Map Size Thread

[TheFallGuy]

 

@fall guy

 

It is true when you have something that is the same size in both to scale to. They always work in generic units, one unit = one meter (if you have chosen to work with your units setup in meters, it's the same), and a road lane is always 5 meters, a sidewalk is always 5 meters unless it has a wall/rail extruded from it, which them becomes part of that 5 meters etc. There are some more organic strays since IV, but for the most part, yep, in IV, and now seeing in screenshots of V unmistakebly they are still working with 5 meters per 5 units and 20 meter wide roads (sidewalks and 2 way road lanes)

 

Here's what I think you should do, TheFallGuy, to get unequivocal scale:

 

1: grab a screenshot which you can see roads and easily tell where it is on the map (for example, the "culdesac" road in the east is precisely 10 metes wide, curb line to curb line). Alternatively, there is a nice shot of Michael for another example shooting down a hellicopter from inside of a chopper, overlooking the city under the Vinewood sign - those are 20 meter (with sidewalks) roads we know the scale for from working with the files of previous games and knowing that GTA iterates on its past since GTA 1 the scale has not changed, so we know it hasn't now (and can tell with our eyes)

 

2: Now take those and scale the map to them! You will be able to get the exact size, no guess work is involved this way - just science and experience.

 

I'm sorry, I don't get this, measure a 5 kilometre wide city with a car (2 metres max) or a road (5 metres).

My job is, I measure stuff all day (I'm a wood machinist) and I certainly wouldn't use a postage stamp to guesstimate the length of a plank that could be 9, 10 or 11 metres, I would find something substantially longer that I roughly know the length of.

Though as I say, I know jack sh*t about measuring pixels, so I'll stick with the average R* runway length

[PoliceFarm]

Shouldn't the map size be around 54 km2 instead of 45 km2? 45 is slightly less than 3 times RDR.

We're still not sure about whether they included elevation in their calculations or not. Both games are larger than their maps would make out because of the landscape, but since GTA 5 has huge mountains, it means that more space will be in the slopes of those mountains, so a 2D image of the map might not be 3.5x RDR's map, but the traversal area would be. But we can't know that for sure because we don't know exactly how they measured them both.

[Deffpony]

@fall guy

 

It is true when you have something that is the same size in both to scale to. They always work in generic units, one unit = one meter (if you have chosen to work with your units setup in meters, it's the same), and a road lane is always 5 meters, a sidewalk is always 5 meters unless it has a wall/rail extruded from it, which them becomes part of that 5 meters etc. There are some more organic strays since IV, but for the most part, yep, in IV, and now seeing in screenshots of V unmistakebly they are still working with 5 meters per 5 units and 20 meter wide roads (sidewalks and 2 way road lanes)

 

Here's what I think you should do, TheFallGuy, to get unequivocal scale:

 

1: grab a screenshot which you can see roads and easily tell where it is on the map (for example, the "culdesac" road in the east is precisely 10 metes wide, curb line to curb line). Alternatively, there is a nice shot of Michael for another example shooting down a hellicopter from inside of a chopper, overlooking the city under the Vinewood sign - those are 20 meter (with sidewalks) roads we know the scale for from working with the files of previous games and knowing that GTA iterates on its past since GTA 1 the scale has not changed, so we know it hasn't now (and can tell with our eyes)

 

2: Now take those and scale the map to them! You will be able to get the exact size, no guess work is involved this way - just science and experience.

 

I'm sorry, I don't get this, measure a 5 kilometre wide city with a car (2 metres max) or a road (5 metres).

My job is, I measure stuff all day (I'm a wood machinist) and I certainly wouldn't use a postage stamp to guesstimate the length of a plank that could be 9, 10 or 11 metres, I would find something substantially longer that I roughly know the length of.

Though as I say, I know jack sh*t about measuring pixels, so I'll stick with the average R* runway length

I think brian is saying something like this

 

 

Which I have already done

[brian.]

I'm saying, for example, that road on the right side, the 4 lanes we see for example, are precisely 5 meters each for 20 meters wide, where the road lane texture gets brighter and tiles over to the next lane, is a line in geometry, 5 meters precisely. Scaling any map by road lanes is sort of like using pixels, only it's guaranteed to be accurate. So for example, since you know the exact size of the tennis court, that is similarly as effective, but using roads may give you an easier time with a rounder number, due to being flat "5 meters per lane".

