Map Size Thread

[Jonny04]

Most of the problems that GKP has are not issues in reality.

 

They may be to him, but again if he doesn't want to experience these issues I suggest he waits for a PC release where he can spend £400 on a GTX 770 or £550 on a GTX 780 to remove these microstutters.

 

It annoyed me a little, not massively in IV with the pop in, and other graphical issues. However I enjoyed the game, and it didn't remove any immersion for me.

 

I like many people would probably be more likely to buy the PC version for better graphics quality and modding, not for better frame rates. 80-90% of the time for me IV ran smoothly, and had no issues whatsoever.

 

I'm gonna leave this topic now once and for all, I wish you all the best and hope you enjoy GTA V, even you GKP

 

 

 

 

[josephene123]

OT: los santos appears to be 20% bigger than gta iv and the horsetrack was never proven to not be slightly less than a half mile....

Sorry but when the hell was it proven to BE half a mile? Am I missing something, or are you?

[kjacked]

 

OT: los santos appears to be 20% bigger than gta iv and the horsetrack was never proven to not be slightly less than a half mile....

Sorry but when the hell was it proven to BE half a mile? Am I missing something, or are you?

i never said it was proven to be a half mile. in fact i made a post since then saying its likely in the neighborhood of 600m in length (give or take). its just a guess (like every other thing in this thread) til the game comes out. santa anita park is located in l.a. county and is a mile long horsetrack. if you look at the track in screenshots that weve seen and compare them to santa anita it appears to be modeled after said park. like i said, unlike many people in this thread that assume their opinion is fact, IT IS JUST A GUESS!!!!!!!!!!!! im looking at objects that have a known size in real life and comparing them to their in game counterparts. ill say it again... its just a guess. that is all.

 

btw the 600m estimate would still make los santos quite a bit larger than all of gta iv's landmass

Edited July 15, 2013 by kjacked

[GKP]

Kjacked - childish ?....I haven't been childish - just stating my opinions. I certainly haven't been as rude as most here.

 

Of course if 800m was the track length then I agree - quite possible, someone mentioned that number as being its lateral dimensions.

 

I agree totally Johnny...the physics and FPS can be sorted on a PC. It may well be my best option.

[kjacked]

Kjacked - childish ?....I haven't been childish - just stating my opinions. I certainly haven't been as rude as most here.

 

Of course if 800m was the track length then I agree - quite possible, someone mentioned that number as being its lateral dimensions.

 

I agree totally Johnny...the physics and FPS can be sorted on a PC. It may well be my best option.

its hard to say what the true length would be since the track from start to finish is 1 mile. a half mile length (end to end) would mean a straight lane down and a straight lane back with no turns so i agree with you that it has to be shorter than 800m. the short/sharp turns lead me to my 600m end to end length. i could be wrong but i think its a safe estimate. thank you for the grown up response. i appreciate it.

[GKP]

As I mentioned before - we have all been 'burnt' by this 5.5 year wait. IF VI or the V sequel was only 2 years away I might be a little more optimistic. In fact I have long, long suspected that V's development time has been due to dual PS4 development of a sequel, perhaps in the last few years.

[josephene123]

 

Kjacked - childish ?....I haven't been childish - just stating my opinions. I certainly haven't been as rude as most here.

 

Of course if 800m was the track length then I agree - quite possible, someone mentioned that number as being its lateral dimensions.

 

I agree totally Johnny...the physics and FPS can be sorted on a PC. It may well be my best option.

its hard to say what the true length would be since the track from start to finish is 1 mile. a half mile length (end to end) would mean a straight lane down and a straight lane back with no turns so i agree with you that it has to be shorter than 800m. the short/sharp turns lead me to my 600m end to end length. i could be wrong but i think its a safe estimate. thank you for the grown up response. i appreciate it.

I don't think that's a safe estimate at all

 

But hey, like you said, it's a guess. Mine is opinion too

 

And GKP, just PS4?

[KidAmnesiac42]

Look, there are certain facts that cannot be argued with. Downtown being only 4 or 5 blocks from the hills and only 6 blocks from the beach shows the city is hyper compressed to the point of absurdity. You cant argue with that . Driving distances will be so short as to make every district seem too close to each other. Maybe thats a good thing though - too much of the V car physics may get annoying right ?

 

Just dont attack me , debate the points, not the messenger.

