would have to take quite a few more to determine if a given square meter is mostly land or mostly water.

 

But why aim at this type of precision? Whatever R* have said about the GTA V map size, it's not supposed to be absolutely accurate. They don't claim the map is 3.50000000 times this or 5.00000000 times that.

 

(Similar with "SA total = 35.701523 sq. km". This is your approximation of the bounding box of the SA land mass. You're probably the first one to ever have calculated it. For all practical purposes, including R* making statements to the press, SA total is 36 sq. km.)

Edited January 19, 2013 by lxr

[F4t4l1ty]

F4t4l1ty's area measurements (land size and whole area respectively) in sq. miles:

 

IV:

 

Land area: 8.35117192 sq. km = 3.22441 sq. miles

Whole Area: 16.926357 sq. km = 6.53530297396 sq. miles

 

 

SA:

 

Land area: 28.688819 sq. km = 11.0768149419 sq. miles

Whole area: 35.701523 sq. km = 13.7844350936 sq. miles

 

 

IV+SA:

 

Land area: 37.03999092 sq. km = 14.3012 sq. miles (rounded)

Whole area: 52.62788 sq. km = 20.3197 sq. miles (rounded)

 

 

Great job by the way @F4t4l1ty

Looking at these numbers again, I have to make a few, um, cautionary remarks.

 

These numbers are suggesting a precision that they cannot satisfy. "IV land = 8.35117192 sq. km" means 8,351,171.92 square meters, and however precise you've drawn the outline of that land, you cannot claim this is accurate by 1/100th of a square meter. You will have missed a few square meters here and there.

 

How many? Well... I have just counted every single square meter in GTA IV, using the original data from the actual game, and there are exactly 8,484,807 square meters that are above water. The main difference are probably bridges, which are technically part of the land. But even this number is not fully accurate, as I have only taken one elevation sample per meter, and would have to take quite a few more to determine if a given square meter is mostly land or mostly water.

 

But why aim at this type of precision? Whatever R* have said about the GTA V map size, it's not supposed to be absolutely accurate. They don't claim the map is 3.50000000 times this or 5.00000000 times that.

 

(Similar with "SA total = 35.701523 sq. km". This is your approximation of the bounding box of the SA land mass. You're probably the first one to ever have calculated it. For all practical purposes, including R* making statements to the press, SA total is 36 sq. km.)

I agree with that. Let's round down these numbers to three decimal places. Same as we can round Pi from 3.14159265.... to 3.141. At least we know approximate values, not +-1 or 0.5 square mile/km.

[GourangaMaster]

Looking at these numbers again, I have to make a few, um, cautionary remarks.

 

These numbers are suggesting a precision that they cannot satisfy. "IV land = 8.35117192 sq. km" means 8,351,171.92 square meters, and however precise you've drawn the outline of that land, you cannot claim this is accurate by 1/100th of a square meter. You will have missed a few square meters here and there.

 

How many? Well... I have just counted every single square meter in GTA IV, using the original data from the actual game, and there are exactly 8,484,807 square meters that are above water. The main difference are probably bridges, which are technically part of the land. But even this number is not fully accurate, as I have only taken one elevation sample per meter, and would have to take quite a few more to determine if a given square meter is mostly land or mostly water.

 

But why aim at this type of precision? Whatever R* have said about the GTA V map size, it's not supposed to be absolutely accurate. They don't claim the map is 3.50000000 times this or 5.00000000 times that.

 

(Similar with "SA total = 35.701523 sq. km". This is your approximation of the bounding box of the SA land mass. You're probably the first one to ever have calculated it. For all practical purposes, including R* making statements to the press, SA total is 36 sq. km.)

No offense mate but i dont think we can get much more accurate than F4t4l1tys numbers. Briges being taken into account is just nitpicking. What next street staircase elevations and shoreline variations? Thats just getting rediculous IMO.

He did calculations with a CAD program. Primarly used by engineeers. There is no other method or program that can get as accurate scales and measurements.

I look forward to more mappping/building analysis as new screenshots are shown but as for this whole dimensions discussion IMO F4t4l1ty has gotten as conclusive as i think anyone will ever get.

[lxr]

 

No offense mate but i dont think we can get much more accurate than F4t4l1tys numbers. Briges being taken into account is just nitpicking. What next street staircase elevations and shoreline variations? Thats just getting rediculous IMO.

He did calculations with a CAD program. Primarly used by engineeers. There is no other method or program that can get as accurate scales and measurements.

I was just trying to point out that you *can* get more accurate than manually measuring the map with a CAD program or Photoshop, by asking *the game itself* for the numbers. And that, of course, you're correct, what next?, since there is no practical use for that kind of precision.

 

 

 

I agree with that. Let's round down these numbers to three decimal places. Same as we can round Pi from 3.14159265.... to 3.141. At least we know approximate values, not +-1 or 0.5 square mile/km.

Yes. And of course, it would still be interesting to know if the common estimate of "RDR is ~60% explorable" holds, since "3.5 times RDR" -- not "more than 3 times" or "almost 4 times" -- is clearly the most precise number R* have given. (In case we first have to settle the question if or if not the black border is part of the map -- I'm not kidding, I've seen that discussion before -- then I'm in the "yes it does" camp...)