 

The way he explained himself, it actually came across like he is versed in using 3ds max and editing/exploring/learning from GTA files, as I am, so I spoke in a way that went misunderstood, cause I didn't realize he was just talking about making measurements, I thought he was talking about actual facts, like 5 meters = 1 road lane, 5 meters = 1 sidewalk area (the area will be covered with one texture, even if the sidewalk is encased in grass, making the actual depicted sidewalk look smaller, it'll still "always" be 20 meters = one 2-lane with sidewalks.

 

For example, every road in San Andreas entire state that is a 2 lane with 1 double yellow line and sidewalks = 10 meters, from curb line to curb line, 20 meters from property line to property line (sidewalk edge to sidewalk edge, then the buildings and properties go in the space left between).

 

The map of all GTA games is made using all the same generic pieces of roads, path deform and sweeps of spline profiles that match the road geometry creates each road before they are handed off to artists to fill in the gaps/holes where buildings/land goes and retexture them for area etc (like san an different textures per area). Some roads end up edited and wider (think big wide 20 meter wide road near the mall in Vice City, or big wide 20 meter wide 2 lane road in Broker near the gun shop), but the majority stay as they were delivered.

 

So scaling properly to roads will give you a definitive result, because we know the scale hasn't changed.

 

It probably wouldn't be right for me to come up with the results, since I provided the method - it would be better for someone else to take the method, measure the roads, match a screenshot to the blueprint perfectly to remove any doubt of outlined roads for style etc (distort a screen to fit flat on the map where the roads - and the building lots - line up) - then you have the definitive, will-not-be-wrong answer

 

I suggest using 2 lane roads and going with a 10 meter standard - the ones seen in the michael helicopter scene with vinewood in the background are perfect, but there are lots of them, you can potentially get some good ones from the trailers as well.

Edited August 4, 2013 by brian.

[Deffpony]

 

It probably wouldn't be right for me to come up with the results, since I provided the method - it would be better for someone else to take the method, measure the roads, match a screenshot to the blueprint perfectly to remove any doubt of outlined roads for style etc (distort a screen to fit flat on the map where the roads - and the building lots - line up) - then you have the definitive, will-not-be-wrong answer

 

I suggest using 2 lane roads and going with a 10 meter standard - the ones seen in the michael helicopter scene with vinewood in the background are perfect, but there are lots of them, you can potentially get some good ones from the trailers as well.

One problem with this though is the resolution of the map makes it difficult to truly identify the road widths. Do the roads end at the end of the black, or the end of the white.

 

And if you are an expert in this area (no sarcasm whatsoever) then you should probably do the scale, and we will try to prove it wrong. Thats how this thread has worked out so well up untill this point..

[brian.]

I fully expect at this time for the method to not debunk the consensus here, but to prove the methods already used are correct

 

I will go grab some screens and mark them with exact measurements to provide some tools to begin.

 

It doesn't matter with the outlines when you use a grid of roads to do it - because regardless of stylizaion on the blurprint, a "lot" with 4 roads surrounding it, no matter what they did, must center on itself, and the roads center on the black lines for them also.

 

Trying to scale just one road will be an accident waiting to happen, but scaling an entire block (4 roads in a square) cannot be goofed up

 

edit, here ya go - now if someone can distort that so intersections are where they belong on the map, you WILL have the definitive measurement, because I work in the exact same methods Rockstar does, following after their footsteps (i dont change unless they do - they have millions for research and development, so I consider them smarter than me for deciding what is best )

 

Note, just under the red overall line is a "20" that is hard to read - it's under the 10 line, it's meant to be "20" but almost looks like a "10" sorry

 

the left most road may seem thinner, but it is two thing: perspective, and the different texture, but the geometry is the same.

 

Edited August 4, 2013 by brian.

[TheFallGuy]

@ brian

 

Right, I get what you mean. Like this -

 

 

The pavements are two blocks wide, the roads are 4 blocks wide, the grass is the same sized block (but with grass texture)

Well that is how I mapped this game (on paper), but that was near 15 years ago when every road was was the same

width and straight. Surely they still dont use this same modelling technique.

Theres three or four different road width just in the Michael's house satellite picture.

[brian.]

Nah, I can see it with my eyes, easily. The roads I marked are perfectly marked. I work with the files, and my own, hands on with the files and scale and I cannot mistake this, it's like the back of my hand They don't change the method, the artists make some roads more organic and varied, and add details like sewer caps and stuff, but the majority do not change and are actually the same as real life, rounded to the nearest meter. Keeping things round numbers like this greatly simplifies placement as well - if things were too organic, you need to use too deep of a float for placement etc. There are technical and realism reasons why it's like that. I can literally tell you the exact size of palmeto or whatever the place is called, for example.