 

 

KidAmnesiac...except you don't really know what I wan't do you, or took the time too ask ?...All I did want were some decent sized suburbs for the 50 or so districts present in LA. Like a 10 by 10 block area to at least allude to surburbia...

 

People here do know that a compressed city means a very short LA river - a cool bit of LA that SA used, except 9 years later we will get a rendition not that much longer...enjoy driving on it for 40 odd seconds before running out of city ! f*cks sake - how anyone WOULDNT want a slightly larger urban area is a mystery.

No I do, I've read the forum, but you're beating a dead horse MOVE ON. I would have asked, if I cared, but I don't. I've seen you interact with people on this forum for a while now, why submit myself to a nonsensical conversation. I lived in the San Fernando Valley for 5 years, went there for college, you don't think I want it in the game? I do! A part of me still has hope, but I won't derail an entire thread because I'm not getting my way.

 

We're all here because we love GTA and R* and we couldn't possible wait for the games release without speculating and talking about it. You didn't get what you want SO WHAT.

 

What matters to me is immersion and this game has it. At this point if the city being smaller than you like is THAT important, cancel your pre-order and go make your own GTA V, and it can be as big as you want.

[Choco Taco]

Br - you know I really think what is worse is the fact that we have waited 5.5 years for V - if this was a 2010 or 2011 release I think the vast majority of my concerns could be written off as being 'bratty' for lack of a better word. I agree. Saying that - its 2013 and I can understand many of the previewers in their opinion of V looking very similar to IV graphically. Note the lack of HDR in the gameplay video - too taxing ?...where is the bright reflections of windscreens etc ?

 

  Every GTA has given us larger and larger cities , all of a sudden the 'Moore's Law' of GTA has stopped with V and if anything there is a regression instead of progress - at least in regard to urban action.

So people have made calculations.

Compared screenshots.

Got the equivalent sizes from the blueprint to in-game.

Made comparisons based off of previews.

Dissected the gameplay footage and compared it to the map.

 

All of which prove you wrong.

And your only argument is "It's small." ...

 

 

PS. Only one preview said V looked like IV, IGN... And they got tons of hate once everyone got to see what GTAV REALLY looked like.

Are you or anyone else able to refute Magic_Al's latest estimate?

 

 

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062775106

[kjacked]

Kjacked - childish ?....I haven't been childish - just stating my opinions. I certainly haven't been as rude as most here.

 

Of course if 800m was the track length then I agree - quite possible, someone mentioned that number as being its lateral dimensions.

 

I agree totally Johnny...the physics and FPS can be sorted on a PC. It may well be my best option.

its hard to say what the true length would be since the track from start to finish is 1 mile. a half mile length (end to end) would mean a straight lane down and a straight lane back with no turns so i agree with you that it has to be shorter than 800m. the short/sharp turns lead me to my 600m end to end length. i could be wrong but i think its a safe estimate. thank you for the grown up response. i appreciate it.

I don't think that's a safe estimate at all

 

But hey, like you said, it's a guess. Mine is opinion too

 

And GKP, just PS4?

i respect your opinion, but do you care to elaborate as to why that isnt a fair estimate?

[GKP]

Choco - do you believe a lot of 'tricks' are required to get LS to fit into the LC landmass ?...it just seems to much of a push to me.

[Eutyphro]

Are you or anyone else able to refute Magic_Al's latest estimate?

 

GTAaLEX117 is. Wow, these last few pages of GKP discussion made my head hurt.

[GTAaLEX117]

 

Are you or anyone else able to refute Magic_Al's latest estimate?

 

 

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062775106

How about the sheer fact that a 4 lane highway with a median the size of a lane in V looks way smaller than a 2 lane highway in IV? We've already seen that the lanes have the same width, so this is basically impossible.

Should I also mention the fact that, as I've already shown you earlier, the lanes in-game are less wide than the ones on the blueprint?

[kesta195]

Br - you know I really think what is worse is the fact that we have waited 5.5 years for V - if this was a 2010 or 2011 release I think the vast majority of my concerns could be written off as being 'bratty' for lack of a better word. I agree. Saying that - its 2013 and I can understand many of the previewers in their opinion of V looking very similar to IV graphically. Note the lack of HDR in the gameplay video - too taxing ?...where is the bright reflections of windscreens etc ?

 

   Every GTA has given us larger and larger cities , all of a sudden the 'Moore's Law' of GTA has stopped with V and if anything there is a regression instead of progress - at least in regard to urban action.

So people have made calculations.