Edited January 19, 2013 by lxr

[Fail_At_GTA]

I think the measurements we have now are as accurate as we will get them. If were off a bit, it doesnt matter. Theres still room to spare so we know its going to be bigger than that.

[Magic_Al]

OK, big news on RDR measurement. This is really it this time.

 

Many will recall my in-game measurement of the Armadillo train platform.

 

Walking John Marston up and down that thing, and checking the distance-travelled-on-foot stat, I got three measurements of 132.94ft, 132.83ft, and 132.89ft. Since I didn't walk Marston over the edge, I round the measurement of the train platform to 133 feet.

 

On the full-size 7500x5500 radar map image of RDR, the train platform is 42.5 pixels long. (I'm calling the two less-than-black pixels on the ends half a pixel.)

 

Back to GTAIV: To shrink the cropped-to-land full-size 5320x3368 radar map image to be 1 meter/pixel by F4t4l1ty's measurement, it must be scaled to 94.5% its size.

 

Assuming the RDR radar map is the same scale as the GTAIV radar map, I have now shrunk it to 94.5% of its size. This makes the Armadillo train platform be.... get ready.... 40.5 pixels long. 133 feet is.... 40.5 meters. NAILED IT!!!

 

So, scaling the image of the RDR map to be 7088x5198 (including its black border) is pretty much 1 pixel = 1 meter.

[lxr]

I think the measurements we have now are as accurate as we will get them. If were off a bit, it doesnt matter. Theres still room to spare so we know its going to be bigger than that.

In fact, the nice thing is that we don't have to care about the exact size of "room to spare" at all. "3.5 x RDR land, 5 x RDR total" is all we have to look at. The other comparisons R* have made are only needed to find out what they mean by RDR (full map or explorable area), and for that, approximations should be good enough.

[jsaba2018]

Hey guys!

 

I am new in this forum. I`m from germany and a very big fan of GTA.

The size of the map is GTA SA, RDR & GTA4 with room to spare (Rockstar statement)

GTA SA 14,52 sq mi

GTA 4 6,38 sq mi

RDR 11,98 sq mi

 

Alltogether 32,88 sq mi. In another statement Rocktar said only the city and countryside would be 3,5 times RDR (like others mentioned before) and with the ocean 5 times. That would mean only for the country 41,93 sq mi.

 

 

 

So I made the map with 3,5 times RDR and on the top in the right corner you can the size of Liberty City from GTA IV.

 

I made a map for Los Santos after reading in different forums. If you look at it you can see a border. I think/hope Rockstar put mexico in the game. They did in RDR and I think they can/you can do a lot of missions when you have a country like that. It is my little wish.

 

 

Sorry for my bad english. I try my best.

 

Here it is. Give me a little feedback

the city is waaaay to small

[lxr]

 

Back to GTAIV:  To shrink the cropped-to-land full-size 5320x3368 radar map image to be 1 meter/pixel by F4t4l1ty's measurement, it must be scaled to 94.5% its size.

 

Assuming the RDR radar map is the same scale as the GTAIV radar map, I have now shrunk it to 94.5% of its size. This makes the Armadillo train platform be.... get ready.... 40.5 pixels long.  133 feet is.... 40.5 meters.  NAILED IT!!!

Ok, so since today seems to be the day of precise numbers... the GTA IV in-game radar map is 6,144 by 6,144 pixels for 6,000 by 6,000 meters, which means you have to shrink it to 0.9765625% (Properly scaled version here.)

 

Edit: Ah, and it gets even better! It's still not safe to assume that the RDR in-game map has the same scale, just that, most likely, the lengths of its edges are both multiples of 512

Edited January 19, 2013 by lxr

[Fail_At_GTA]

I think the measurements we have now are as accurate as we will get them.  If were off a bit, it doesnt matter.  Theres still room to spare so we know its going to be bigger than that.

In fact, the nice thing is that we don't have to care about the exact size of "room to spare" at all. "3.5 x RDR land, 5 x RDR total" is all we have to look at. The other comparisons R* have made are only needed to find out what they mean by RDR (full map or explorable area), and for that, approximations should be good enough.

Thats true, 3.5x RDR is as close as we will get to the exact size. Like most people, I hope they mean the entire map, including unexplorable areas. However, based upon them saying its the size of RDR, San Andreas, and IV leads me to believe its simple just the explorable areas. Either way, the map size is very impressive. The city is basically the size of GTA IV while the other areas are as big as San Andreas and RDR.

 

Also, it makes sense that thr RDR map is about 1m/pixel. I think its safe to say GTA 5 will be about 30sq miles excluding water.

[Choco Taco]

I adjusted the mile length on my map and added San Andreas for comparison...

 

http://i.imgur.com/tDjappZ.jpg

[wingbert69]

@F4t4l1ty

 

Thanks for your great post!

 

Please do that for RDR too. So we can figure out how big the map will be.

 

 

@ lxr

 

I know/understand what you mean. I made the map because I want to show people how big the map will be. I also know that the map I made is only a wish from me.