 

I would expect Michael's place to have more attention added, for sure. But the majority will scale like that. I know for sure the marking in my image are accurate also. It's just not something I can mistake after years of experience with the files, you can count on it, no worries

 

What size map do we get using my reference?

 

Here is the size of Palmetto or whatever it's called (i never remember). This one may be off by 5 or 10 meters or give or take, but not much, it's just that I didn't take my time like the other one.

 

Edited August 4, 2013 by brian.

[wwinterj]

Bring on September 17th when we will know for sure the size of the map and how big the city really is.

[brian.]

I can do you one better, how about today?

 

I am willing to accept no greater than a 10% error margin, out of respect for whatever reason. No more. It's solid

 

The small fat bit up in the top left is mountain peak to mountain peak distance.

 

Distances are in meters.

 

special thanks to forum member normal42 from the mapping topic in identifying the blocks in this picture: http://s8.postimg.org/f4zp9lmo5/ref.png

 

this is done in 3d application with proxy meshes built each to match each piece, then map scaled to fit the resulting overall line of 210 made up of the pieces that built it.

 

Edited August 4, 2013 by brian.

[GKP]

Brian, that scale is pessimistically small and incorrect. By some margin. Check out Magic als large map and the associated scale.

 

It is not only based on the tennis court, but highway and smaller road widths.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

 

For one this suggest the stadium is only 150m long...Stadiums are at least twice the width of the pitch. Take a look at a aerial view of a football stadium

Edited August 4, 2013 by GKP

[GrandMaster Smith]

Bring on September 17th when we will know for sure the size of the map and how big the city really is.

This.

 

I don't get what difference it'll make in how fun the game is on whether the city is 1,543.23 meters wide or 1,632.51 meters wide..

 

Don't be quantity whores, be quality whores.

[GKP]

Well thats the purpose of this thread Grandmaster. Incidentally the 1640m across that brian alludes to is actually closer to 2300m according to Magic Als scale.

[playbackmylife]

hey guys look what i found

GTA V Full Map

looks real

[TheDeaconBosco]

hey guys look what i found

GTA V Full Map

looks real

Fan made.

[Magic_Al]

brian, try 6m lane widths.

[brian.]

First a question: How tall north to south is algonquin claimed to be on the board?

 

 

Brian, that scale is pessimistically small and incorrect. By some margin. Check out Magic als large map and the associated scale.

 

It is not only based on the tennis court, but highway and smaller road widths.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

 

For one this suggest the stadium is only 150m long...Stadiums are at least twice the width of the pitch. Take a look at a aerial view of a football stadium

My scale is Within a 10 PERCENT! edit: I will entertain magic al and say up to 20 percent. Up to 20 percent, it's not a lot - it's 1/5 - I guess it can be viewed as a lot, but it's still close.

 

I assure you. You don't have to believe me, but it is what it is.

 

What is pessimistic about it? Those lines make it huge - slightly bigger than liberty, as we all know.

 

I play with the files. I know how big they are, in the modeling program.

 

Once again, here is the scale, I know it is correct within a small margin - I am "willing" to give you "ten percent" but any more is IMPOSSIBLE:

 

NO MATTER WHAT, this picture is accurate enough (and I give away, again, 10 percent, just for the lulz, and just in case, but it's right)

 

Magic Al suggesting use 6 meters (it's not, but if I did) that's 20 percent. Still not much difference. But it IS scaled correctly to those roads.

 

 

And using that, we get this:

 

So no, it is NOT pessimistically small - If I must accept any error, it is only a very small margin of error. As you can see by the method i used, even a person who does not work with rockstar files like i do can see there is not much room at all for error in my method.

 

Edited August 5, 2013 by brian.

[GKP]

Brian - no it doesnt - it makes it look like LS is only 1.5 miles north to south (or 2400m). Overlay LS at that scale and you will how LS is a lot larger. Did you read back to see how Magic came to his scale with the tennis court as a scale ?

 

Perhaps what is more fundamental is the runway scale. GTAIV had a 750m runway - your is only 600m at your scale. Even less if the runways extends off.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2013 by GKP

[brian.]

The top left image, that says it's 30 meters, it is only 25 meters. It is FOUR lanes with a 1-lane-wide median - 5 lanes wide - and it is 25 meters. You can see it plain as day. Which makes my sh*t accurate lol.

 

Trust me, my map is the most accurate in the thread. to within 10 percent error margin.