Compared screenshots.

Got the equivalent sizes from the blueprint to in-game.

Made comparisons based off of previews.

Dissected the gameplay footage and compared it to the map.

 

All of which prove you wrong.

And your only argument is "It's small." ...

 

 

PS. Only one preview said V looked like IV, IGN... And they got tons of hate once everyone got to see what GTAV REALLY looked like.

Are you or anyone else able to refute Magic_Al's latest estimate?

 

 

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062775106

If you were to take that area of Dukes and FIA and place it over NW Los Santos to replace north Alderney, taking into account LSX, Los Santos looks to be about the size of Liberty City including water, minus Alderney.

[Ragref]

Vanzant, can you please control these people? This is getting out of hand.

[GTAaLEX117]

Again, if anyone has any relevant (and valid) criticism towards my scale and thinks that I somehow messed up on the scaling of this image, feel free to tell me.

 

 

 

So far we've seen that the in-game highways are less wide than the blueprint depicts, therefore LS can easily be even bigger than this:

[KidAmnesiac42]

Vanzant, can you please control these people? This is getting out of hand.

Yes please, this forum is getting off topic.

[kjacked]

Again, if anyone has any relevant (and valid) criticism towards my scale and thinks that I somehow messed up on the scaling of this image, feel free to tell me.

 

 

 

So far we've seen that the in-game highways are less wide than the blueprint depicts, therefore LS can easily be even bigger than this:

this is by far the most sensible scale i have seen so far on gta forums. as he said it could even be bigger than this but the likelyhood thats its smaller is slim to none

[josephene123]

Vanzant, can you please control these people? This is getting out of hand.

Yes please, this forum is getting off topic.

Sorry, how? How is this thread going off topic? A couple of pages ago I'd understand but really?

[73duster]

73 duster - whats 'wrong' about what I said - like exactly - with numbers !

 

Wolfback - reported - I hope your not able to post , at least for a little while .

 

VC was a lot larger than LC in III BR - I take your point re being similarly sized except LA covers a much , much larger area than the 5 boroughs in regards to the areas covered in IV. Manhattan , the edge of Queens, bronx etc are all within a smaller radius than LA which is thousands of square miles in size.

That's just it. You cannot argue with someone who is using fabricated numbers. Where did you get your "facts" or "numbers"? Even many of the most hardened "LS is small" crowd has retreated into admitting that LS isn't so small after all. Watching that gameplay gave them a better sense of the true size of the city, and when compared to these fictional numbers and comparisons that they were so fixated on, it just made no sense for them to keep complaining about it.

You are almost all alone now, and yet you STILL want to convince people to feel as bad about the game as YOU do. Your expectations are incredibly bloated and unreasonable. You have a right to your opinion, but stop using BS numbers to back up your opinions.

 

You don't need to defend your opinion that LS is small, but when you falsely make claims that rely on extremely faulty measurements using numbers that are NOT confirmed by the developer in ANY way, shape or form, then don't be surprised that people end up calling you out on the ridiculousness of your argument.

[kjacked]

Vanzant, can you please control these people? This is getting out of hand.

Yes please, this forum is getting off topic.

Sorry, how? How is this thread going off topic? A couple of pages ago I'd understand but really?

agreed josephine... do the mods walk these kids down the street at night so they dont get scared? maybe pack your little lunches for school? tuck you in at night? if you dont like the topic then leave. nobody makes you come in here, although if the mods told you to im sure you would

 

just wanna say thanks to all the people who have spent time analyzing the map sizes to contribute to the topic (yes even the ones i dont agree with). its been an interesting thread and will be even more interesting when the game is released and we get some concrete numbers.

[GKP]

Again, what 'incredibly bloated and unreasonable' expectations do I have ?

 

 

[Eutyphro]

Again, what 'incredibly bloated and unreasonable' expectations do I have ?

Your expectation seems to be True Crime Street of LA in modern hd pc graphics. I think that would be quite a sh*tty game, but that seems to be what you want. You also seem to be the only person in this thread who wants that. Everyone else is satisfed with the current gen graphics and with a city that goes for quality over quantity.

 

Good reference point games in terms of size would be Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption or GTA IV, because they deliver high quality gameplay and high level of detail. Compared to these games GTA V does very well in terms of size, gameplay and detail.

[brwhizz]

 

Again, what 'incredibly bloated and unreasonable' expectations do I have ?

Your expectation seems to be True Crime Street of LA in modern hd pc graphics. I think that would be quite a sh*tty game, but that seems to be what you want. You also seem to be the only person in this thread who wants that. Everyone else is satisfed with the current gen graphics and with a city that goes for quality over quantity.

 

Good reference point games in terms of size would be Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption or GTA IV, because they deliver high quality gameplay and high level of detail. Compared to these games GTA V does very well in terms of size, gameplay and detail.

Nicely said It's like GKP wants gta to stop being gta.

Edited July 15, 2013 by brwhizz

[73duster]

Again, what 'incredibly bloated and unreasonable' expectations do I have ?

Your expectation seems to be True Crime Street of LA in modern hd pc graphics. I think that would be quite a sh*tty game, but that seems to be what you want. You also seem to be the only person in this thread who wants that. Everyone else is satisfed with the current gen graphics and with a city that goes for quality over quantity.

 

Good reference point games in terms of size would be Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption or GTA IV, because they deliver high quality gameplay and high level of detail. Compared to these games GTA V does very well in terms of size, gameplay and detail.

He also wants all of this to come in at a 2 year development period. No, that's not bloated or unreasonable at all.

[Choco Taco]

How about the sheer fact that a 4 lane highway with a median the size of a lane in V looks way smaller than a 2 lane highway in IV? We've already seen that the lanes have the same width, so this is basically impossible.

Should I also mention the fact that, as I've already shown you earlier, the lanes in-game are less wide than the ones on the blueprint?

Stop comparing road widths drawn on a map. Compare actual in-game images.

 

[josephene123]

Kjacked - childish ?....I haven't been childish - just stating my opinions. I certainly haven't been as rude as most here.

 

Of course if 800m was the track length then I agree - quite possible, someone mentioned that number as being its lateral dimensions.

 

I agree totally Johnny...the physics and FPS can be sorted on a PC. It may well be my best option.

its hard to say what the true length would be since the track from start to finish is 1 mile. a half mile length (end to end) would mean a straight lane down and a straight lane back with no turns so i agree with you that it has to be shorter than 800m. the short/sharp turns lead me to my 600m end to end length. i could be wrong but i think its a safe estimate. thank you for the grown up response. i appreciate it.

I don't think that's a safe estimate at all

 

But hey, like you said, it's a guess. Mine is opinion too

 

And GKP, just PS4?

i respect your opinion, but do you care to elaborate as to why that isnt a fair estimate?

I got this image from RockStarNiko.

 

The gold bar shows one mile. If one mile length was represented as 5.02 cm, then middle park from GTA IV is 1.59 cm.

 

That means that this is just less than a third of a mile length wise.

 

Okay, so fair enough, that's about 500 meters length wise.

 

But IF the LS race track is 600m long as your guesstimate suggests, then as far as I know (might be very wrong as I don't usually go into this kind of detail) LC would look like this next to LS

 

And I just can't see that happening

 

 

[GTAaLEX117]

 

How about the sheer fact that a 4 lane highway with a median the size of a lane in V looks way smaller than a 2 lane highway in IV? We've already seen that the lanes have the same width, so this is basically impossible.

Should I also mention the fact that, as I've already shown you earlier, the lanes in-game are less wide than the ones on the blueprint?

Stop comparing road widths drawn on a map. Compare actual in-game images.

 

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

And I told you that the line method is inaccurate.

Are those images taken at the same angle, height, and map position? No, the funny thing is that the V highway which you compared runs slightly diagonally, therefore the whole line thing isn't accurate.

 

And yes, I did use in-game images, they are right below the maps:

 

 

I said valid arguments, you basically gave me none. Why aren't the maps accurate? We've already seen the images from the gameplay demo put on the actual V map, and they fit very well with the map outline, but the highways are even less wide, meaning LS should be even bigger. The map I used for LC is the pause-menu one, meaning it's quite accurate.

Edited July 15, 2013 by GTAaLEX117

[GTAaLEX117]

Also Choco...a few pages ago you showed me a couple of other comparisons that you've made, namely these two:

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062646997

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062670178

 

And now all of a sudden you pull out this image:

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

 

Why? Do you even see how large the difference between the scales is? At least I settled on a scaling model and unlike you, I don't move back and forward between two completely different scales at will...

 

Sorry, but you've lost all credibility.

Edited July 15, 2013 by GTAaLEX117

[SeaFoam]

I have to say LEX, yours looks the most accurate