 

Did you ever work with the files? Learn their way? Make maps like theirs? I did. I fixed your image. You will find I am correct, but I will give a 10% error margin to humor you, nothing more.

 

you need to look at the screenshot. And try to look at 360m in google earth and you will see your calculation is wrong. Way wrong.

 

You will be disappointed if you think my calc is small, or that it's as big as you would think from your diagram - this is the corrected image:

 

Edited August 5, 2013 by brian.

[GKP]

I must of gone over the median slightly. I think, as we say in the UK, you need to 'wind your neck in'. I appreciate the effort you have put into your scale.

 

Think of the logic though. Your scale makes the stadium about 30/40 % to small ...a stadium would NOT be only 150 m long. Look at an aerial photo of a stadium , they are surprisingly large. Look at the tennis court on the 1m scale pic from Magic Al . Consider other sources other than YOUR calculations. The block I calculated IS 118m , even with a 25 m road. Try it yourself. How you explain that scale with the scale to the right of those 2 blocks. They MUST be greater than 210m

 

EDIT

FURTHER CALCS REQUIRED

 

 

Brian may be onto something....this makes LS a LOT smaller than LC

Edited August 5, 2013 by GKP

[brian.]

The feild in the stadium is no more than 100 yard longways (91 meters). We have no promise that it will be full size, or that it's even a football stadium or what not - it may be a small destruction derby bowl, that one in San Andreas is not very large, but looks large. At a regulation football stadium, though, it still leaves a a 25 meter ring around it, which would be a lot of seating, especially two layers up. I have built a massive stadium in 3d, it was no bigger than that.

 

Yea, I'm sure of myself, but it's because I'm sure of my work

 

GKP, calculate based on the corrected scale - you wind up with an 80 meter road, and 210 meter long road, right?

 

Also, the race horse track, confirmed by my calculations, is a half mile track, the oval is PRECISELY 100x300 meters. Straightened out (from oval to straight line), it's roughly 800 meters long.

 

Don't be let down, the map is still huge. Anything else I should test measurement for? Lemme see how big the tennis courts are in mine. Where are they?

Edited August 5, 2013 by brian.

[GKP]

Mate, unfortunately you have shrunk LS....wait for my diagram...your correct.

[Ferocious Banger]

So, what's the new consensus now?

[brian.]

Yea, it is not as big in numbers as it seemed, but it's still absolutely huge, no water between it this time. Now we have basically even slightly bigger than LC without it being smoll islands separated and always traversing the same exact bridges etc - now it's so big, in that the paths you can take, immense in the sense that it's the whole city in one big ass chink - not a bunch of small places, you know? Not to mention, surrounded by a lot of stuff outside. 4500 meters across at extremes ain't too bad

[GKP]

horrible unfortunately . FB...hope you agree that I tried to defend the size ...Brian IS correct though. Check this out. A 1.7 mile or 2800m long Algonquin.

 

 

Brian , your 4500m is WAY larger than the extremes. My initial fears are confirmed. You CANNOT get LC into LS at this scale.

 

 

 

 

 

Brian, here is Magic Als scale...what do you make of it.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

 

I dont know what to think anymore.

Edited August 5, 2013 by GKP

[brian.]

All is not lost however, there is still a 10% discrepancy at least (pink plane is 2800 meters high), so you can safely add anywhere from 10 to 15 percent I suppose to any figure on the white lines measurement map and still be safe for an estimate.

 

Runways appear to only be 520 meters on my map - they could make an X instead of a V, and make them longer - the added 10% would make them longer also.

 

 

On a first glance of magic's big pic with this in mind, I see the pic of michael playing tennis, and he seems bigger than niko did on the courts in IV. Perhaps the court is smaller than it was in IV, not sure though. Anything I could check in particular?

Edited August 5, 2013 by brian.

[GKP]

To be honest Brian, if your anywhere near right LS really IS small. As in a lot smaller than LC. I dont quite understand as Magic Als scale looked fine. There is no way in HELL the landmass of LC fits into LS at your scale. Which is looking correct.

 

Anyone got other opinions ! ?

[brian.]

Where are the tennis courts at on the map? Could you highlight one of them with a rectangle by chance?

 

edit: nevermind if I catch you in time, I can find them on magics

[GKP]

 

Bottom left of http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

Comparing them to the roads , they seem real life size (ie 23 by 11m). Making Magics scale correct...whilst yours looks right as well. There is a about a 40% size difference between both scales though !

[brian.]

Elevation may play a key role in the discrepancy, checking for the tennis courts now.